Legislative Council

16539

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Tuesday 11 September 2001 ______

The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge that we are meeting on Eora land.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

The Hon. Michael Costa took and subscribed the oath of allegiance and signed the roll.

PASSENGER TRANSPORT AMENDMENT (TRANSITWAYS) BILL

LEGAL PROFESSION AMENDMENT (PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE) BILL

LEGAL PROFESSION AMENDMENT (DISCIPLINARY PROVISIONS) BILL

STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

SYDNEY OLYMPIC PARK AUTHORITY BILL

WASTE AVOIDANCE AND RESOURCE RECOVERY BILL

WASTE RECYCLING AND PROCESSING CORPORATION BILL

CHILD PROTECTION (OFFENDERS REGISTRATION) AMENDMENT BILL

WESTERN SYDNEY REGIONAL PARK (REVOCATION FOR WESTERN SYDNEY ORBITAL) BILL

HOUSING BILL

HOME BUILDING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

WORKERS COMPENSATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)

Messages received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council's amendments.

CRIMES AMENDMENT (AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT IN COMPANY) BILL

Bill received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

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

INSPECTOR OF THE POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION

Report

The President announced the receipt of the annual report for the year ended 30 June 2001, received out of session.

The President announced that she had authorised that the report be made public. 16540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION

Report

The President announced, in accordance with the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996, the receipt of the report of the Police Integrity Commission entitled "Operation Pelican", dated August 2001, received out of session.

The President announced that she had authorised that the report be made public.

INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION Reports The President announced, in accordance with the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the receipt of the following reports of the Independent Commission Against Corruption received out of session:

"Garbage, drains and other things: An examination of conduct of two Liverpool City Council contractors", dated July 2001

"Report on an investigation into matters arising from a Ministerial Statement to the Legislative Assembly on 10 April 2001", dated August 2001 The President announced that she had authorised that the reports be made public. NORTH HEAD QUARANTINE STATION Return to Order: Claim of Privilege The PRESIDENT: I report to the House that on 19 July 2001 the Clerk received from the Hon. Richard Jones a written dispute as to the validity of a claim of privilege on documents lodged with the Clerk on 5 June 2001 relating to the North Head Quarantine Station. In accordance with the resolution of the House, I appointed Sir Laurence Street, being a retired Supreme Court Judge, as an independent arbiter to evaluate and report as to the validity of the claims of privilege. The Clerk released the disputed documents to Sir Laurence Street, who has now provided his report to the Clerk. The report is available for inspection by members of the Council only. PARLIAMENT HOUSE COMPUTER SECURITY The PRESIDENT: I table an interim report received from the Clerk relating to the recent incident involving a computer at Parliament House. Ordered to be printed. OFFICERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that, consequent upon the absence of Mr Mike Wilkinson, Clerk Assistant, Procedure and Administration, on extended leave from 9 July 2001 to 18 January 2002, the following appointments have been made: Mr Warren Cahill as Clerk Assistant, Procedure and Administration, and Mr David Blunt as Acting Clerk Assistant, Committees and Acting Usher of the Black Rod. ACTING USHER OF THE BLACK ROD The PRESIDENT: I report to the House that Her Excellency the Governor has been pleased to appoint Mr David Michael Blunt as Acting Usher of the Black Rod from 9 July 2001 to 18 January 2002, and that a Commission has been issued in favour of Mr Blunt, who made the Oaths of Allegiance and Office before Her Excellency the Governor on 18 July 2001. STANDING COMMITTEE ON PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE AND ETHICS Chair The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 1 August 2001 the Leader of the Government nominated Mr Primrose as the Chair of the Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics for the purpose of the inquiry into the report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 entitled "Special Report on Possible Breaches of Privilege arising from the Inquiry into Cabramatta Policing". 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16541

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt tabled the following reports:

Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984—New South Wales Treasury Corporation for year ended 30 June 2001

Industrial Relations Act 1996—Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales for year ended 31 December 2000

Law Reform Commission Act 1967—New South Wales Law Reform Commission entitled "Complaints Against Lawyers: An Interim Report", dated April 2001

Mental Health Act 1990—Mental Health Review Tribunal 2000 Annual Report

National Environment Protection Council (New South Wales) Act 1995—Review of the National Environment Protection Council (New South Wales) Act 1995, dated 31 January 2001.

Youth Advisory Council Act 1989—New South Wales Youth Advisory Council 2000 Annual Report

Ordered to be printed.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 5

Report

The Deputy Clerk announced, pursuant to the resolution of the House of 13 May 1999, the receipt of the report entitled "Report on Inquiry into the M5 East Ventilation Stack (2001)", dated July 2001, together with submissions, transcripts of evidence, tabled documents and correspondence received by the committee and made public.

Ordered to be printed.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 2

Report

The Deputy Clerk announced, pursuant to the resolution of the House of 13 May 1999, the receipt of the report entitled "Report on Inquiry into Disability Advocacy Funding", dated July 2001, together with submissions, transcripts of evidence, tabled documents and correspondence received by the committee and made public.

Ordered to be printed.

JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE UPON ROAD SAFETY

Report

The Deputy Clerk announced, pursuant to the resolution of the House of 22 June 1999, the receipt of the report entitled "STAYSAFE 53: Traffic Control and Safety in the Vicinity of Schools—Part 1: Major Recommendations and Summary", dated July 2001.

Ordered to be printed.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 3

Report

The Deputy Clerk announced, pursuant to the resolution of the House of 13 May 1999, receipt of the report entitled "Inquiry into Cabramatta Policing", dated July 2001, together with submissions, transcripts of evidence, tabled documents and correspondence received by the committee and made public.

Ordered to be printed. 16542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE

Government's Response to Report

The Deputy Clerk announced, pursuant to the resolution of the House of 25 May 1999, the receipt of the Government's response to the report entitled "Review of the Exercise of the Functions of the Motor Accidents Authority and the Motor Accidents Council: Second Report."

Ordered to be printed.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 1

Report

The Deputy Clerk announced the receipt of the report entitled "Budget Estimates 2001-2002", dated September 2001, together with transcripts of evidence, tabled documents, answers to questions taken on notice and relevant correspondence.

Ordered to be printed.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 2

Report

Ordered to be printed.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 3

Report

Ordered to be printed.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 4

Report

Ordered to be printed.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 5

Report

Ordered to be printed. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16543

PETITIONS

Racial References

Petition praying that the Premier cease using the term "ethnic gang" and any other term which may incite racism in the community, received from the Hon. Dr Peter Wong.

Compulsory Drug Rehabilitation Centres

Petition opposing the establishment of medically supervised heroin injecting rooms, and praying that the House pass legislation to establish compulsory drug rehabilitation centres, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Paddington Policing

Petition praying for increased police presence in the Paddington area, received from the Hon. Don Harwin.

Cannabis Sniffer Dogs

Petition praying that the Minister for Police intervene to prevent the use of cannabis sniffer dogs in the Northern Rivers area, received from the Hon. Richard Jones.

Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras

Petition praying that the annual Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras be reorganised on a State and national level with a view to producing a multicultural ethnic parade to show the diversities of ethnicity, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Wildlife as Pets

Petition praying that the House rejects any proposal to legalise the keeping of native wildlife as pets, received from the Hon. Richard Jones.

Animal Liberation Petition praying that within one year of the presentation of the petition there be a ban on animal exploitation such as battery cages for hens, single stalls and farrowing crates for sows, feedlots for cattle and intensive housing for broilers, wildlife and other animals, received from the Hon. Richard Jones. Circus Animals Petition praying for opposition to the suffering of wild animals and their use in circuses, received from the Hon. Richard Jones. Council Pounds Animal Protection Petition praying that the House introduce legislation to ensure that high standards of care are provided for all animals held in council pounds, received from the Hon. Richard Jones. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Routine of Business [During notices of motions] The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: Madam President, you have called for notices of motions but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has purported to move a motion. The Hon. John Jobling: To the point of order: It is a small matter of nomenclature. I am sure my colleague will correct the matter, given the opportunity.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to correct his obvious mistake. 16544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

CRIMES AMENDMENT (AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT IN COMPANY) BILL

Second Reading

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [3.06 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government is pleased to introduce the Crimes Amendment (Aggravated Sexual Assault in Company) Bill. The bill creates a new offence of aggravated sexual assault in company with a penalty of life imprisonment. Sexual offences are amongst the most serious of all crimes. This Government is committed to ensuring the protection of all citizens from these crimes. Furthermore, we are committed to ensuring that those who are convicted of committing such crimes are subject to appropriately severe punishment. The offence will better protect the citizens of this State from abuse perpetrated by sexual predators who hunt in packs. By introducing this bill, the Government sends a clear message that such abhorrent criminal behaviour will not be tolerated. The offence will encompass the third and most serious gradation of sexual assault in the Crimes Act 1900. The offence of sexual intercourse without consent carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. The offence of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.

This offence involves sexual intercourse without consent committed in at least one of the following circumstances of aggravation: maliciously inflicting actual bodily harm; threatening to inflict actual bodily harm with an offensive weapon or instrument; the offender being in company with another person; the victim being under 16 years of age or under authority of the offender; the victim having a serious physical or intellectual disability. This Government is of the firm view that the time has come to introduce legislation to better protect our citizens. This bill accomplishes that purpose. By creating the offence of aggravated sexual assault in company we recognise the reality of some offenders who together commit horrific sexual assaults upon their victims.

In New South Wales, life sentences are reserved for the worst possible category of offence. That includes the offence of murder under the Crimes Act and trafficking in a large commercial quantity of drugs, heroin or cocaine, under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. To these offences we are adding this category of offence: the aggravated sexual assault of persons committed in company with violence or with such deprivation of liberty as justifying the life sentence being available as a maximum penalty. Group sexual assaults must be one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. There must be a recognition that sexual assaults by more than one person on a victim are cowardly and extreme examples of persons seeking power and gratification. The worst cases of these types of sexual assault are deserving of the maximum sentence able to be imposed by our society.

I turn now to the specific features of the bill relating to the offence of aggravated sexual assault in company. The new offence of aggravated sexual assault in company will sit above, and in addition to, the current sexual offences contained in the Crimes Act 1900. By way of proposed section 61JA (1), inserted by item [2], the new offence will be constituted when three elements are satisfied. An accused person must firstly have sexual intercourse with another person without the consent of the other person, knowing that the other person has not consented to the sexual intercourse.

Secondly, the commission of this offence must be in the company of another person or persons. Thirdly, any one or more of the following three things must have occurred: at the time of, or immediately before or after, the commission of the offence, the offender maliciously inflicts actual bodily harm on the victim or any other person who is present or nearby; or at the time of, or immediately before or after the commission of the offence, the offender threatens to inflict actual bodily harm on the victim or any other person who is present or nearby by means of an offensive weapon or instrument; or before or after the commission of the offence the offender deprives the victim of his or her liberty.

Put simply, the new offence will be committed if a person has sexual intercourse without consent, in the company of another person or persons and either violence is inflicted or threatened to be inflicted with an offensive weapon or instrument or the person has deprived the victim of his or her liberty before or after the commission of the offence. The law on each of these elements is well established. As stated previously, the penalty for the new offence, contained in proposed section 61JA (1), will be severe, that is, imprisonment for life. The prosecution will be able to prefer charges of the specially aggravated offence in situations where they consider the penalty of life is appropriate. These situations will no doubt comprise the worst cases where victims are subject to extreme degradation, humiliation and violence—often for a lengthy period of time—and by more 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16545 than one offender. The penalty of life will not only act as a general deterrent to potential offenders, but will satisfy the sentencing principles of retribution and denunciation which are particularly important in these types of crimes.

By way of Supreme Court Practice Note 122, issued by the Chief Justice on 28 August 2001, indictments presented for this offence where the prosecuting authority has formed an opinion that the imposition of a life sentence may be appropriate may be heard before the Supreme Court. Item [3] allows any attempts of the proposed new offence to have the same penalty as the new section 61JA. The bill includes, at items [4] and [5], a system of statutory alternative verdicts which will ensure that if the jury is not satisfied that the offence of aggravated sexual assault in company has been proven, a verdict of guilty may be returned if they are satisfied that only one of the aggravating features has been proven. Items [6] to [9] are consequential amendments to existing evidentiary and practical procedures in relation to sexual assaults.

This is but one in a raft of legislative changes aimed at improving our criminal justice system. Honourable members would be aware that at the moment the Crown Advocate is ascertaining the merits of an application for a sentencing guideline to the Supreme Court in relation to sexual assaults. We expect to receive his response soon. In addition, new offences and additional powers for the police are proposed in the current legislative session. The Government is pleased to introduce a bill creating the offence of aggravated sexual assault in company as the first in the raft of amendments. This offence will apply to all offenders. It does not recognise race, religion or sex of the offender or the victim: it simply recognises the heinous behaviour committed in groups in these worst category cases and makes available the maximum punishment in this State for appropriate cases.

Having said that, it should not be forgotten that in the context of sexual violence it is recognised that women represent the vast majority of sexual assault victims and that this is a greatly unreported crime. We must not forget that many women do not report sexual assaults and that many women know who their attackers are. This Government is committed to ensuring that women who are victims of sexual assault—no matter the type of assault—are adequately protected by the full force of the law. The offences contained in the bill constitute a valuable refinement of the criminal justice system of this State. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [3.15 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the bill. However, in leading for the Opposition I note the circumstances in which the bill comes before the House. In the last four weeks the Premier has hit the airwaves like some mad banshee, beating up the law and order debate and trying to divert attention from the fact that the Government has failed abysmally, because of its lack of real commitment, to ensure the safety and security for members of the community. Instead, the Government is driven by the need to win the daily headline, radio opinion and television publicity. This bill is an another instance of the Government being led by the media agenda and significant and important issues—and in this case a potentially important and significant new offence—being beaten up by the Premier in a way that does not reflect the thought and commitment needed to address them.

The Premier does not have a good track record on legal or criminal matters. I was reminded of that when reading the Hansard of the Premier's estimates committee seeking support for his appearance in the traffic court. I would like to know whether the Premier has paid his $200 fine for failing to wear his seatbelt when he engaged in his stunt at Cabramatta, one of many stunts in which he engages when trying to divert attention from serious issues. The Premier does not know much about the court system. The fact that we do not have a traffic court is probably a good indication of his ability to deal with this serious crime and the issues that flow from it—not only punishment and the justice system, but issues in relation to victims, victims' families and others in the community.

Unfortunately the legislation is not perfect. The Premier spent a great deal of time beating up the issue and threatening to introduce legislation that would impose life sentences on gang-rapists. If that was the Premier's intention, the bill will not achieve what he seeks to achieve. I suppose it is fortunate that the rather hysterical ranting of the Premier has been tempered by the involvement and input of the parliamentary draftsman. The introduction of this type of legislation relating to this type of crime raises serious issues of jurisprudence and justice. The Premier has no understanding of any of those issues and, therefore, the debate fails to deal with some of the significant issues that arise.

My colleague in the lower House the honourable member for Gosford, the Opposition spokesman on legal matters, raised a number of those issues in his thoughtful speech. He described some of the issues that arise from the classification of various crimes, particularly the development and use of terminology involving sexual 16546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001 assault in the lexicon of criminal offences. I do not propose to repeat what Mr Hartcher said in the other place, but I question whether the Government has given sufficient thought to the definitions and the way in which this bill, if it is ultimately passed in its current form, will operate. It is a matter for the Government to give this House the necessary assurances and explain how the legislation will operate. The bill has been introduced to meet the agenda of the Premier, who wants to stay on the front pages of the newspapers rather than meet the genuine needs of the community, which wants justice for the crimes we are seeking to address. That being the reason for the introduction of the bill, the Government must assure the community that it will not simply produce a series of incongruous and unfair decisions.

The Government has a great deal to answer for in relation to the way it has dealt with crime in this State. The Government has been intent on public relations type responses and on putting laws on the statute book without any real commitment to ensuring public safety and reducing crime. What better example can I point to than the Government's record on police numbers? Again, I do not need to repeat much of what was said in the other place. However, it is clear that the Government has failed abysmally in the recruitment of additional police, a matter that the Opposition pointed to prior to the last election as one of significant need. The Government has also failed abysmally in the provision of resources needed by the Police Service to perform its duties. Time after time the Government's only response has been to introduce what it calls tougher legislation. Much of that legislation has not necessarily been well thought through or explained, and it is yet to be seen whether it will be workable at all.

I question whether this legislation will be workable and, indeed, whether all it will do is create another set of media headlines when attempts are made to deal with it. If the Government is serious about this legislation, it needs to deal with some of the other fundamental issues arising from this sort of crime and these sorts of charges. In particular, the Government needs to ensure that those who are accused of these sorts of offences have an appropriate and proper opportunity to put their own cases. It is true that many people are charged with serious offences. To introduce this additional offence without the level of legal aid and other support that accused offenders are entitled to under our system is another indictment of the Government.

I expect the Government to assure the community that if it wants the judicial system to impose these tougher penalties work, it will also bear in mind that under our judicial system offenders are entitled to defend themselves. The Government needs to demonstrate that it will not only put resources into preventing and investigating crime, it will also put resources into the judicial system to ensure that it operates in the way it is meant to operate. If the Government does not do all of those things, we will have another empty and unnecessary piece of legislation on our statute books that does nothing to address the real concerns of the community. Appropriate support for the victims of these crimes is another issue that must be placed on the table. The Government has not made any real attempt to ensure that the victims of these crimes and their families receive the level of support they are entitled to. If the Government proceeds with this package of legislation it needs to address that issue and not simply put on the statute books a set of offences that do not in any way provide solutions for the community.

During the recent parliamentary recess the report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 on crime in Cabramatta was tabled. As usual, the Government's response was to try to neutralise the committee's findings. It embarked on a number of exercises, including trying to divert the media from the seriousness of the issues by introducing this bill and to convince the community that it had attempted to deal with those issues. Detective Sergeant Tim Priest bravely fronted the committee in February and gave evidence about the existence of a November 1999 report predicting a war between two rival gangs in Cabramatta and Bankstown. He alleged that the report was ignored by police until after the predicted tit-for-tat violence had occurred. The media and commentators then finally accepted the seriousness of the situation and began to question and doubt the spin the Government and the Police Service had put on the matter. Detective Sergeant Priest—and, for that matter, the committee—stood firm against the firestorm of ridicule, insult and abuse launched by the Premier, the Minister for Police, the Minister for Education and Training, Peter Ryan, Clive Small and the member for Cabramatta, Reba Meagher. Assistant Commissioner Small led the charge in attempting to discredit Priest's evidence of police activity—

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Point of order: I am struggling to see the relevance of what the Hon. Greg Pearce is elucidating to the Crimes Amendment (Aggravated Sexual Assault in Company) Bill. We have heard a lot about what went on in Cabramatta, but, so far as I am aware, during the course of its inquiry the committee came across no cases that in any way resembled the subject matter of this bill. It would be helpful to the debate if the Hon. Greg Pearce were to bring his remarks back to the subject matter of the bill. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16547

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: To the point of order: This bill relates directly to gang-rape—that is what it is all about—and I am trying to put it in context by referring to concerns about gang activity in our community that are very much in the public domain.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: To the point of order: I believe there is no point of order because we cannot divorce the legislation currently before the House from the reasons why it was introduced. That is relevant to the current incidence of crime in Sydney. Therefore, I believe the Hon. Greg Pearce's comments are relevant to our consideration of this legislation.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Tony Kelly): Order! Although members are granted a great degree of latitude in their comments during the second reading stage, the majority of their speeches should address the bill being debated. I ask the Hon. Greg Pearce to bear that in mind.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Cabramatta inquiry looked into gang activity and the Government's response to it. This bill represents part of the Government's response to community concerns. I am discussing the context in which the community has expressed grave concerns about the Government's response to gang activity—or lack thereof—and questioning whether this bill is a thoroughly thought out, appropriate and effective response to that gang activity on the part of the Government.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It is part of a package. The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Indeed. During the inquiry there was reference to the Cook report, significant sections of which were leaked to the media and reported at length. However, the Cook report—which is about gangs—remains hidden from the public because Premier Carr and Commissioner Ryan have claimed legal privilege. The Cook report's recommendations—not necessarily the information it contains about criminals—must be made public. It is essential for the public to understand why this Government has failed to respond to the real issue of gang-related crime and gang warfare in this State and why this legislation, and the package that will be rolled out in due course, does not represent an adequate response to a significant community problem. The Premier should come clean and release the Cook report so that the public might understand the current situation regarding this Government's response to gang and other criminal activities. The Cook report reveals a reality far worse than Tim Priest imagined. With the Premier's blessing and under Commissioner Ryan's command, the Police Service has been decimated to the point that our streets have been abandoned to gangs. The drug lords have been allowed to operate virtually unhindered and the police have been relegated to cleaning up the mess by arresting survivors after the gangs have done their deeds. The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Point of order: Mr Deputy-President, I draw attention to your earlier ruling about relevance and ask that you direct the Hon. Greg Pearce to draw his remarks to the bill before the House. The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: Mr Deputy-President, I was in the House when you ruled on the question of relevance. You did not indicate at any stage that the Hon. Greg Pearce's contribution was irrelevant. You simply reminded him that he should not refer to any material that was not relevant to the bill before the House. The Hon. Greg Pearce contended—as do I and other honourable members—that the material he is contributing to the debate is totally relevant to this bill. If the Hon. John Hatzistergos were to stop trivialising the matter we could move on and discuss issues that are relevant to this House and the State. The Hon. John Jobling: To the point of order: The Hon. Greg Pearce's comments and the bill before the House refer specifically to gangs and gang-related activities. Mr Deputy-President, I put it to you that the Hon. Greg Pearce has referred to gangs and the Cook report referred to gang activities. Therefore, there is clearly a strong and definitive link between the matters raised in the report, the contents of the bill and the concerns being expressed by the Hon. Greg Pearce about the response—or, more importantly, the lack of response—to gang activities and their effects on the community. I contend that the Hon. Greg Pearce's remarks are in order. The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT: Order! As I said earlier, second reading debates are generally wide ranging. In some instances, the comments made in those debates have no relevance to the bill under discussion. However, the general view of Presiding Officers is that general, wide-ranging debate is allowed during the second reading stage so long as the main content of the bill is discussed and the majority of comments are directed to it. With that in mind, I remind the House that the majority of honourable members' remarks should relate directly to the bill. 16548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Thank you, Mr Deputy-President. It is a great pleasure to see you back in the chair after an interesting and eventful break. We are told that this bill is designed to introduce life sentences for gang rapists. However, the Premier's simplistic approach—which is driven solely by the media grab— trivialises the significance of the crimes under discussion and their impact on the community. It is in the same category as the Premier's trivialising of ethnic communities and virtually every community problem. The parliamentary draftsmen have had only a short time in which to deal with this significant bill, which aims to create new criminal penalties. They have set out in new section 61JA of the bill definitions and circumstances that will be subject to close scrutiny by the courts. We have received no assurances that these new provisions have received the consideration needed to progress this type of legislation. The Opposition will not oppose the bill. However, in the context of the significant problem of crime, particularly gang-related crime, in the community, it does not represent an adequate response. The Government has simply grabbed the headlines once again and ignored the real issues such as resources for the judiciary, the Police Service, victims and offenders. If we are to move forward with this legislation we must see some real commitment and receive proper explanations from Government members. The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [3.40 p.m.]: In supporting this bill I do not want to be drawn into the hysterical debate that has been fostered by some of the more sensationalist media outlets in this State, but I also do not want to trivialise and cheapen the debate, as the Hon. Greg Pearce did. Rather than confront the serious issues that the Government is trying to deal with in providing amendments to the Crimes Act, he has resorted to the usual cheap political point scoring that we have come to expect from an Opposition that is devoid of any concrete policies. In supporting this bill I state that these amendments to the Crimes Act should not be viewed as simply a specific response to a specific incident but as a recognition of the need to ensure that violent crimes which have a long-term and very damaging impact on their victims attract an appropriately severe penalty under the laws of this State. This bill seeks to insert a new offence into the Crimes Act under proposed section 61JA, entitled "Aggravated sexual assault in company", which would attract a life sentence as a maximum penalty. This sentence would apply if the sexual assault was committed in the company of another person or persons and in any one or more of the following circumstances: the alleged offender maliciously inflicts actual boldly harm on the alleged victim or any other person who is present or nearby, the alleged offender threatens to inflict actual bodily harm on the alleged victim or any other person who is present or nearby by means of an offensive weapon or instrument, and the alleged offender deprives the alleged victim of his or her liberty for a period before or after the commission of the offence. The offences that could attract this penalty are the worst types of aggravated sexual assault. Such assaults have occurred in this State for many years and should be seen for what they really are. They are motivated by power, violence and domination and by a traditional pattern of male violence towards and hatred of women. The Hon. Greg Pearce chose to cheapen and trivialise this debate, but he is probably not aware of the situations that women in our communities confront when they go out at night for recreation and leisure or when they go to the supermarket to buy groceries. Women do not have the luxury of being able to engage in those activities without being worried about being assaulted and violated. For that reason some of the Hon. Greg Pearce's comments were inappropriate in the current context.

Victims of aggravated sexual assault are usually young women, whose lives are shattered by these devastating attacks. There is no easy recovery for them, and they often find it impossible to return to a normal life; they are affected by the attacks every day of their lives. The perpetrators deserve—and should get—no sympathy. Sexual assaults of all types are far too common in our community, and although our attention is focussed on the worst type of sexual assault we should not forget that less severe sexual assaults take place frequently. Unlike most men, women are always wary when they go out, even if they are accompanied by a few friends. That should not be so. Women and girls have the right to walk unprotected in our communities and should not be dogged by the fear of being assaulted by men.

I draw the attention of honourable members to an interesting report of the New South Wales Parliamentary Library Research Service entitled "Sentencing 'Gang Rapists': The Crimes Amendment (Aggravated Sexual Assault in Company) Bill 2001". The report, which was released yesterday, contains a statement by Judge Latham in sentencing the three offenders in the recent case that has attracted a lot of publicity. Judge Latham said:

These facts have only to be set out, in order to demonstrate the objective gravity of these offences. Leaving to one side … (jnr) [offender] who stands in a different position, there is little which distinguishes the objective criminality of the other three offenders; they each indulged in a gross display of sexual misconduct, adopting a pack mentality whereby they exploited the 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16549

victims' fear, vulnerability and isolation from each other. Their individual behaviour towards the victims was reprehensible in itself, but one can only guess at the victims' humiliation in being passed from one offender to the next, in circumstances which suggest that these young men placed their reputation for sexual conquests above the standards of ordinary human decency.

This legislation, which increases sentences, is being introduced to deal with that sort of attack. I will focus on the aspect of sentences matching the gravity of the crime committed. The worst aggravated sexual assaults committed in company should attract the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The perpetrators of such crimes should not and must not be given a second chance—their victims are not. They act with callous disregard for their victims and their pleas for mitigation deserve the same disregard. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.45 p.m.]: The Greens do not support the Crimes Amendment (Aggravated Sexual Assault in Company) Bill. Let us be clear: This bill has nothing to do with making our society safer for women; it has nothing to do with the crime of sexual assault in company; but it has everything to do with shoring up the political fortunes of the Australian Labor Party in this State. The Greens are strongly opposed to any moves to impose life sentences on men who commit sexual assault in company. Comments made by members of both major parties remind me of some of the unsavoury aspects of the history of rape laws. In the Old Testament, when a woman was raped it was the father or the husband who was seen to be raped and wronged. The woman was incidental to the crime. There was clearly the notion that the wronged males had damaged goods on their hands.

Thankfully, in more recent times there has been a strong women's movement in many countries— certainly in Australia. In the 1970s and 1980s the upsurge of the women's movement brought about significant changes to our society in general. Changes to the laws governing sexual assault were an important win at that time. Despite changes in the law there is still an urgent need to find ways to reduce the incidence of sexual assault within our community, and honourable members should address that need. It will not happen with hastily drafted legislation that is designed with by-elections and polls in mind rather than the needs of women. Political leaders need to be more considered in their statements on sexual assault. People who insinuate that certain racial groups are more likely to commit sexual assault are not only racist but limit effective moves to reduce sexual assault in our society. On 22 August the Bureau of Statistics and Research took the unusual and probably unprecedented step of issuing a press release relating to sexual assault in Bankstown. The first paragraph of that press release states:

The factual evidence on sexual assault in Bankstown provides no support whatsoever either for the claim that sexual violence in that area is more prevalent than anywhere else in the State or for the claim that the incidence of sexual assault is rising in Bankstown.

While it is understandable that Dr Weatherburn, the head of the bureau, did not say who made the claims that he referred to, we all know that he was referring to the Premier and the Commissioner of Police. It is extraordinary that the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research believed it was necessary to issue such a media release. Many people I know have expressed appreciation to Dr Weatherburn for taking such action. The week leading up to 22 August was dominated by many inaccurate statements which ranged from plain irresponsible to downright racist. The Greens and the many people who contacted our office are grateful to the bureau for bringing accuracy back into this debate.

The opportunistic moves behind this bill are highlighted by the haste with which it has been introduced. The honourable member for Bligh detailed this problem in her speech in the Legislative Assembly. The Greens agree with the honourable member for Bligh that legislation should be developed in a transparent, accountable and informed way. She read into Hansard last week some important comments made by the Premier when he was in Opposition. In a letter to Ms Moore dated 1 July 1991 Mr Carr stated that the Australian Labor Party was "determined to improve the parliamentary process". Unfortunately, the Premier has not fulfilled that commitment. Indeed, he has relied on the Government's large majority in the Legislative Assembly and the weak parliamentary process to rush through many pieces of inappropriate legislation. This bill deserves more thorough analysis than we are able to give it in this debate. It is a good example of the need to improve the parliamentary process. When we consider than an estimated 80 per cent of sexual assaults are committed by a person known to the victim, political leaders should demonstrate that they have a real commitment to reduce this crime by addressing ways to change the behaviour of males who perpetrate sexual violence rather than by focusing on gang-rape. Neither of the major parties spoke in detail about the need to address the behaviour of men, who are by far the main perpetrators of rape. To introduce life sentences for sexual assault in company is a retrograde step. Mr Meagher, President of the Law Society of New South Wales, outlined some of the problems associated with this bill. In a recent letter to crossbenchers he stated: 16550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

If someone is facing the maximum sentence for rape as for murder, then a "what have I got to lose?" mindset can certainly come into play.

If the bill is passed, we may have to confront this most serious problem. If the life sentence option is introduced, the perpetrators of sexual assault in company may more readily resort to murder to eliminate the witness to their crime. A dead woman cannot give evidence.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: That is just rubbish.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I hear the interjection of the Attorney General to be. I would be interested to know if he has told the Law Society that he believes its comments are rubbish. I do not know whether the Attorney General to be has much knowledge of what happened with this legislation in the 1980s, but I urge him to look at what occurred. At that time, under a previous Labor Government led by Mr Wran, the life sentence option for sexual assault was removed. It was found that the life sentencing option resulted in fewer guilty pleas and fewer convictions because many judges were unwilling to impose such a severe sentence. If a life sentence is introduced for the crime of sexual assault in company in New South Wales we could see a repeat of what happened before the law was reformed. There is a real possibility that the introduction of life sentences could reduce the number of overall convictions for this crime.

In calling for the introduction of life sentences for sexual assault in company, the Premier clearly was demanding that offenders spend much longer in gaol. Worldwide experience of incarceration has shown, and continues to show, that punitive sentencing does not act as a deterrent. I have been a member of the committee inquiring into the increase in prison population. It seems to me that this Government has forgotten about the rehabilitation of prisoners. There is growing concern about this legislation. Many women have signed a statement, which is being circulated throughout New South Wales, which outlines the dangers if this bill is passed. The statement—which I have signed, together with people such as Eva Cox and Joan Bielski—states in part:

We object to political and racist use of the problem [sexual assault] to gain cheap political points.

We urgently appeal to the Government and Opposition in NSW to address these problems.

We oppose life sentences for sexual assault in company for the following reasons:

• If sexual assault in company and murder carry the same maximum penalty then offenders might more commonly resort to murder in order to eliminate the witness of their crime.

• In the 1980s the life sentence option for sexual assault was repealed as it resulted in fewer guilty pleas and fewer convictions.

• International experience of incarceration has shown that longer sentences do not act as an effective deterrent.

• Greater social and economic investment is urgently needed in education, re-education and rehabilitation to change the behaviour of those who commit or are at risk of committing sexual assault.

We urgently appeal to the New South Wales Premier to withdraw his legislation and look for other ways to reduce all forms of sexual assault.

I urge women members of this House to join me in signing that important statement, which will continue to be circulated amongst women in New South Wales. I note that the Premier has stated with regard to sexual assault that "Legislation has been adequate. It is the decisions coming down from the judges that have been disappointing us." The Greens believe that the current maximum sentence for the crime of sexual assault is adequate. However, there is a need for aspects of the legal process—in particular, charge bargaining—to be reviewed. As a society we can ensure that the perpetrators of sexual assault are adequately punished by reforming the process of charge bargaining. There is an urgent need for the process of charge bargaining to be fully transparent at all stages. Prosecuting authorities should provide to judges full information as to how a charge bargain was arrived at, and what facts were left out and why. Judges should not act as a rubber stamp in this process. They must have the power and the obligation to reject a charge bargain where the facts and the law do not coincide.

Those who argue against charge bargain reform may say that that is the point of plea bargaining. Offenders agree to plead guilty and receive a lighter penalty than they might have received if they went to trial and were convicted or if they agreed to plead guilty to a less serious crime. But both the defence and the prosecution run a risk in charge bargaining. Offenders plead guilty so that they do not run the risk of being 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16551 found guilty of a more serious crime, but they bargain off the possibility of being acquitted. The prosecution accepts the plea but bargains off the possibility that the offenders could have been convicted of a more serious offence. The prosecution says, "We will trade off because we are not certain of a conviction of the more serious crime. We will bargain so that the offenders receive some sentence for the crime. Even if they plead guilty to a less serious crime and receive a lighter sentence, we will not run the risk of an acquittal because the trial did not work out the way we believed it would."

However, if the charge bargain is entirely out of kilter with the actual facts of the crime, then the bargain should not be struck. This is the balance that the community has to face up to. Do we trade off on the basis that people do not have to turn up to give evidence, trial costs are eliminated and the risk of offenders being found not guilty at trial is removed? There are real problems with charge bargains that do not match the crime. That is what we are trying to flesh out here. We believe this issue needs to be urgently addressed. The need for an overhaul of this aspect of the judicial process is real. Perhaps the reason the Premier has not given it prominence in his comments on sexual assault is that it does not provide him with the same quick law and order hits as the superficial and damaging legislation now before us.

We all agree that sexual assault is an appalling crime. Tragically, 20 years after this law was substantially reformed, little has changed for women who are the major victim group of this crime. The Greens urge the Government to consider ways to reduce all forms of sexual assault. We say to the Government—and we hope the Government representative will address this in reply—if it is sincere about reducing the incidence of sexual assault in New South Wales, do not stop with this legislation. Only one in five sexual assaults are reported to the police, and only one in 20 of these crimes result in a conviction. These figures demonstrate that knee-jerk legislation will not make New South Wales safer for women. These are appalling figures. The Government needs to address this situation. The Government, in response to this debate, should come forward with further measures that will be taken to address this issue.

The Greens note that the New South Wales Law Reform Commission currently is reviewing the operation of section 409B of the legislation governing sexual assault. That provision places limitations on the introduction in sexual assault trials of a complainant's sexual history, experience and reputation. In the 1980s that section was a very big win for women. The fact that the commission is reviewing that section must be noted. We must carefully consider where such a review could lead. Section 409B was enacted in 1981 to encourage more victims of sexual assault to report that crime. As is obvious from the figures that I gave earlier, that provision has been only partially successful.

Anecdotal evidence from sexual assault workers and prosecuting legal officers indicates that many women felt as though they were on trial, and expressed concern about the humiliating and irrelevant questions about sexual behaviour and history asked during the trial. Studies have shown that, while sexual assault is a crime that has a devastating effect on the victim, it is one of the least reported. While more recent studies show an increase in the reporting of sexual assaults, it is still an underreported crime, especially among disadvantaged groups such as Aboriginal women and people with an intellectual disability or a mental illness. It would appear that section 409B is as relevant today as it was in 1981.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

______

AUBURN BY-ELECTION

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is to the Treasurer, and Leader of the Government. Treasurer, can you inform the House of your Government's response to figures cited in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 September, which identified that one in eight voters surveyed last Saturday said that they were tired of your Government, that it had become arrogant and out of touch?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, which is out of order. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity to say something about it. Indeed, I take this opportunity to congratulate the Opposition and the Liberal Party on the 21.97 per cent of the vote that they got in the Auburn by-election. They think that is something to gloat about. What a pathetic bunch! 16552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

WORKPLACE INJURY MANAGEMENT

The Hon. RON DYER: I ask the Special Minister of State, and Minister for Industrial Relations a question without notice. Can the Minister tell the House about recent innovations in injury management?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for his question and commend his ongoing interest in the treatment of victims under statutory compensation schemes. On 26 July this year I was pleased to open the conference "Challenging the Status Quo: New Directions in Injury Management". The conference was organised by WorkCover to assist employers, insurers and health service providers to better understand the roles they can play in ensuring a successful return to work for injured workers. For the first time in Australia conference participants were exposed to the latest research findings from two internationally renowned experts, Dr Stephen Linton from Sweden and Dr Nicholas Kendall from New Zealand. Dr Linton's research demonstrates unequivocally that environmental factors and the person's own psychological reaction to an injury are more powerful predictors of the success or otherwise of return to work than the severity of the injury.

Dr Kendall has been instrumental in introducing guidelines for the management of injured workers that take account of the so-called "yellow flags" in the New Zealand accident compensation system. Most pleasing from the New South Wales perspective is that these issues are already being addressed in the education program for general practitioners, which is being trialled by WorkCover, on the management of low back pain. I also had the pleasure of hearing our own local experts from the University of Sydney's Pain Management and Research Centre at Royal North Shore Hospital talk about the way they are applying the latest research findings with injured workers who present with chronic pain problems. WorkCover is contributing to the funding of the ongoing research at this clinic.

Workshops with international speakers and with local experts on the second day of the conference gave participants the opportunity to test the practical application of the theories that they had heard on day one. A shortened one-day version of the conference and workshops was also held in Orange and Wagga Wagga, giving rural practitioners and employers the opportunity to experience an international conference. I am informed that the evaluation of the conference series was overwhelmingly positive. The approach recommended by the speakers supports what the Government is attempting to achieve through the reforms to workers compensation. That is to provide comprehensive health care to workers, when first injured, and to encourage employers to actively participate in the return to work management of injured workers.

WORKERS COMPENSATION PREMIUMS

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Minister, now that you have received the Sheahan report, can you inform the House when the cost of workers compensation will come down for business in New South Wales?

The Hon. Michael Egan: I thought the honourable members opposite were opposed to the workers compensation reforms.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thought they were opposed. The honourable member's question therefore surprises me. He, along with other honourable members opposite, voted against the reform package. The WorkCover scheme actuaries reported that at the end of December 2000 the scheme had total losses of $6.88 billion, with total estimated future liabilities of $9.06 billion, resulting in a $2.18 billion deficit. There are several reasons for this increase in the deficit. Firstly, there has been a greater increase in claims costs in the last six months of last year, and that has added about $110 million to the deficit. There has been a very large increase in the number of common law claims, compared with previous years. Secondly, there has been a $120 million increase in the estimated liabilities due to a revision of the actuaries' assumptions about control of inflation and investment returns. This, of course, is outside WorkCover's control.

Thirdly, while the average premium cost of the scheme was 2.89 per cent, the Government has held the rate set for employers at 2.8 per cent of wages. Total wages were also less than anticipated by the actuaries. This difference between the cost of the scheme and the premium charged is best illustrated by a graph. Between the line representing the premium charged and the line representing the costs is what I call the Coalition dummy gap; that is caused by those "brilliant" economic managers spending four years charging a premium less than the scheme was actually costing us. As can be seen from the graph, this Labor Government has succeeded in pulling back that deficit as a result of initiatives introduced by my predecessor, the Hon. Jeff Shaw, and other initiatives 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16553 that the Government is putting in place. The graph, which I am happy to show to honourable members later, demonstrates the answer to be one that Coalition members do not like: that they were the people who nearly wrecked this scheme.

The Coalition managed to turn a surplus into a deficit. The Hon. Michael Gallacher has been travelling around and telling listeners of various radio stations—I heard him in Muswellbrook—that there was "close to $1 billion in the bank when the Coalition left office." I have one question for him: Which bank? The $1 billion to which he refers is an exaggeration of the surplus. It was not in the bank. Either the honourable member does not understand the scheme or he is misleading the radio listeners of Muswellbrook and other places. I have been informed by WorkCover that when the Coalition left office the projected surplus was $57 million and falling fast. The Government remains committed to reducing the deficit, making the scheme work better for injured workers and getting value for the premium dollar of employers. It should be remembered that the Opposition voted to retain the current system. The Government's package of major improvements to claims and dispute resolution processes was passed in July. I expect further reforms to be introduced by the Government in the coming weeks after the Government and major stakeholders have assessed the Sheahan report.

KINGS CROSS DRUG DEALING

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: My question without notice is to the Special Minister of State. Has the New South Wales Police Service advised the Minister of any developments or increased incidence of drug peddling in the vicinity of the drug injection room currently under trial in Kings Cross? If so, can he provide this House with such advice?

The Hon. Richard Jones: The honey pot effect.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am aware of some questions raised recently in the media about the medically supervised injecting room trial. However, I am not aware of any evidence to support claims of the so-called honey pot effect around or near the premises of the medically supervised injecting room trial. As all honourable members are aware, the Police Service has developed guidelines to police the medically supervised injecting centre. The guidelines make it clear that police will continue to actively target any illicit drug dealing or use in the Kings Cross precinct, including around the immediate vicinity of the injecting centre. Any crime in the area of the trial is met with a swift police response. The service advises that police operations near the injecting centre appear to have resulted in a decrease in drug-dealing activity in the area. However, local police continue to work in co-operation with the injecting centre staff to effect a balance between achieving the public health goals and the goals of the trial, and the policing of drug dealing and other drug-related crime in the vicinity of the centre.

FISH RESOURCES

The Hon. JANELLE SAFFIN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Fisheries. Will the Minister advise the House what action he has taken to ensure that the fish resources of our State are shared fairly within the community? The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: Since January 2000 the New South Wales Government has undertaken an extensive campaign of community consultation about the best way to share our State's fish resources. We are determined to ensure that this community-owned resource is shared equitably, which means giving fair access to both commercial and recreational fishers. For the first time our community is asked to have a direct say in the management of this resource. Last January I asked the community to nominate areas on our coastline that could be considered as recreational fishing areas. The response was overwhelming—2,600 nominations—from individuals, local governments, community groups and recreational fishing organisations. From these nominations issues papers have been prepared and released for community comment. To date these have been released for Lake Macquarie, Botany Bay and six more regions along our coastline, and local community meetings have been held in each of these regions. On 31 August, as a result of the Government's wide community consultation, I announced the creation of the State's first recreational fishing havens. Up to $10 million will be spent buying out commercial fishers from Lake Macquarie and Botany Bay. To achieve this a Crown advance will be provided to the Recreational Fishing Saltwater Trust. Approximately 100 commercial fishing licences will be bought out using these funds. I can assure the House that the supply and price of seafood are unlikely to be affected by this change. Less than half of 1 per cent of our State's seafood consumption—0.4 per cent—is met from Lake Macquarie and Botany Bay. Indeed, 87 per cent of our seafood comes from aquaculture and imports into New South Wales. 16554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

For the first time these commercial fishers have a statutory right to fair compensation thanks to legislation put in place last November by this Government. The New South Wales Government will use a well- recognised formula to ensure that these fishers receive appropriate payments. They will be offered two times the value of the average of their best catch over three consecutive years from 1986 to 1999. In addition, they will be offered up to $10,000 for depreciation on equipment. Up to $10,000 will also be available to individual commercial fishers seeking retraining or relocation. Not all these commercial fishers will be lost to industry. If they so choose they will be able to use the compensation to buy existing commercial fishing entitlements in other areas.

It is anticipated that the first buyout will start in May 2002. Up to 400,000 anglers—mums, dads and the kids—enjoy fishing in Lake Macquarie and Botany Bay. It is estimated that recreational fishers spend up to $45 million a year in the Lake Macquarie and Botany Bay areas. The new recreational fishing areas will create jobs in tourism, boating, hospitality and retail industries. We are entering a new era in recreational fishing in New South Wales. The creation of recreational fishing areas in Lake Macquarie and Botany Bay means that this Government is delivering on its promises, and it means better recreational fishing in New South Wales.

FISHING BY-CATCH REDUCTION DEVICES

The Hon. RICHARD JONES: I ask the Minister for Fisheries why there are no legislative requirements to use by-catch reduction devices in the New South Wales estuary general fishery. When does the Minister intend to introduce by-catch reduction devices, bearing in mind the huge loss of non-target species in this fishery?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: Although I acknowledge that by-catch devices are very important, and they are used on most high-impact commercial fishing operations in the State, they are not required by legislation but by notification by the Minister. I can assure the House that the fisheries department is probably using world's best practice to completely renew, with the co-operation of commercial fishers—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Probably, or it is?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: It is, with commercial fishers. It is probably the best in the world. We continue to work closely with commercial fishers to update the devices to ensure that species that are not supposed to be caught with by-catch devices are not caught. Although by-catch devices are important in high- impact fisheries, they are not required by legislation but by notification.

INNER-CITY SCHOOL CLOSURES

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: My question without notice is to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Why did the Department of Education and Training issue a letter to the principals of the four primary schools in the inner city that it is proposed to close and merge to form the Alexandria Park Community School, saying that the role of the newly created steering committee was to "develop a vision for the school." As the School Closures Review Committee has not yet presented its report to the Minister, why has the department sought to pre-empt the outcome of the review process? Is the consultation process being treated with contempt?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: In relation to the last part of the honourable member's question I assure her that that is not the case. As the rest of the honourable member's question deals with a matter of detail, I will ascertain that detail from my colleague the Minister for Education and Training and provide it to her as soon as possible. LITHGOW SILICON SMELTER The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Can the Treasurer inform the House on the latest details concerning the Lithgow silicon smelter project? The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I thank the Hon. Michael Costa— [Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. John Ryan! 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16555

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I thank the Hon. Michael Costa for his maiden question.

The Hon. John Ryan: Maiden speech.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, it is his maiden question. There is no doubt that the Hon. Michael Costa will be a valuable addition to this Chamber. Indeed, as I informed the Government caucus room the other day, one day he will make a great Treasurer of New South Wales.

The Hon. Richard Jones: At the next election?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, long after the next election. I also pointed out to caucus that he still has a lot to learn and that it will take me a long time to teach him. As I have said in the House previously—

[Interruption]

One of the little bits of purgatory that one has to put up with in this place is the inane interjections and, in particular, the squawking of the Hon. John Ryan.

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I name the Hon. John Ryan. The Minister may proceed.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: As I have said in this House previously, the Government is working hard to secure the Lithgow silicon smelter project for New South Wales. The project, which is a new industry for country New South Wales, will create over 250 new jobs and will contribute $4 billion to the nation's economy over the life of the project. The proponents of the project, Australian Silicon Pty Ltd, have been working closely with the Government. The Government and the company have prepared what I believe to be an exceptionally good outcome for the people of New South Wales.

Should the company invest—and I stress that point—the people of New South Wales will see a new smelter at Lithgow, a quartz mine at Cowra, a charcoal plant at Moruya and 8,000 hectares of trees, or eight million new trees, in the Liverpool Plains. These plantations will provide a future wood and charcoal supply for the smelter, help tackle salinity and offset greenhouse gas emissions. The silicon will be produced for export and domestic markets for the manufacture of a range of products and end uses, which include: photovoltaic technology, microelectronic components, biomedical applications, light metal applications for cars to reduce vehicle emissions, and many other positive and environmentally progressive uses.

The charcoal to be used as the carbon reductant in this smelter will come from native forest residues and waste, sourced from State forests on the South Coast near Moruya in the Eurobodalla shire. I reiterate that this material will come from forests that have completed a regional forest agreement. In fact it will come from an area where 88 per cent of publicly owned forest, including high-conservation old-growth forests, are now in national parks or reserved from harvesting. The material for charcoal production can be supplied from wood residues and waste. That means that not one tree will be cut for the sole purpose of charcoal production. This new industry has the potential to utilise the material currently being chipped and exported to Japan. As I have said, after the first 20 years of operation, charcoal will be produced from plantations in the Liverpool Plains. [Time expired.]

SOUTH COAST POLICE STATIONS

The Hon. ELAINE NILE: I direct my question without notice to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Police. Has the crime of break and enter, day and night, increased dramatically in the South Coast town of Kiama and the villages of Gerringong and Gerroa? Is the closest police station that is manned at night at Warilla, with a 35-minute to 40-minute drive to Gerringong and Gerroa? What will the Minister do to reactivate the one-man station, which stands alone and closed at Gerringong, and will the Minister open Kiama station at night?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am not aware of the break and enter statistics for Kiama so I will obtain details from my colleague the Minister for Police. However, I make this point. It is difficult for police who are stationed in a police station to catch criminals who are out committing crimes. Police officers cannot actually catch a criminal in a police station unless the crime is being committed in the police station. One of the 16556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

reasons I have given the Police Service in New South Wales a record budget and one of the reasons we have a record number of police officers in New South Wales is that we want police officers out in the communities solving crime, preventing crime and catching criminals. Whilst police stations perform an important role in the combat of crime and in servicing the community, police officers do not actually catch criminals in police stations.

PARKLEA PRISON ESCAPEES

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Fisheries, representing the Minister for Corrective Services. How were two maximum security prisoners, who are facing extradition this month to the United States where they are wanted for a number of murders and drug trafficking offences, able to steal a truck from Parklea gaol today, drive through two sets of security gates and flee the complex? Why were the keys, which were used in the break-out, left in the truck?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: This is an important issue. We in this House should not try to assume the details of that incident. I will refer the honourable member's question to my colleague in the other House and seek a detailed answer.

SYDNEY OLYMPIC PARK IGNITE FESTIVAL

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. What has been organised to celebrate the anniversary of the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: A huge celebration is being planned. That celebration, which will start on 15 September, will go over three weekends. I invite all honourable members, their friends and their families to attend.

The Hon. John Ryan: I will be there.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I hope that the honourable member will be there. We have invited all the volunteers. I hope that as many as possible are able to make it. The Hon. Duncan Gay: Is Sandy coming? The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I certainly hope so. Later in the week I will be able to announce something else that will interest the Hon. John Ryan, as a volunteer at last year's Olympics. But we will wait until later in the week for that to happen. This festival, which is to be called Ignite, obviously will be celebrating the memories of the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games. The focus of the festival will be cultural, artistic and, of course, sporting. Ignite will celebrate the lighting of the cauldron in its new location at Sydney Olympic Park and it will also reignite the park as an entertainment destination for the whole family. The Minister for Fisheries should listen to my reply and forget about the galoots opposite. He should pay attention to what I am saying as I will conduct a quiz at the end of question time. I predict that, over the three weekends of Ignite, we will get a crowd at Sydney Olympic Park of almost 200,000. I would be surprised if that did not happen. The entertainment program, which will be fantastic, is being delivered by a consortium, which includes Mr Leo Schofield, who is well-known for his 11-year production of the Sydney Festival. The theme for Ignite will be "The World Returns to Sydney Olympic Park." From midday on 15 September, which is the first anniversary of the opening ceremony, video imagery will be playing on a giant screen, followed by performances by local and international artists.

That will all lead to the igniting of the cauldron, with a spectacular presentation of music and lighting. Ignite will coincide with other major events, including the Davis Cup competition between Australia and Sweden, the National Rugby League final and the Garden and Flower Show. I hope Ignite will become an annual event at Sydney Olympic Park. I might point out that a lot of people have said that Sydney Olympic Park is a white elephant and that we really have to make sure that the development that takes place over the next few years makes it a vibrant place. But, quite apart from any additional stimulus or excitement that future development will provide, in the first six months of this year more than 3.1 million people passed through the turnstiles at Sydney Olympic Park.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: There are no turnstiles out there. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16557

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: There are—at the Stadium, the SuperDome and the Aquatic Centre.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Not for the parklands.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Well, people can just meander through the parklands. I am not including those people. I am not including the people who go to the Bicentennial parklands. I am not including those who just wander through the park. I am talking about the people who pass through the turnstiles at the various venues. If you exclude the crowd that went to the annual Royal Easter Show, if you do not count them, on average 12,000 people go Sydney Olympic Park each and every day! Sydney Olympic Park was a site built to cater for 500,000 people at any one time. That is the number we had to cater for during the Olympics. We now have to make sure that Sydney Olympic Park— [Time expired.]

KINGS CROSS MEDICALLY SUPERVISED INJECTING ROOM

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister responsible for the Drug Summit, a question without notice. Does the Government acknowledge that the huge expenditure of over $4.1 million for the legal heroin injecting room in Kings Cross, known as a shooting gallery, is not justified in view of the reported very small number of addicts regularly using the injecting room? How many actual heroin drug addicts are using the injecting room each day—not visits, but persons? What is the total number of persons using the injecting room each week—again not visits? Is it a fact that cocaine users are now using the injecting room as a drop-in centre? How many cocaine addicts are using the injecting room each day? What is the total number of persons —not visits—using the injecting room in a week?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Without wishing to be churlish I take the opportunity once again to correct the honourable member's terminology and say that we are talking about a medically supervised injecting room trial, not a shooting gallery. As he knows, that is a common term referring to premises for illegal practices. This centre is not commonly known as a shooting gallery. In 1999 the Drug Summit allocated $1.8 million to fund the establishment and operation of a medically supervised injecting room trial.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Who allocated it? The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The New South Wales Government allocated $1.8 million to fund the establishment and operation of a medically supervised injecting room trial. The initial cost estimate was always of a very preliminary nature, as there is no precedent facility in Australia. As I reported to the estimates committee on 20 June 2001, the operating cost of the trial is estimated to be $4.3 million. That estimate is for the duration of the trial—not $4.3 million to date, as has been reported, and as I believe was the inference in the honourable member's question. These operating funds are being provided from the Confiscated Proceeds of Crime Account, which is, of course, primarily the fund for the confiscated proceeds of drug trafficking. Contrary to another misconception, no funds have been diverted from rehabilitation treatment to this trial. The Drug Summit budget allocated an additional $25.5 million over four years for programs to help families and young people, and $112.9 million for health care and treatment. Those allocations remain unchanged. As I have explained on more than one occasion, the costs of the medically supervised injecting room trial have risen due to several factors, including the withdrawal of the Sisters of Charity, the subsequent difficulties in finding appropriate premises and the legal action initiated by the Kings Cross Chamber of Commerce. Salary costs represent approximately half of the centre's operating costs. Under the centre's protocols, essential nursing staff must be present at all times and operate on a two-shift basis, seven days a week. I should stress that the medically supervised injecting room is a one-off trial. It is only one part of an evidence-based approach to drug policy, and the trial is being evaluated by a committee of experts. There is no single answer to drug addiction. We are pressing ahead on all fronts and directing our efforts from all angles: prevention, education, law enforcement and treatment. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: How many people use it? The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I think the accurate answer to the honourable member's interjection and his original question is that that information will be available only after a final evaluation of the medically supervised injecting room trial. The honourable member referred to cocaine users. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Figures are available. The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am happy to make available to the House any of the current evaluation reports I have received. I have already done that in respect of the first monthly evaluation. I might 16558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001 say, though, that I have had some discussions with Major Watters of the Australian National Council on Drugs, who indicated to me a preference for those matters not to be in the public arena as much as they have been prior to the final formal evaluation. I gave him a commitment that I would be careful and limit my responses to parliamentary responses.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Only because it suits you. You have not listened to Major Watters on anything else.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: That is actually very wrong. I have listened to Major Watters, as does this Government, on a large range of issues. Before my time elapses I would like to say that it is true that there has been a detected increase in the use of cocaine. That is not related to any artefact of the medically supervised injecting room trial but to an apparent shift in the preference of some hard drug users during what is known as the heroin drought. [Time expired.]

NATIONAL RECREATIONAL FISHING SURVEY

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. In November last year the Minister told this House:

… within approximately six months or so we will have statistics and facts on fishing habits … we will use that survey— that is, the national survey of recreational fishing habits that was carried out for New South Wales—

as the basis of our recreational fishing environmental assessments.

Was that data used by the Minister in making his determination to close Botany Bay and Lake Macquarie to commercial fishing? What does the data say and what is the objective information about the environmental impact of recreational fishing in those waters? The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: Every time the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner asks a question I say to myself, "She has not been in this House. She has not read Hansard. She has not listened to anything." We made very clear 20 months ago that the Government's agenda was to consult with the community. For 20 months, since January 2000, we have consulted. For the honourable member's benefit, we consulted with the community in respect of Lake Macquarie and Botany Bay. Specific consultation took place for approximately five weeks. There were many forums and nearly 800 submissions about the lake and the bay. The people had their say and the majority of those who made submissions wanted Botany Bay and Lake Macquarie closed to commercial fishing. A national survey of recreational fishing habits was funded and conducted by the Commonwealth and the States and we were very happy that New South Wales Fisheries had the benefit of carrying out that national survey. I have not received the results of that survey, because it involved a 12-month period. We were attempting to assess, through that national survey, recreational fishing habits—where people fish, what they take and what they use. The approach to recreational fishing areas was made quite clear in this House when the matter was debated in November. We gave a commitment to the public that we would meet our obligations to consult and to make assessments and decisions on the basis of what the community told us. I have listened to the Botany Bay and Lake Macquarie communities, and my view is that the potential 400,000 family members who use that bay and that lake deserves to catch a fish. In the issues paper released in January 2000 the Government indicated that it wanted more equity for recreational fishers. There is nothing wrong with that. Commercial fishers will be compensated fairly and adequately. I assure the House that when we dedicate these recreational fishing areas the many mums and dads who normally spend $70, $80 or $100 each time they go fishing will have a better chance to catch a fish. Fishing is a great Australian recreation. It is a family-friendly sport and it is great for the mums and dads. I cannot understand members of the Opposition objecting to that. They do not want to see families going fishing. Fishing is probably the major sport in New South Wales in which ordinary mums and dads and kids can all participate together. Twenty months ago the Government promised the community it would consult with and listen to it, and we are doing that. The first two designated fishing areas are Botany Bay and Lake Macquarie. I am sure many families will enjoy the fishing in those two estuaries, and they will remember the Opposition's stand that it did not want them to fish there. Members opposite will live to regret their decision to prevent ordinary families from participating in a family-friendly sport and catching themselves a fish. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16559

MOREE CROC FESTIVAL

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is directed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister Assisting the Premier on Youth, and Minister Assisting the Minister for the Environment. Will the Minister advise the House what the Government is doing to support the 2001 Croc Festival in Moree?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Hon. Amanda Fazio's question is pertinent because today the Governor, her Excellency Dr Marie Bashir, opened the third Croc Festival in Moree. Croc festivals involve young indigenous and non-indigenous students in visual and performing arts, sports clinics and career markets. The festivals are drug and alcohol free and aim to promote health, education and employment opportunities in the spirit of reconciliation. This year Croc festivals have been held in Thursday Island, Tom Price, Port Augusta and Kununurra. This week it is Moree's turn. Over the next three days approximately 1,300 students from 44 schools across north-west New South Wales will converge on Moree for sports clinics, careers markets and health education and, most importantly, to perform at the Croc Festival. For the past couple of months students and teachers have been devising, choreographing and rehearsing their performances for Croc. Tonight and tomorrow night the oval in Moree will come alive when thousands of people come to watch the performances of these young people.

Many factors contribute to the success of Croc, which lies in its ability to engage young people through performance with learning, school and a positive affirmation of their abilities. The education aims of the Croc Festival are to bring students together from rural and remote communities; to teach that excellence is achieved through application of creativity, hard work, enthusiasm and co-operation; to increase connectedness to schools through engaging students in an activity aimed at improving self-esteem, confidence, co-operation and social skills; and to improve skills such as goal setting, problem solving, teamwork, choreography, dance and music appreciation. Some teachers have indicated to me that one of the things that will keep young people connected to school is the fact that they are involved in planning and preparing for the Croc performance. If it has that outcome, it is to be applauded. The health aims of Croc are to encourage young people to live healthy lifestyles; to show young people that a healthy and enjoyable lifestyle requires positive choices and personal decisions; and to increase awareness of alcohol, tobacco and other drug issues in communities and schools.

The Croc Festival is also a great example of reconciliation, with black and white coming together to perform in Moree. Last year I was able to attend the Croc Festival and I saw first-hand the pride and work that went into the performances. The people and the atmosphere at the festival were something to behold. It is unfortunate that Croc this year coincides with the sitting of Parliament, because I know a number of us would like to go there. Recently I was in Moree and spoke to many individuals and organisations that co-ordinated the Croc Festival at the local level. The Government has provided $100,000 for the staging of this event through the Department of Health, the Premier's Department, the Department of Community Services, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Department of Education and Training and the Department of Juvenile Justice. At the same time, three members of the Youth Advisory Council will consult with young people attending the Croc Festival. They will report back to the Premier and me so that the voices of young people in the north west can be heard and incorporated into the development of a new youth policy. I wish all the young performers the best wishes of the House and I congratulate the organisers on once again putting on what I am sure will be a very successful Croc Festival.

MENINDEE LAKES FIN FISH POPULATION

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: My question is to the Minister for Fisheries. Will the Minister inform the House of the level of stability and growth of the fin fish population in the Menindee Lakes? Has the Minister received any credible material suggesting the Menindee Lakes system does not suffer meaningful pressure from recreational fishermen? Has the Minister received reports that the restructuring of the inland commercial fishing industry is in difficulties? Has the Minister received reports that the promised access to carp and yabbies is not occurring in New South Wales due to Fisheries stopping access to these species?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I do not have knowledge of fish stocks in the exact location that the honourable member is talking about but, in general, the availability of our fin fish in inland rivers has improved since we have diminished and finalised the presence of commercial fishers. These reports are not simply about one sector. Generally, recreational fishers are very pleased with the outcome, and much more fin fish is available for recreational fishing since we have been able to relieve the area of commercial fishers. I am more than happy to obtain details about the particular section of waterway the honourable member is referring to. I do not have any specific knowledge but I know the community and the freshwater recreational fishers are more 16560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001 than happy about the outcome, because it was at their insistence, and it was their money—the $2.5 million that recreational fishers inland contribute each year to the trust fund—that was used to pay out the commercial sector. We have put $1 million on the table.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why would you stop carp fishing?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: We have not stopped carp fishing. As a matter of fact, we pay people to take carp out. Whether people are prepared to spend the time and effort to convert to carp and yabbie fishing is a matter of personal choice.

The Hon. Doug Moppett: Or economic necessity.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: There is no doubt the carp industry is thriving. There are many uses for carp. Many products are made from carp, and carp is now sold at the fish markets. I know it is not sold in high quantities, it is something like $5 or $6 a kilogram, but there is a market for it. Unfortunately, I think as a nation we are still a bit spoilt. We still prefer other species but its time will come. Carp is the predominant species eaten in countries like Israel, and people there enjoy it very much. A large sector of our community use fresh carp. The average Australian has another preference and that is fine, but we can use carp, and in time our exports of this product will improve and we will have more acceptance of fishing for carp in commercial quantities. Yabby fishing is an industry of the future. It has a long way to go. For the benefit of the honourable member, I will get some details about the availability of fin fish in the Menindee sector specifically.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD: I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister aware of correspondence on the Menindee Lakes issue from Peter Black, the Labor lower House member representing the Menindee Lakes area? If the Minister is aware of this correspondence, why is he not aware of where the Menindee Lakes area even is?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I correct the honourable member: I did not say that I am not aware where the Menindee Lakes area is. I said that I am not aware of the quantities of fin fish, whether they are in abundance or not. I do not recall whether my colleague Peter Black has written to me on the subject. I will address that issue when providing further details to the House.

PARLIAMENT HOUSE COMPUTER SECURITY

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: Is the Treasurer aware that 254 computer addresses on the Parliament of New South Wales network were deliberately targeted by a hacker using sophisticated software specifically designed to breach our password security system? What immediate action will he take to provide the necessary resources to upgrade the security of the parliamentary computer network to protect the integrity of the system and protect members of Parliament from illegal acts of political espionage?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am not aware of any such matter.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Don't you read the papers?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, very often I do not. I did read the papers a few weeks ago. I read a nonsensical story that suggested that someone, heaven only knows who, was interested in hacking into Charlie Lynn's computer. Why would you want to look into an empty head?

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Point of order: Madam President, I regard political espionage as a very serious subject. For the Treasurer to make light of this is an absolute disgrace. I ask that the Treasurer answer the question: Was he aware of it and what is he going to do about it?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: The Treasurer indicated concern about the quality of the files of the Hon. Charlie Lynn. The real point is that all members of Parliament have confidential references from constituents and other members of the public. It is disappointing that he treats these issues with such flippancy. The PRESIDENT: Order! The point of order of the Hon. Charlie Lynn is that the Minister is making light of the matter. That is not a point of order. The Minister may proceed. The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I have concluded my answer. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16561

MINE SAFETY

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question is to the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries. What actions are being undertaken to make New South Wales mines safer?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I thank my colleague for a very important question. The New South Wales Government is determined to ensure that our mining industry continues to maintain its reputation as a national and international leader in mine safety. Every worker has the right to expect to return home to loved ones at the end of a shift, and much has already been done to this end by the Carr Government. We have allocated funds needed to make our mines safer. Nearly $14 million is being spent on a five-year program to improve mine safety. The program is in its fourth year and $3.2 million will be spent this year. The New South Wales Government is also looking at mining legislation to ensure that we have the most stringent and practical laws protecting our workers. We want to make sure that industry, unions, workers and the community participate in this process. Last month I released a discussion paper entitled "Reviewing the Mines Inspection Act" about health and safety laws in metals mines and quarries. I have urged the mining industry and the community to have their say about this discussion paper. Stakeholders will have until 9 November to make submissions.

The release of the discussion paper is the next stage in the New South Wales Government's commitment to protecting mine workers and improving occupational health and safety in our mines. We need to update our safety laws to make sure they continue to reflect technological changes. The Mines Inspection Act dates back to 1901 and it is in need of review and update. Our goal is to give our State the best occupational health and safety laws in Australia. I am pleased to say that a similar review is already taking place to target safety in coal and shale oil mines. The Mine Safety Council, which includes industry and mineworker representatives, has worked closely with the New South Wales Government to develop this discussion paper. The release of the discussion paper is only the start of wide community consultation. I urge everyone involved in the mining industry to take an active part in this review to help make New South Wales mines healthier and safer places to work in. Anyone wanting to make submissions will have three months to respond to the discussion paper.

LABOUR HIRE FIRMS

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Is the Special Minister of State, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, Minister Assisting the Premier on Public Sector Management, and Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast aware that some labour hire companies in the Hunter Valley require potential employees to hold induction training certificates, gained at their own expense and available only from a single private provider, SGS Australia Pty Ltd? Does the company give preference to people holding such certificates? Does this practice contravene section 22 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, which prohibits an employer from charging an employee or causing an employee to be charged for anything done or provided in pursuance of the Act or regulation, given that the 2001 regulation explicitly requires employers to ensure that employees receive induction training?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am aware generally of many of the difficulties in the labour hire industry, particularly compliance with both occupational health and safety regulations and the industrial laws of this State. I think the honourable member would be aware that there has been a fairly lengthy and detailed inquiry into this matter, on which the Government will soon publicly comment. However, I do not have any knowledge of the specific matter raised in the question and I have not read any reports about the company or the alleged abuse. I ask Ms Lee Rhiannon to provide details to my office so that I can investigate this matter and inform the House about it at a later date.

FAMILY BUSINESSES

The Hon. DOUG MOPPETT: Is the Treasurer aware of a recent survey prepared by Pitcher Partners and the AXA Family Business Research Unit at Monash University, published in today's Australian Financial Review, which found that 75 per cent of family-run businesses in New South Wales believe that his Government has ignored their needs and concerns? How does he intend to react to this dramatic slump in confidence in his Government's administration of their affairs?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I thank the Hon. Doug Moppett for his question. He usually asks good questions, although I would not put this one amongst his best. But at least he is civil in asking them. I did happen to see the report in the Australian Financial Review this morning. 16562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You do not normally read the papers.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, I do not. I generally do not read them in the morning. I have previously indicated to the House my opinion of surveys undertaken and published by organisations for the purposes of self-promotion. I understand that the survey reported in the Australian Financial Review this morning had about 400 respondents throughout Australia, and therefore a sample of about 50 in New South Wales. So I would not take much notice of it. What I am pleased about is that New South Wales has the lowest unemployment rate in the nation. That is the most important economic indicator.

Our unemployment rate is almost 2 per cent lower than the unemployment rate in the rest of Australia—a very remarkable achievement under this Government. One of the reasons is that over the last six of seven years the rate of increase in full-time employment in New South Wales has considerably exceeded the rate of increase in full-time employment in the rest of Australia. So I am very proud of that. I am pleased to draw to the attention of honourable members the National Australia Bank's business conditions survey. Of course, the National Australia Bank is a much more well-known and reputable organisation than many other organisations that conduct such surveys.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Are you bagging the Australian Financial Review again?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No. I am happy to bag the Australian Financial Review. If you want me to, I will. However, I was bagging these unheard-of organisations such as Pitcher Partners—

The Hon. Don Harwin: It was the research unit at Monash University.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Three cheers for the research unit at Monash University! The National Australia Bank's business conditions survey showed that in the June quarter some 67 per cent of businesses in New South Wales reported that business conditions were very good, good or satisfactory. Interestingly, that was much higher than in Victoria, where the figure was 63 per cent, and in Queensland, where the figure was 63 per cent. For Australia as a whole, the figure was 66 per cent. For the expected business conditions in the September quarter, the National Australia Bank survey found that 79 per cent of respondents in New South Wales believed that business conditions in the September quarter would be very good, good or satisfactory. Those results are pleasing; they show that the national economy is picking up from the GST-induced downturn it suffered towards the end of the last calendar year and the first half of this calendar year. I certainly hope that those signs continue and that the economy rebounds to 4 per cent plus growth, as we expect.

BEIJING 2008 OLYMPIC GAMES

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer inform the House of any expected benefits to New South Wales with Beijing securing the 2008 Olympic Games?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I thank the Hon. Henry Tsang for his important question. The honourable member has been in China on a mission to get business for Australian companies in connection with the 2008 Beijing Games. As the Hon. Henry Tsang knows, and I am sure other honourable members would like to know, New South Wales companies are very well placed to provide Beijing with the necessary technical and technological know-how to help them stage a successful 2008 Games. The New South Wales Government, through the Department of State and Regional Development, supports these companies. Indeed, the department has a dedicated unit to assist and promote companies vying for Olympic contracts in Beijing.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Send Commissioner Ryan!

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Commissioner Ryan did a magnificent job during the Sydney Olympics.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Don't send Commissioner Ryan—we want him here.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Commissioner Ryan and his Police Service did a magnificent job during the Sydney Olympics, and he has done a good job generally. In recent times I note that the Opposition has declared war on Commissioner Ryan. I hope that the people of New South Wales are aware of that. If they are not aware of that, I assure you that it will not be the Opposition pointing that out; it will be the Government 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16563 pointing that out. Given the outstanding success of the Sydney Games, we have a lot to offer in terms of logistic and technical support. The Chinese Government recognises this and is keen to tap into the knowledge and skills of New South Wales. In fact, my colleague the Hon. Henry Tsang was invited by the Vice Mayor of the Qingdao City Government to visit Qingdao last month. Qingdao will be the host city of all sailing events for the 2008 Games.

The honourable member signed a letter of intent on the establishment of an Olympic co-operative relationship between New South Wales and the city of Qingdao. The objective of this letter of intent is to establish a strong and genuine basis for co-operation between New South Wales and Beijing and its organising committee. I am informed that Qingdao shares a lot in common with Sydney, being a harbour city. However, it will require a major beautification program for the sailing events to be staged. In establishing a close relationship with New South Wales with the world's greatest harbour in Sydney, Qingdao's task can only be made easier with our help. Therefore, this letter of intent will be of significant benefit to New South Wales companies, given that Beijing intends to spend an estimated $100 billion on the 2008 Games. That figure cannot be right. Didn't we get the Games cheaply?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: A mere $10 billion.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The cost to the New South Wales taxpayers in gross terms was just over $2 billion and just under $1.5 billion in net terms.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That's not what your people said.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Yes, I am afraid they have.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: No, it's not.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: They are wrong, are they? Who are you talking about?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Dr Richmond said $5 billion on ABC radio.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: If you want to include the cost of people buying tickets and the cost of hospitality that companies provided to their clients around the world, you can come up with any figure you like. But the cost to New South Wales taxpayers in gross terms was just over $2 billion, and every last cent of that has either been paid for or provided for. I would not like to be paying a $100 billion bill. However, I am sure the Chinese will spend that amount of money and do a great job with the help of New South Wales companies. The sailing venue in Qingdao will require major redevelopment. I am informed that a New South Wales architectural company, MSJ Architects, is already in discussions with Qingdao city to assist them with technical and consultative support for the project. Qingdao has shown great acumen in approaching the Hon. Henry Tsang to establish this relationship. As the Government's special adviser on East Asian business relations, his longstanding relationship with and knowledge of the region can only serve as a great asset to the New South Wales community. The signing of this letter of intent is great news for New South Wales, and I look forward to reporting to the House on other such agreements in the future. I thank the Hon. Henry Tsang for the great work he is doing on behalf of Australian business. If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice. Questions without notice concluded. DEFERRED ANSWERS The following answers to questions without notice were received by the Clerk during the adjournment of the House:

CITY WATCH PROGRAM

On 6 June the Hon. Dr Peter Wong asked the Treasurer a question without notice concerning the City Watch Program. The Acting Minister for Police provided the following response:

On 21 June 2001, the Premier informed the Legislative Assembly that the City Watch Council, an initiative of the honourable Member for Cabramatta, Ms Meagher, would hold its first meeting on 4 July 2001. I am advised that City Watch Council held its first meeting on 4 July, chaired by Superintendent Frank Hansen, Commander of Cabramatta Local Area Command. 16564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

HAND GUN THEFTS

On 7 June the Hon. David Oldfield asked the Treasurer a question without noticing concerning the Coalition for Gun Control. The Acting Minister for Police provided the following response:

I am advised by the Police Service that 500 hand guns have not been stolen in New South Wales in the last 12 months.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT

On 27 June Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Treasurer a question without notice relating to coastal planning controls. The Premier provided the following response:

1. No, the Premier announced that a Coastal Protection State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) will be prepared. The SEPP will make the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning the consent authority for major high-risk development proposals and development in sensitive locations along the coast. Local Councils will continue to deal with the majority of development applications.

2. The principles outlined in the SEPP and associated guidelines will clarify how to handle coastal disputes making conflict less likely.

3. The SEPP is designed to provide greater certainty as it will contain principles to guide plan making and other decision making in the coastal zone. This will facilitate council handling of routine coastal matters and will allow the Minister to determine matters of State or regional interest in a consistent manner. The SEPP will also be supported by a Comprehensive Coastal Assessment which will give State and Local government, industry and the community high quality information to make decisions about coastal development and conservation. It will also provide information to guide investment decisions by coastal industries.

COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION REVIEW

On 20 June the Hon. Dr Peter Wong asked the Treasurer a question without notice relating to the Community Relations Commission. The Premier provided the following response:

The role of the Implementation Committee is to consider and provide advice to the Community Relations Commission on the implementation of the recommendations of the Council on the Cost and Quality of Government. It will assist in aligning the Commission with the changes to legislation governing its structure. The Committee is not an investigative one.

Members of the Committee currently include the Director-General, Premier's Department as Chair, the Director-General, Department of Information Technology and Management, the Chair, Community Relations Commission, the Deputy Director-General, Premier's Department, and the Executive Director, Review and Reform Division of the Premier's Department. The Committee will function for the duration of the Commission's implementation phase and will report to the Budget Committee of Cabinet.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEB SITE

On 21 June the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked the Treasurer a question without notice concerning the web site of the Department of State and Regional Development. The following response was provided:

Following the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's question on June 21, the MP3 text file was removed from the Department of State and Regional Development's website. The search tool was also reviewed to remove any reference to the MP3 file. Investigations by the Department found that the file, which listed more than 1,200 audio tracks, was a simple text document with no actual links to sound recordings and gave no direct references to any particular Internet site.

Investigations have also revealed that the file was uploaded to the site by an external contractor to the company that designed the web site. It appears that the file was uploaded as a test file for the search indexer application which was required to read text documents as well as word documents. The file failed to be deleted from the server after the site went live. The file's presence on the web site brought it under the eye of the search tool. When key words like 'electricity' and 'water' were entered in the search tool, they picked up the rogue file.

Given the above, the Department and the development company are convinced that the file's presence on the site was due to web developer error, and not the result of a hacker or individual with malicious intent. This incident has increased focus on the current website's security and the Department's new business web site, currently under construction, will have improved security to reduce the chance of such errors in the future.

GUNS AND AMMUNITION IN SCHOOLS

On 26 June the Hon. John Tingle asked the Treasurer a question without notice regarding guns and ammunition in schools. The Attorney General provided the following response:

The Director of Public Prosecutions, as an independent statutory officer, has immediate responsibility for deciding whether or not to lodge an appeal in this matter. The Firearms Amendment (Trafficking) Act 2001 had not commenced at the time the Court considered this case and so was not relevant to the Court's decision. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16565

ILLEGAL BROTHEL CLOSURES

On 20 June Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Treasurer a question without notice concerning local council brothel closures. The Deputy Premier provided the following response:

How much councils spend on actions in the Land and Environment Court, whether in respect of illegal brothels or any other matter, is entirely up to them. There is no requirement for this kind of information to be provided to the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning by councils.

Before taking Court action in respect of an illegal brothel, or any other type of development, a council can firstly issue an order under section 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to cease an illegal use. If this is not complied with, the council can take proceedings in the Land and Environment Court to remedy or restrain the breach.

MANNING DISTRICT POLICING

On 6 June the Hon. John Tingle asked the Treasurer a question without notice concerning Manning district policing. The Acting Minister for Police provided the following response:

The New South Wales Police Service is working hard to fight crime in the Taree area. I am advised that the Police Service has developed tactical and strategic contingencies to deal with anti-social behaviour in the Taree area with support by police from the Hunter Region.

The local Police continue to conduct intelligence based operations to detect and arrest persons committing crimes. For example, during December 2000 and January 2001, over 500 charges were laid. A considerable number were against recidivist offenders. The local Police are also working with the community to prevent crime in the area and a Taree Crime Prevention Plan has been developed jointly by the Police and the Taree Greater City Council. Superintendent Tarlinton adds that the Command has recently conducted operations in conjunction with the Region Target Action Team at Purfleet to target serious offenders and a quantity of firearms were seized.

The Hunter Region Command and Manning Great Lakes Local Area Command are currently working together to implement a variety of internal and interdepartmental strategies to address staffing and crime issues in the Manning district.

The Honourable Member may also be interested to learn that since May last year, 62 Probationary Constables have been deployed to the Hunter Region following their attestation at the Goulburn Police Academy. Of these officers, 10 have been specifically deployed to the Manning Great Lakes Local Area Command to help drive down crime in the area.

MELBOURNE FILM STUDIO

On 3 July the Hon. Elaine Nile asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice concerning the Melbourne film studio. The following response was provided:

On Thursday 28 June 2001 the Premier of Victoria the Hon. Steve Bracks, MP, announced that the Victorian Government will fund the development of a $40 million high-tech film and television studio at the Melbourne Docklands. The Victorian Government will seek expressions of interest for an operator in August. Construction is to commence in February 2002 and the studios are expected to be fully operational by mid 2003. The Melbourne Film Office is investigating options for the provision of interim studio facilities. This development is based on initiatives recommended in the Film and Television Taskforce established by the Victorian Government and that government's intention to incorporate a film studio complex within the Melbourne Docklands development site. No action has been taken by the NSW Government to attract this development to NSW on the basis that the studio is being funded by the Victorian Government specifically for establishment in Victoria.

The NSW Government, has however, been approached by a number of groups wishing to explore the possibility of establishing film and TV studios and these opportunities are being pursued. NSW is well positioned to provide opportunities for further growth of the film industry. In the most recent Australian Film Commission National Production Survey based on the 12 months to 30 June 2000 the NSW share of total spend for feature films and TV dramas was 61% (up from 51% in the previous 12 months). In 1999/2000 there were 94 feature films and TV dramas made in Australia with a total expenditure in Australia of $570 million (slightly more than last year). NSW has dominated this industry for many years and its position was strengthened with the opening of the Fox Studios at Moore Park in 1998. Sydney now has an international standard film studio.

PARRAMATTA CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT SAFETY

On 6 June the Hon. Elaine Nile asked the Treasurer a question without notice concerning Parramatta Central Business District safety. The Acting Minister for Police provided the following response:

I have been advised by the Commander, Parramatta Local Area Command (LAC) that the Command's Response Team, which comprises a pushbike component, has conducted both covert and overt operations targeting crime hot spots and recidivist offenders in and around the Parramatta CBD. The Command has conducted 26 operations focused solely on the CBD precinct since 1 January 2001. These initiatives have been an outstanding success in achieving crime reduction through intelligence driven operations.

The Commander advises that police work closely with the City Council especially in relation to the issue of public safety and security. I understand that a meeting is planned for 25 July 2001 at Council Chambers, comprising representatives from other Government and non-Government agencies, to discuss a holistic approach to issues within the Parramatta CBD mall area. 16566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

RED KANGAROO CULL PROTEST

On 5 June the Hon. Rick Colless asked the Treasurer a question without notice relating to the red kangaroo cull protest. The Minister for Health provided the following response:

There are no known diseases transmissible from kangaroos to humans. Providing the carcass was removed without undue delay, the dumping of a dead kangaroo on the footpath in this manner would not constitute a public health risk. The remainder of the question should be re-directed to my colleague, the Minister for Local Government.

SYDNEY INTERNATIONAL EQUESTRIAN CENTRE

On 21 June the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti asked the Treasurer a question without notice concerning the Sydney International Equestrian Centre at Horsley Park. The following response was provided:

In 1999 the Olympic Co-ordination Authority called for expressions of interest from the public for ongoing operations, events and maintenance of the Sydney International Equestrian Centre. Five proposals were received. One proponent later withdrew. The Government has not accepted or rejected the four proposals as the potential future management arrangements for the SIEC and other non-Olympic Park venues are being reviewed by Cabinet.

SYDNEY INTERNATIONAL EQUESTRIAN CENTRE

On 21 June the Hon. John Ryan asked the Treasurer a question without notice concerning the Sydney International Equestrian Centre at Horsley Park. The following response was provided:

It is anticipated that the projected net costs for a full year's operation will be approximately $1 million. From its reopening in February 2001, to 30 June 2001, there have been 13 equestrian and community use events held at the SIEC.

RESPITE CARE FACILITIES

On 31 May the Hon. David Oldfield asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice a question without notice regarding Hunter area respite facilities. The Minister for Community Services, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Minister for Women provided the following response:

1. I am aware of the ongoing demand for respite care services for people with disabilities and their families and carers. The Government has undertaken a number of major initiatives supported by Budget allocations that have lead to improvements in the provision of respite care. These are summarised as follows:

• $4.6 million additional recurrent and $1.1 million one-off for new, additional respite care services in 1999/2000;

• a further $6.5 million recurrent for new respite services in 2000/2001;

• an additional $30.4 million recurrent in 2000/2001 to develop long term support options including accommodation support for individuals identified as being in crisis as at January 2000 and those identified as being at risk under the new Service Access System (SAS). Some of these individuals are blocking respite care beds; and

• $1.1 million one-off to assist families who were unable to access centre based respite during the peak summer holiday period November 2000 to March 2001.

The provision of these funds has established 67 new non-government respite services across the State that offer flexible respite options, e.g. in home, holidays, weekends away, recreation, day and emergency respite, 24 hour out of home care and overnight stays. Of these 67 new services, 11 were community partnership programs where local communities and services have contributed resources of their own to the new service.

In addition, my Department has commenced implementing the recommendations of the Respite Review Working Party (2000), which aim to improve the flexibility, capacity and quality of respite care services in NSW. In addition to directing new funds towards the provision of additional respite care services, this work will result in improvements to the operation of respite care services by improving the coordination of respite care funding and provision across funding programs and levels of government. Comprehensive service guidelines will be developed which will assist respite providers to deliver high quality services. This work will also be informed by improved data systems which will track respite capacity and patterns of usage.

2. The Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care currently fund a range of respite services which carers of people with a disability from the Cessnock and Maitland area are eligible to access. A list of the funded respite services is outlined below:

Hunter Home Care receives $798,901 to provide respite care.

Hunter Integrated Care receives $115,672 to provide respite options in the Hunter Valley.

Lower Hunter Temporary Care receives $229,688 to provide host-family, out of home and flexible respite to people with a disability.

Lower Hunter Peer Support receives $86,811 to provide Peer Support respite to people with a disability. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16567

In 2000, an additional $99,026 was allocated for flexible respite packages and a Saturday Fun Club for children and adolescents with a disability. In the last budget period 2000/2001 $1,045,660 was allocated in the Hunter Region to Life Activities to provide Flexible Support Options for people with disabilities living in the community. This may include the purchase of additional respite care. There are two former DOCS overnight respite care centres located in Maitland, which provide respite care services to 71 families.

At present, four of the 10 available beds are 'blocked' and those individuals have been identified to receive funding for accommodation thus 'unblocking' the beds. There are also two other former DOCS overnight respite care centres located in Newcastle which families from Cessnock and Maitland would be eligible to utilise. The Hunter Regional Planning process has identified the Lower Hunter as an area to target future growth funding in respite care services.

3. I am aware of such a situation. The family concerned had regular contact with a Departmental disability caseworker. The family placed the individual into an Aged Care residential facility in Cooranbong on the 26 April 2000 without notifying the Department. When the Department became aware they did provide the Aged Care facility staff with behaviour management strategies. The Aged Care placement became unsatisfactory for the family and on 21 June 2000, again without notification to the Department, the individual was placed into the Metford Respite Centre.

The Department has since moved the individual to the Ashtonfield Respite Centre, which is more age and lifestyle appropriate. The Departmental worker has now requested long term support with a formal application on behalf of the individual to the Service Access System. The person has been assessed as eligible to receive support under the SAS. The recently approved Support Planners have commenced training as of 4 June 2001. Support Planners will now be allocated to those deemed eligible. This individual has been flagged by the SAS team as urgent.

4. In 2000, the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care identified 104 permanent nursing home and/or hostel residents with a disability aged below 60 years in the Hunter. Of these people, one is aged between 20-30 years, seven between 30-40 years, 20 between 40-50 years, and 76 between 50-60 years. The Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care do not keep data on the reasons why people with a disability enter residential care, making it difficult to determine whether these 104 people are inappropriately placed or not.

There are 22 people across NSW who are currently residing in aged care facilities who have requested support through the Service Access System. These individuals will be assessed to determine their eligibility to receive support through the SAS. Until these individuals have been assessed it is not possible to determine the circumstances of their placement.

WIRELESS INSTITUTE OF AUSTRALIA CIVIL EMERGENCY NETWORK

On 7 June the Hon. Charlie Lynn asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice a question without notice regarding the wireless Institute of Australia civil emergency network. The following response was provided:

I am advised by the Minister for Energy that, TransGrid has a longstanding policy of wherever possible sharing its radio facilities with external organisations. These organisations including government department, emergency service and voluntary organisations were levied a nominal fixed charge per annum that was not based on market value and did not reflect a fair share of the establishment and on-going maintenance costs of these sites.

More recently, TransGrid has been approached by telecommunication carriers seeking to share its facilities. Accordingly, TransGrid undertook an external evaluation to assess the market value of these facilities and has restructured its fees into four categories:

• Commercial—organisations whose core business is providing telecommunications services;

• Non-commercial—organisation that use these facilities to support their non-telecommunication core business such as Electricity Distributors;

• Emergency services—organisations such as Police and Fire Brigade;

• Voluntary—organisations such as amateur radio groups, Rural Fire Service and State Emergency Service.

In determining the fees, TransGrid is now required under ACCC regulations; to deduct from its regulated income the costs incurred in permitting tenants to share its radio facilities. These costs are based on the value of assets as well as the ongoing maintenance for the facility. While the fees for the commercial and non-commercial organisations largely reflect equivalent market rates, fees for community-type and voluntary organisations take into account the need to minimise the impact of increased fees and remain below TransGrid's costs. Organisations in each of the categories are being approached by TransGrid and have largely accepted the new fees.

EMINEM SUPERDOME CONCERT

On 4 July Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice regarding the Eminem SuperDome concert. The Premier provided the following response:

The Commonwealth Government granted a visa to Mr Marshall Mathers on 18 July In announcing this decision, the responsible Commonwealth Minister, the Hon Philip Ruddock MP, indicated that Mr Ruddock had been advised of the responsibilities that all visa holders must fulfil, including respect for our multicultural society and values, and avoiding vilifying or inciting discord in segments of the Australian community. Minister Ruddock made clear that Mr Mathers acknowledged this advice. 16568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

The processing of visa applications for entry into Australia, including assessment of an individual's history and background, is a responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. The NSW Government made no representations in the case of Mr Mathers. In relation to restricting entry into Mr Mathers concerts, it should be noted that current state classification legislation does not apply to concerts.

AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION FRAUD ALLEGATIONS

On 20 June the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans asked the Treasurer a question without notice concerning allegations of fraud within the Australian Workers Union. The Acting Minister for Police provided the following response:

The Manager, Commercial Crime Agency has advised that the matter is currently being assessed in accordance with the Crime Agencies Charter. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment further on this matter.

ABORTIFACIENT RU-486

On 27 June the Hon. Elaine Nile asked the Treasurer a question without notice concerning abortifacient RU-486. The Minister for Health provided the following response:

In New South Wales the Crimes Act 1900 prohibits the "unlawful" termination of pregnancies. This has been interpreted by courts to mean that for a termination to be lawful, certain criteria must be met. The criteria medical practitioners can use for deciding whether a termination of pregnancy can lawfully be performed go beyond physical harm but also include psychological, social and environmental factors. The medical practitioner must be satisfied that the operation is not out of proportion to the danger to be averted. In the case of abortifacients, such as RU-486, approval to market may only be given by the Commonwealth Minister for Health and Aged Care. No approvals to date have been given.

DEATH CERTIFICATES

On 27 June the Hon. Elaine Nile asked the Treasurer a question without notice concerning death certificates. The Minister for Health provided the following response:

I am advised the report referred to in the Honourable Member's question was not commissioned by the Australian Safety and Quality Council, the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care or the NSW Department of Health. Caution should be exercised in interpreting any of the data in the report as there is no single source of data which provides a measure of the frequency or nature of adverse events. NSW Department of Health advises that the data reported is unable to be substantiated.

EMBEZZLED FUNDS TRANSFER

On 26 June the Hon. David Oldfield asked the Treasurer a question without notice relating to embezzled funds transfer. The Attorney General provided the following response:

As questions relating to this matter should be directed to the Minister for Police, the issue raised has been referred to our colleague the Hon. Paul Whelan, MP.

REDFERN AND WATERLOO YOUTH VIOLENCE

On 27 June Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Treasurer a question without notice relating to an incident in Redfern and Waterloo on 21 and 22 June 2001. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

Superintendent D. Perrin, Commander, Redfern Local Area Command, has advised that on the evenings of 21 and 22 June 2001, a number of youths were involved in criminal acts and anti-social behaviour in Elizabeth Street, Waterloo. I am advised that one person was arrested and inquiries are continuing. I am further advised that the Police Service is working with the Aboriginal community regarding the incidents and received assistance from senior members of the community in negotiating a settlement and restoring order.

Superintendent Perrin has also advised me that the Redfern Local Area Command has appropriate equipment for issue to staff. Operational staff are also suitably trained to enable them to perform their duties in volatile situations. He is not aware of police being in attendance in shorts during the incidents. However, he notes that members of the Police Bicycle Unit from the City East Target Action Group do wear shorts as part of their standard uniform.

NORTH COAST POLICE DRUG SEARCHES

On 27 June the Hon. Richard Jones asked the Treasurer a question without notice concerning police conduct during a drug operation conducted by Tweed-Byron local area command. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

As part of the enforcement of the criminal law, police employ the use of drug detection dogs where such action is required. The signal from the trained dog that indicates the animal has detected a person carrying a trace of an illegal drug provides investigating police with a reasonable suspicion that the person is in possession of a prohibited narcotic. The Minister notes your concerns about the conduct of drug detection operations. However, as the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 classifies cannabis as a prohibited plant, the officers of the New South Wales Police Service are obliged to enforce the law in this regard.

I am advised by the Commander, Tweed/Byron Local Area Command (LAC) that on 21 to 23 June, an operation was conducted by the Tweed/Byron LAC with a focus on drug activities in public places in the townships of Byron Bay, Mullumbimby and Murwillumbah. A 'drug detection dog' was utilised to assist in the operation. The dog has been used on 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16569

previous occasions with significant results in relation to the policing of unlawful drug activities within the Command. The Commander, Tweed/Byron LAC reports that the operation is a continued focus of the local police in relation to detection of the supply, possession and use of prohibited drugs in the area.

I am advised that the result of the operation was that 21 people were detained, 16 people were provided with a caution under the Cannabis Cautioning Scheme and five people were arrested for drug possession and outstanding First Instance Warrants. With respect to the Honourable Member's comments about a 'strip search' of a juvenile at Mullumbimby. I am advised a youth was detected by the dog and an external search was made but no drugs were found. However information supplied to the police was that the young person had been in 'recent contact' with a prohibited drug.

GUNS AND AMMUNITION IN SCHOOLS

On 21 June the Hon. John Tingle asked the Treasurer a question without notice relating to guns and ammunition in Sydney schools. The Acting Minister for Police provided the following response:

I am advised by the Office of the Commissioner for Police that, since 1 January 2001, there has been one incident of police finding a firearm at a Sydney school. I cannot provide further comment on this matter as it is still under investigation. I am also advised that since 1 January 2001, there has been one incident of police finding live ammunition at a Sydney school. All persons involved in firearms offences are dealt with by police in accordance with the law. Honourable members will recall that the Government gave police the powers they need to locate firearms and other dangerous implements in schools when it introduced the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police and Public Safety) Act 1998.

MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART SITE

On 27 June the Hon. Dr Peter Wong asked the Treasurer a question without notice relating to the Museum of Contemporary Art site. The Premier, and Minister for the Arts provided the following response:

On Friday 13 July 2001, the Premier announced that the Maritime Services Board building will remain the home of the MCA and that the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority will take control of the Maritime Services Board building. Additionally, the Premier announced that the Government will provide $3 million a year for the next five years to the MCA.

ENERGYAUSTRALIA ELECTRICITY CHARGES

On 27 June the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked the Treasurer a question without notice concerning EnergyAustralia Lower Network Tariffs. The Treasurer provided the following response:

(1) Since August 2001 contestable EnergyAustralia customers have received the benefit of an 8 per cent decrease in regulated distribution charges required by IPART. On average, network charges represent approximately 40 per cent of total retail tariffs. Accordingly, an 8 per cent nominal decrease would amount to a nominal decrease of around 3-4 per cent on a total retail tariff.

(2) Franchise customers receive the benefit of regulated retail tariffs. In 2001-02 average retail prices for EnergyAustralia's franchise customers will be held constant, consistent with IPART's retail pricing determination. After allowing for inflation, this translates to average real price reductions of approximately 3 per cent. For franchise customers, IPART has established appropriate target levels for regulated retail tariffs and transition paths that move existing retail tariffs towards the target levels.

EnergyAustralia's lower network charges will therefore be reflected in lower regulated target retail tariffs and franchise customers will benefit over a transition period. Franchise customers would immediately receive the full benefit of lower network prices should they choose to enter the contestable market when eligible.

AUDITOR-GENERAL REPORTING RESTRICTIONS

On 29 June Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice regarding Auditor-General reporting restrictions. The following response was provided:

The main source of the Auditor-General's powers is the Public Finance and Audit Act, which became law in 1983. Until 2000, Parliament and the Auditor-General had an understanding of the practical limits of the Auditor-General's powers. These limits were never tested by legal opinion. On 12 July 2000, the Crown Solicitor provided an opinion, which included advice on the Auditor-General's powers. According to that advice, the Auditor-General's powers were more limited than had previously been understood.

The Act, not the Crown Solicitor's opinion, restricts the Auditor-General. The Crown Solicitor merely interpreted the Auditor-General's powers in the Act, which was then seventeen years old. As a result of the Crown Solicitor's opinion, the restrictions have recently been reviewed. I have had several discussions with the Auditor-General concerning these restrictions. As promised, amendments to the Public Finance and Audit Act will be introduced in the Spring Session of Parliament. These amendments will ensure that the Auditor-General has the powers he was understood to have prior to the Crown Solicitor's opinion.

The amendments will include a retrospective operation clause. Any action by the Auditor-General which will be legal after the amendments will be made legal irrespective of when performed. Section 38B of the Act already empowers the Auditor-General to initiate performance audits. Section 38E already empowers the Auditor-General to table performance audits in the Legislative Assembly. Even under existing legislation, the Auditor-General has the power to inform Parliament of the State's financial obligations, including probity, government waste and management inefficiencies. 16570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

LICENSED REPTILE KEEPERS

On 28 June the Hon. Richard Jones directed a series of questions concerning licensed reptile keepers to the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment. The following response was provided:

(1) The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) is aware that the Northern Territory Government allows land owners to remove live reptiles from their land on a sustainable basis for the purpose of sale into the pet trade. It is understood that the company WOMA purchases reptiles from such land owners and passes them on to other traders.

(2) I am advised there is no evidence to suggest that affected NSW licensees do not comply with the licence conditions that require these animals to be held for a minimum period of six months.

(3) The National Parks and Wildlife Service maintains detailed records of all licences issued. Licensees are required to submit written confirmation of any import to the Service within seven days of receipt of the animals. Licensees are also required to record details of all transactions in a record book that is submitted to the Service annually.

(4) I am advised that the National Parks and Wildlife Service has not received any written allegations relating to the poor health of any reptiles imported into NSW from the Northern Territory.

FIREWOOD AND WOOD-FIRED HEATERS

On 28 June the Hon. Ian Cohen asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment a question without notice relating to firewood and wood-fired heaters. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:

The Government acknowledges that firewood collection, in some circumstances, can have an impact on the environment. At the present time, more than half the firewood supply in Australia is collected from local forests and woodlands on private property, roadsides and travelling stock routes. Much of this firewood comes from remnant vegetation in inland agricultural areas of the south-eastern States and is transported across State borders. In recognition of the potential problems associated with this, the NSW Government has been involved in the development of a national strategy to ensure that all firewood collection, including commercial cutting, is ecologically sustainable.

The National Approach to Firewood Collection and Use in Australia, endorsed by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) on 29 June 2001, will enable governments to address the issue of unsustainable firewood collection at a coordinated, national level. As a signatory to the National Approach, NSW has made a commitment to prepare a comprehensive action plan to ensure that the strategy is implemented appropriately in this State.

ANZECC also endorsed the implementation of a voluntary code of practice that incorporates an accreditation system for commercial suppliers. The code of practice specifies a number of measures firewood merchants will be encouraged to adopt to promote more sustainable use of firewood in Australia. The effectiveness of the code in promoting sustainability will be evaluated in three years.

AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES APPLICATION

On 7 June the Hon. Ian Cohen asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice relating to the licensing of aerial applicators of chemicals. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:

1. Yes.

2. There is a requirement to notify the Environment Protection Authority of any incident where a pesticide leakage or spill has occurred as a result of a crash or forced landing of an aircraft, as soon as practicable after the incident occurs. Aerial operators are also subject to the Pesticides Act 1999.

3. No.

4. Ground rig operators are subject to the Pesticides Act 1999.

5. Ground rig operators and aerial operators are subject to the Pesticides Act 1999. Following advice from the Pesticides Implementation Committee and in consultation with stakeholders and the broader community, the Government has been considering introducing record keeping and training regulations for commercial users, including ground rig operators. It is intended to gazette the record keeping regulation this year. The Regulatory Impact Statement on training will be released for consultation shortly. Aerial operators are also required to be trained and to keep records of usage under the legislation.

6. The creation of a database of agricultural chemical usage in Australia is being considered by a working group on behalf of the Agricultural and Resource Ministerial Council of Australia and New Zealand.

7. Regulating ground rig application of pesticides is an integral part of the Pesticide Implementation Committee's consideration of pesticide use. The Committee is providing advice on the development of training and record keeping regulations for all commercial users of pesticides, including ground rig operators. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16571

NATIONAL PARKS TICKET MACHINES

On 28 June the Hon. Malcolm Jones asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice relating to national parks ticket machines. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:

I am advised that no ticket machines have been damaged in North Coast national parks and reserves and that, in the Mid- North Coast Region, three ticket machines were vandalised. The ticket machines that were vandalised were repaired and relocated to a safer location. An insurance claim has been lodged by the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

BROADWATER COGENERATION FACILITY

On 20 June the Hon. Ian Cohen asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for Energy, a question without notice relating to Broadwater co-generation plant. The Minister for Energy provided the following response:

(1) Under the SEDA's Renewables Investment Program, the NSW Sugar Milling Co-operative was granted a $1 million low-interest loan for its "Cane Trash Bulk Transport System" project. This loan will contribute to a program that will convert the field bins currently used for collecting and transporting sugar cane to a larger size. The extra volume of cane trash, now being collected to be transported simultaneously with the cane to the sugar mills, would be used as fuel in the proposed new cogeneration plants at Condong and Broadwater mills.

(2) While the term "cogeneration" refers to any situation where energy is generated by thermal conversion, any plans for a cogeneration plant greater than 30 megawatts requires an EIS.

Like any other development, the installation of a cogeneration plant is subject to the normal planning approval process, and this involves an EIS where the process requires it.

MOUNT MARSH LOGGING

On 3 July the Hon. Ian Cohen asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for Forestry, a question without notice relating to Mount Marsh State Forest. The Minister provided the following response:

I have been advised that the harvesting operations undertaken in Mount Marsh State Forest are in accord with the Integrated Forestry Operations Approvals and that the protection of threatened species and their habitats has been applied within the guidance of the Threatened Species Licence issued by National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Large areas of the Clarence Valley Lowlands Spotted Gum community have been conserved on public land as part of the Regional Forest Agreement but the majority of this community is present on private land. The sustainable management of the forest estate will ensure that the conservation values of this community are retained through ongoing regeneration and management by State Forests.

I have been advised some protestors referred to were attempting to prevent a legal harvesting operation. Actions by State Forests and, when necessary, by the police were directed towards excluding protestors from the site to allow the harvesting to continue and to maintain the safety of the protestors and contractors. Any allegations of breaches by State Forests of the Integrated Forestry Operations Approval or the relevant licences are investigated by the relevant forest regulators.

WESTERN REGION FORESTRY AGREEMENTS

On 26 June Ms Lee Rhiannon asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for Forestry, a question relating to the western region forestry agreements. The Minister provided the following response:

The Action for the Environment statement indicated that the Government was committed to an industry adjustment package which helps maintain and promote a sustainable and value-adding timber industry in the Brigalow Belt South region.

As with previous Forest Agreements in New South Wales, the Government is committed to outcomes that will balance the economic and social needs of the Brigalow Belt South region, including the long-term maintenance of the timber industry, with conservation needs.

The Western region's current timber industry is vital to the economic and social well being of a number of communities in the region and, as such, has the full support of the Government. No decisions will be made on a restructuring package or other outcomes until detailed assessment of the economic, social, environmental and cultural values of this region have been finalised.

VINCENTIA LAND ACQUISITION

On 27 June the Hon. Don Harwin asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question relating to the acquisition of coastal lands at Vincentia. The Minister provided the following response:

The National Parks and Wildlife Service has not identified these two parcels of land as a high priority for acquisition in relation to their biodiversity values. The Coastal Lands Protection Scheme, under which land may be acquired for coastal access and scenic protection, is administered by the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. This question would therefore be more appropriately addressed to the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning. 16572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

DHARAWAL COMMUNITY RESERVE TRUST

On 6 June the Hon. Ian Cohen asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice relating to Dharawal Community Reserve. The Minister provided the following response:

This question would more appropriately be addressed to the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, the Hon Richard Amery.

PUBLIC SUBMISSION DOCUMENTS ACCESS

On 27 June the Hon. Malcolm Jones asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice relating to access to public submission documents. The Minister provided the following response:

Where a Freedom of Information application is received for access to documents held by NPWS, a determination for release is made according to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1989. Where the documents requested under FOI contain information:

• about the affairs of the Government of the Commonwealth or of another State

• personal affairs

• business affairs, or

• the conduct of research

FOI procedures state that the affected third parties must be consulted to offer their view as to whether a document concerning their affairs should be released. Submissions received by NPWS may contain information about the affairs of third parties. In these instances, when processing an FOI application, NPWS must make contact with each of the parties and gain their permission to release their submission. This consultation process can be lengthy and incur substantial charges for the applicant.

Where permission is granted from the third party, the affected document is generally released to the FOI applicant. Where permission is refused, NPWS will not generally release the document, unless exempt information (such as personal information) is blacked out. Although the final decision on release of a document is made by NPWS, the third party may lodge an appeal against the disclosure. This can lead to external reviews by the Ombudsman and to cases before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal where judgements can be made against the agency.

If access is requested to NPWS documents, but this is not made under the Freedom of Information Act, NPWS is obliged to treat personal information contained within submissions in accordance with the principles of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998. The PPIP Act regulates the way NPWS deals with personal information, in particular how personal information is collected, held, used, and disclosed.

Under the requirements of the PPIP Act, to be able to give members of the public access to submissions individuals have made, the public must be aware, or have been informed through advertising and correspondence that the disclosure normally occurs. If NPWS discloses personal information without knowledge or consent, NPWS would be contravening the PPIP Act and may be subject to damages claims in court. There can be no presumption that members of the public who have made submissions to the NPWS are aware of the PPIP Act and that members of the public can make application for access to their submission. Therefore requests for access to submissions made without an application under FOI will be denied.

TORRINGTON STATE RECREATION AREA

On 27 June the Hon. Malcolm Jones asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice about the Torrington State Recreation Area. The Minister provided the following response:

The question asked by Mr Jones on 4 April 2001 was:

Will the Minister please provide details of meetings arranged and carried out between National Parks and Wildlife Service staff and the local community with regard to the establishment of the Torrington State Recreation Area?

The original answer provided properly answered the question, providing details of meetings between the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the local community regarding the establishment of the Torrington State Recreation Area. The reserve was established in April 1996.

The current question relates to a different sequence of meetings. The "elected representative committee" referred to in the current question is a committee elected by members of the New England Action Group. It is, in effect, a sub-committee of the New England Action Group known as the "Torrington Committee". Meetings were arranged and took place between National Parks and Wildlife Service staff and residents of the Torrington area on 15 December 2000, 17 February 2001, 9 March 2001 and 20 July 2001. The meeting of 15 December 2000 was organised by the New England Action Group. The other meetings were organised by the Service.

Members of the New England Action Group and the Torrington Committee were invited, and attended, these meetings. The main outcome of the meetings has been to allow local residents to discuss the management of Torrington State Recreation Area directly with Service staff, and to give the Service the opportunity to take the concerns and ideas of residents into account in managing the reserve. Issues discussed included the wilderness nomination and assessment, the draft Plan of Management, wild dogs, fire management, tourism, vehicle access and gates. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16573

FIRE ANT CONTROL

On 27 June the Hon. Ian Cohen asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for the Environment, a question without notice relating to the management of red fire ants. The Minister provided the following response:

The National Consultative Committee for Exotic Pests and Diseases is coordinating a national response to fire ants after a number of nests were detected in south-eastern Queensland in early 2001. NSW Agriculture represents NSW on the Consultative Committee. NSW Agriculture is the lead agency for managing the response in NSW and the National Parks and Wildlife Service is liaising closely with NSW Agriculture. While I am unaware of any reported infestations of fire ants in NSW at this time, any suspected sightings of fire ants should be reported to NSW Agriculture on telephone 1800 888 251.

ELECTRICITY RETAILERS GREENHOUSE TARGETS COMPLIANCE

On 3 July the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice, representing the Minister for Energy, a question without notice relating to electricity retailer greenhouse target compliance. The Minister provided the following response:

I am advised by the Minister for Energy that NSW continues to lead other States and Territories in addressing the greenhouse issue. The establishment of the Sustainable Energy Development Authority and the inclusion of greenhouse obligations in gas and electricity retailer licence conditions are just two examples of this leadership.

While, as the Hon. Dr Chesterfield-Evans has noted, most retailers have yet to achieve their greenhouse emission reduction benchmarks, the Honourable Member may be assured that the Government is considering options to further reduce emissions from the sector. However, I am sure that he will also appreciate that greenhouse is a matter of global proportions and accordingly the NSW Government will be looking for other jurisdictions to meet their obligations in addressing this issue.

On 7 June the Premier announced in Parliament the NSW Government's proposal for compulsory greenhouse targets applying to the electricity sector. This proposal involves a per capita greenhouse gas emission reduction target which would be achieved through compliance by retailers with compulsory benchmarks to be phased in over five years. Electricity retailers could reduce emissions through a range of strategies, including demand management, forest plantations and increased uptake of gas-fired generation and renewable energy. Penalties would be imposed on electricity retailers who fail to meet their annual emission reduction targets.

Given the importance of advancing this initiative on a national basis, at the recent COAG meeting the Premier sought support for the proposal and agreement that it be considered in the COAG Energy Review. COAG agreed to include consideration of this approach in the terms of reference for the Review. The NSW Government is currently considering how best to advance the proposal and will consult in September with industry, environmental groups and other States before determining how to proceed.

GOVERNMENT LAND OWNERSHIP DATABASE

On 29 June the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice a question without notice regarding a government land ownership database. The Minister provided the following response:

1. The database referred to is known as the Government Property Register (GPR). The GPR was established by the NSW Government to facilitate effective management of government property assets and to provide an overview of the government held land for future planning purposes. NSW government agencies and members of the public can request data extracts from the GPR by direct application to Land and Property Information, a government business enterprise within the Department of Information Technology and Management (DITM). Access to the GPR is usually sought from other government agencies and occasionally from members of the public. A fee for extracting information from the database is charged for public inquiries. To date, there have been very few requests for access from members of the public.

The Minister's permission is not required for general access to the database. However, protocol is that extraordinary requests for large amounts of data are referred to the Minister, particularly when an exemption from payment is sought.

2. The GPR was not established for the purpose of public inquiry. Rather, it was established by the NSW Government to facilitate effective management of government property assets and to provide an overview of land holdings for future planning purposes. The GPR is used principally by central agencies as a means of identifying property assets and to assist in the identification of land available for sale or redevelopment. It is also used by owner agencies to maintain and review their own property records.

3. The GPR was transferred to DITM from the Department of Land and Water Conservation on 1 July 2000. It requires redevelopment, as it operates on the “Property Hub” platform, which will soon be completely replaced by the Integrated Property Warehouse (IPW). Redevelopment options currently being considered include the development of GIS and Web based interfaces. The principal aim is to improve access and update facilities for government agencies. It is expected that web based access/inquiries will be available by the first quarter of next year.

EMBEZZLED FUNDS TRANSFER

On 26 June the Hon. David Oldfield asked the Treasurer a question without notice relating to embezzled funds transfer. The Minister for Police provided the following response: 16574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

The Manager of the Commercial Crime Agency has advised that the procedure for identifying and obtaining evidence identifying audit-trails of funds into other jurisdictions differs depending on whether the funds have been channelled interstate or overseas. I have been assured that investigations into alleged transfers of the proceeds of crime are given the highest of priority by the Commercial Crime Agency.

Australian law enforcement agencies investigating money laundering activities commonly use the AUSTRAC reporting system to trace financial transactions flowing through third party involvement of financial institutions and other cash dealers. Inquiries with bodies such as AUSTRAC in respect of suspected overseas transfers are conducted as a routine procedure of any investigation, especially major fraud.

VILLAWOOD DETENTION CENTRE

On 28 June the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans asked the Treasurer a question without notice concerning the Villawood Detention Centre. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

The Commonwealth Migration Act 1958 gives a number of bodies, including the New South Wales Commissioner of Police, the power to issue criminal justice stay certificates to delay the deportation of persons required to give evidence in criminal proceedings. Courts may also issue warrants to stay deportation. I am advised that the Commissioner of Police is giving consideration as to whether it is appropriate to issue criminal justice stay certificates in response to allegations of assault raised in connection with the Commonwealth administered Villawood Detention Centre.

The Commissioner, in determining whether it is appropriate to issue a criminal justice stay certificate, has regard to a number of factors including the seriousness of the criminal charges, the likelihood of proving the charges, the strength of the evidence that may be provided by the witness the subject of the certificate, and the likely delay in bringing the matter before a court.

SOLICITORS COSTS

On 26 June the Hon. Peter Breen asked the Treasurer a question without notice concerning solicitors' costs. The Attorney General provided the following response:

The Legal Profession Act 1987 provides in section 184 for a barrister or a solicitor to make an agreement as to the costs of the provision of legal services. A costs agreement may be conditional on the successful outcome of the matter in which the barrister or solicitor provides the legal services. A costs agreement must be in writing or evidenced in writing. However, a solicitor or barrister must also disclose to a client the basis of the costs of the legal services to be provided to the client, including the amount of the costs, if known, or the basis of calculating the costs, the billing arrangements, the rights of a client to a review of costs and to receive a bill of costs.

If the amount of the costs is not disclosed under section 175, the barrister or solicitor must disclose estimated costs under section 177, and, must disclose any significant increase in that estimate. A costs assessor can determine that a term of a costs agreement is unjust, having regard to the circumstances of the case, including whether or not it was reasonably practicable for the applicant to negotiate for the alteration, or to reject any of the provisions of the agreement.

A client who disputes a bill of costs can make a complaint to the Legal Services Commissioner or can apply to have the bill assessed by a costs assessor. Assessors are appointed by the Chief Justice under the Act. Section 208 provides that a cost assessor must not determine an application for assessment unless the costs assessor has given both the applicant and any barrister, solicitor, or client or other person concerned, a reasonable opportunity to make written submissions to the costs assessor in relation to the application and has given due consideration to any submissions so made.

A costs assessor is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform himself or herself on any matter in such manner as he or she sees fit. Sections 208A and 208B require costs assessors to consider a range of matters which are relevant to the work undertaken in reaching their decision, including the reasonableness of the work and the amount of the costs; compliance by the solicitor or barrister with regulations, solicitors rules, barristers rules, costs disclosures and the quality of the work done. The costs assessor is required to consider all of these factors. The procedures for costs assessment are governed by rules made by the costs assessors' rules committee.

THREDBO LANDSLIDE INQUIRY CORONER'S REPORT

On 3 July the Hon. Malcolm Jones asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice a question without notice regarding the Thredbo landslide inquiry coroner's report. The Minister provided the following response:

Following upon the release of the report of the Coronial Inquest the Minister said:

"I would like to announce that we have decided that we will now do everything possible to reduce continuing distress to the families involved.

Wherever possible, our approach will be to settle the common law cases brought by the families through negotiation – not through litigation. We will not be seeking to fight these and other claims."

The Minister was there referring to claims for damages for personal injury brought by relatives and others arising out of the deaths of the victims of the Thredbo landslide. Since that announcement the Government has been proceeding to resolve all claims brought by relatives and other persons for personal injury arising from the deaths of the victims of the Thredbo landslide without the need for court hearings. Agreements to settle claims, or else agreements in principle on the sum of damages to which people are entitled, have been reached in the majority of claims relating to the deaths of the victims of the landslide. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16575

The matters before the Court on 26 June were claims by various businesses that they suffered economic loss as a result of the landslide. These claims are unrelated to the deaths of individual people in the landslide. Counsel for the Government correctly informed the Court that a dispute existed as to whether a duty of care, including the nature and extent of it, was owed by the Government in respect to claims for pure economic loss. This accorded with the legal advice which the government has received from Senior Counsel in this very complex area of law.

The Government has always favoured attempting to resolve claims through negotiation and mediation. However, if reasonable settlement cannot be resolved in a particular case the Government will be obliged, in the public interest, to litigate as it is legally entitled to do.

STOCKTON HOSPITAL CLOSURE

On 5 June the Hon. David Oldfield asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice a question without notice regarding the closure of Stockton Hospital. The Minister for Community Services provided the following response:

1. The NSW Government is committed to the phased closure of all large residential centres like the Stockton Centre which are old and unsuitable and cannot conform to the requirements of the Disability Services Act, 1993. People moving from such institutions will be provided with Government-funded support, in accordance with the needs of each individual that will enable them to live in more suitable community-based accommodation. These changes will be phased in over the next ten years.

2. In New South Wales, people with disabilities are able to apply for support through the Service Access System. This system identifies and prioritises the support needs of applicants with the aim of providing appropriate support services.

3. See above answer. While there are some people with disabilities under the age of 60 residing in an aged care facility, the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care is working to provide alternatives for these individuals.

4. Wherever it is possible the Government will realise the value of capital assets after the closure of large residential centres. There are no immediate plans to sell the Stockton site, and it is anticipated that changes for residents will be phased in over a 10 year period.

5. Yes. It will fund the provision of more suitable alternatives which conform with the requirements of the Disability Services Act, 1993.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES CAMPBELLTOWN OFFICE STAFFING

On 3 July the Hon. John Ryan asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice a question without notice regarding the cancellation of foster care training and a delay of assessment of foster carers already trained due to the reduction of staff at the Campbelltown Community Services Centre. The Minister for Community Services provided the following response:

1. No.

2. The training course for potential foster carers which was scheduled to commence on 28 July 2001 was postponed due to four experienced trainers moving to other employment. A review of the foster care training at Campbelltown Community Services Centre (CSC) is being conducted, and potential carers will be advised of the new training dates.

3. Foster carers who were trained in March 2001, are currently being assessed. It is anticipated that all other outstanding assessments will be completed by the end of August 2001.

4. There has been no reduction in staff at Campbelltown CSC. An additional position of Manager, Casework has been allocated to the Campbelltown office, and recruitment is currently taking place for this position.

WATER POLLUTION

On 3 July the Hon. Ian Cohen asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice a question without notice regarding stormwater pollution. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:

The great majority of the stormwater treatment devices constructed by local councils and other stormwater managers are litter traps or gross pollutant traps, which aim to capture litter, coarse sediment and, in some cases, oil and grease. In broad terms, these traps also remove some other chemical pollutants that are attached to the sediment. These traps are not, however, designed or expected to remove chemical or faecal pollution.

Stormwater treatment measures other than gross pollutant traps which have a greater capacity to remove this pollution include constructed wetlands, infiltration devices and other innovative devices employing vegetative filtration. Stormwater treatment wetlands have been incorporated into some existing urban areas where space allows, and they are typically one component of the stormwater management measures incorporated into new 'greenfield' developments. Over 70 stormwater treatment wetlands have been constructed throughout the State using Stormwater Trust funding.

The Government has, through the Stormwater Trust, demonstrated some of the other innovative treatment measures which can remove chemical and faecal pollution. For example, a stormwater infiltration basin constructed at Annandale as part of a Stormwater Trust project has been found to reduce levels of faecal coliform pollution in stormwater by over 90 percent.

The preferred approach of the Stormwater Trust and the Government is, however, pollution prevention. Measures such as auditing of industrial premises and other educational initiatives aim to reduce stormwater pollution by not allowing 16576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

pollutants to enter the stormwater drainage system in the first place. This is a pertinent point in relation to chemical pollution, in light of the limited capacity of many stormwater treatment devices to remove such pollution. Similarly, the focus of the sewage overflow abatement program negotiated between the EPA and Sydney Water is to prevent faecal pollution entering the waterways at the source, rather than seeking to treat sewage overflow discharges.

COUNTRY ENERGY ELECTRICITY TARIFFS

On 3 July the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice a question without notice regarding Country Energy electricity tariffs. The Minister for Energy provided the following response:

(1) The key reason for the Country Energy merger is to ensure that electricity customers in regional and rural NSW have a viable local electricity retailer that understands the needs of rural customers, and is able to effectively compete in the reformed electricity market.

From 1 January 2002, all electricity customers will be able to choose their electricity retailer. It is widely accepted that the previous rural businesses lacked the scale to compete with their larger city-based counterparts in a sustainable way. The merger ensures that the new rural business is of sufficient size to compete effectively on the basis of price and the quality of services provided to customers.

Country Energy will be big enough to carry the many overheads a major electricity retailer needs to be competitive. The merged business will have a customer base of about 700,000 premises, an annual turnover in excess of $1.2 billion and will employ almost 2,500 staff.

Country Energy will be able to afford the costs of developing new products for customers; it will have greater buying power in the market; it will have much better reach into other markets; and it will avoid the costly duplication of IT systems to support full retail competition. All of these factors will assist the merged business to deliver price and service benefits to rural customers.

A key part of the Government's reform package is a strong consumer protection regime. In addition to a range of measures such as the establishment of an Ombudsman scheme, the Government has ensured that all small retail customers will have access to a regulated price if they do not want to choose their retailer. IPART will regulate these prices.

(2) Country Energy recently announced an average price increase of 1.89% for franchise customers, well below CPI of 2.92%. The price increase is necessary to comply with the price levels set by IPART. For residential customers, the price change translates to an increase of less than 6 cents per day, based on an average quarterly bill of $193.

JERVIS BAY DRAFT ZONING AND OPERATIONAL PLAN

On 7 June the Hon. Don Harwin asked the Minister for Fisheries a question without notice relating to the Marine Parks Authority Jervis Bay draft zoning and operational plan. The Minister provided the following response:

Draft zoning and operational plans for Jervis Bay are being currently developed. It is anticipated that these plans should be released later this year for a period of three months during which extensive community consultation will occur.

PRISONERS DRUG DEALING

On 4 July the Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice a question without notice relating to prison drug dealing. The Minister for Corrective Services provided the following response:

As has previously been reported in the metropolitan media, correctional officers found six mobile phones at the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre (MRRC) on 29 June 2001. As the inmates were on remand at the time, the rest of the honourable member's question cannot be answered without drawing conclusions which would, in all likelihood, be in contempt of court.

ONE.TEL TELEPHONE CONTRACTS

On 5 June Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Mineral Resources a question without notice in relation to former customers of the One.Tel telephone company. The Minister for Fair Trading provided the following response:

As public statements by the Premier, the Hon R J Carr, MP, have demonstrated, the Government has been very concerned by the collapse of One.Tel. The NSW Government does not have jurisdiction over telecommunications; this is a Commonwealth Government responsibility. All inquiries to the Department of Fair Trading have been referred to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman.

RECREATIONAL SALTWATER FISHING LICENCES

On 7 June the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner asked the Minister for Fisheries a question without notice relating to recreational saltwater fishing licences. The Minister provided the following supplementary response:

I am advised that fourteen fisheries officers conducted vehicle and vessel patrols over the Easter break, educating fishers about the new recreational fishing fee and advising anglers on general recreational fishing rules. I am advised that the North Coast advisory operation was funded from both core NSW Fisheries funding and the Recreational Fishing Saltwater Trust. I am advised that four fisheries officers were engaged in patrols in the Far West and that one of the positions and one of the vehicles involved in this operation was funded from the Recreational Fishing Freshwater Trust. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16577

YABBY SCOOPS BAN

On 7 June the Hon. Rick Colless asked the Minister for Fisheries a question without notice relating to yabby scoops. The Minister provided the following response:

The gear that can be legally used to fish as a recreational fisher is prescribed in the Fisheries Management (General) Regulations 1995. To take yabbies in New South Wales, the only methods that can be used are a yabby trap and hand hauled yabby net of legally prescribed dimensions. New South Wales Fisheries advise that yabby scoops can cause damage to the river beds and habitat in which yabbies and other fish species live and breed.

There are strict controls on the use of yabby traps to protect birds and mammals and these include a ban in all waters east of the Newell Highway. The rules and regulations for freshwater fishing are regularly reviewed to ensure they are environmentally sustainable. The review process will include consultation with recreational fishers.

SWANSEA BRIDGE OPERATION

On 7 June the Hon. Greg Pearce asked the Minister for Mineral Resources a question without notice relating to the Swansea Bridge. The Minister for Transport provided the following response:

I am advised by the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] that the eastern Swansea Bridge (new bridge) experienced some problems recently due to a faulty hydraulic level indicator safety switch. The switch was quickly replaced and there was no damage caused to the bridge or its operating system.

EASTERN DISTRIBUTOR CONSTRUCTION HOMES DAMAGE

On 26 June Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Minister for Mineral Resources a questions without notice relating to building damage along the Eastern Distributor. The Minister for Roads provided the following response:

I am advised that all responsibility for this matter remains with Leighton Contractors Pty Limited. Leighton Contractors Pty Limited (Leighton Contractors) have advised that whilst a small number of claims for alleged property damages caused by the Eastern Distributor construction remain outstanding, it is not in the vicinity of 50 separate homes. The Eastern Distributor was opened on 19 December 1999 except for the William Street on and off ramps which were opened on 23 July 2000. I am advised that Leighton Contractors have assessed all claims for property damage on a case by case basis. I understand that Leighton Contractors will continue to respond to community concerns regarding claims of any damage to properties.

The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] has been monitoring the status of, and responses to, claims made in order to ensure that Leighton Contractors fulfil their obligations. I understand that the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, the Hon. Dr Andrew Refshauge MP, has agreed to establish an independent technical assessment panel to examine this issue. The RTA will assist by providing necessary information and facilitate the work of the panel.

SWANSEA BRIDGE OPERATION

On 27 June the Hon. Charlie Lynn asked the Minister for Mineral Resources a questions without notice relating to the operation of the Swansea Bridge. The Minister for Roads provided the following response:

This question and the supplementary asks for information that was supplied in an answer to a question asked recently by the Hon. Greg Pearce, MLC. I refer the honourable member to the answer I provided to that question without notice.

INLAND RECREATIONAL FISHING

On 27 June the Hon. Rick Colless asked the Minister for Fisheries a question without notice relating to inland recreational fishing. The Minister provided the following response:

Travelling stock reserves are managed by the Rural Lands Protection Board which is within the portfolio and responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Richard Amery.

FISH STOCKS PROTECTION

On 4 July the Hon. Ian Cohen asked the Minister for Fisheries a question without notice relating to Commonwealth fisheries legislation. The Minister provided the following response:

(a) I am advised that the Commonwealth does not impose size limits on the commercial fish caught in Commonwealth fisheries

(b) Yes, I am aware of the issues you have raised and have written to Senator Hill and Minister Tuckey on 28 June 2001, raising concerns about this issue and seeking complementary management for those species subject to State size limits. I have also referred the issue to my Ocean Fish Trawl Management Advisory Committee for further advice and have suggested single jurisdiction trips should be considered. The matter has also been raised by NSW Fisheries, at the Commonwealth South-East Trawl Management Advisory Committee.

(c) NSW Fisheries is considering the implementation of single jurisdiction trips and has increased compliance in areas where it is suspected that misreporting is occurring. 16578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

KOSCIUSZKO REGION PIG HUNTING

On 21 June the Hon. Malcolm Jones asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice a question without notice relating to Kosciuszko region pig hunting. The Minister for the Environment provided the following response:

No serious clashes have occurred recently between pig hunters and National Parks and Wildlife Service Rangers in the Kosciuszko region. The last serious incident in Southern Kosciuszko National Park occurred in December 1999 when illegal pig hunters in a four-wheel drive vehicle refused to stop for Service staff during a joint night Service/Police operation. This incident resulted in a minor vehicle collision and the driver of the four-wheel drive vehicle was fined $4,400 and his passenger was fined $1,200, both inclusive of court costs. The last prosecution for having pig dogs in Northern Kosciuszko National Park occurred in March 2000. An $800 fine was imposed by the courts for this breach of the National Parks and Wildlife Act.

MONTAGUE ISLAND FUR SEAL

On 27 June the Hon. Richard Jones asked the Minister for Juvenile Justice a question without notice relating to the Montague Island fur seal. The Minister provided the following response:

1. The Narooma Office of the NPWS received two anonymous calls on 5 June 2001 reporting an injured seal on Montague Island. It was explained to the callers that Service officers on the Island were temporarily out of contact and the injured seal would therefore be attended to the following day. The NPWS officers could not return to the island that day prior to the night time curfew on crossing the Narooma Bar.

2. Yes. The Service officer taking the call correctly declined the offer because the officer is not authorised to give permission for a member of the public to euthanase a marine mammal.

3. Injured seals on Montague Island are natural and frequent occurrences and all cases that come to the Service's notice are investigated promptly.

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE INDUSTRIES SITE SAFETY

On 20 June the Hon. Richard Jones asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice relating to ADI Pty Ltd sites. The Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning provided the following response:

The previous activities on the ADI site at St Marys and the remediation activities undertaken to ensure it is suitable for development were the subject of an extensive audit carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Contaminated Land Management Act, 1997. At no stage has there been any information or evidence to suggest that the site was used for experiments with radioactive materials or that it was contaminated by radioactivity.

ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER

On 4 July the Hon. Elaine Nile asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice concerning attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]. The Minister for Health provided the following response:

Methylphenidate (Ritalin) and dexamphetamine are subject to the requirements of the Poison and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966. These medications can be one component in the treatment of ADHD. Under the provisions of the Act, diagnosis and prescribing is restricted in terms of Criteria for the Diagnosis and Management of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children and Adolescents (TG181/4) published by NSW Health. There are age-related requirements before an authority to prescribe stimulants will be issued. The criteria are freely available to health professionals and consumers and can be found on the Internet at www.health.nsw.gov.au/public/psb/adhd.

The information contained in the document is consistent with the National Health and Medical Research Council report on ADHD. The National Health and Medical Research Council report on ADHD cited earlier Australian studies which estimated just over 1 per cent of children aged 2-17 years and only 0.02% of children under four in NSW were being treated with methylphenidate (Ritalin) or dexamphetamine for ADHD as at 30 June 2000.

Under the NSW Parenting Program for Mental Health, NSW Health has allocated $2.5 million (in collaboration with the Commonwealth) to parenting initiatives over a five-year period. The Triple P (Positive Parenting Program) is one of the programs being established in NSW under this initiative. This program has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing the level of behavioural and emotional problems in young children and increasing parental confidence. The program has also been trialled for parents of children with ADHD and proved effective in reducing behavioural problems. NSW Health is also establishing a Parenting Resource Centre to assist Area Health Services to identify other evidence-based parenting programs which can be offered to parents.

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

On 31 May the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice concerning the employment contract of the Commissioner of Police. The Minister for Police has provided the following response:

On 31 March 2000, the Premier issued Memorandum No. 2000-5 to address issues that were subsequently raised by the Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 at recommendation 3, and other recommendations, of its Report on Inquiry into Contract of Employment of Commissioner of Police. The Memorandum provided that: 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16579

• Chief and Senior Executive Service (CES and SES) remuneration rates, including those of the Commissioner and members of the Police Service Senior Executive Service, are set in the annual determinations of the Statutory and Other Offices Remuneration Tribunal; and

• no additional inclusions in the contractual arrangements for CES and SES officers relating to remuneration or benefits may be entered into via a separate contract, without the approval of the Director-General of the Premier's Department.

I am advised the Premier's Department and Ministry for Police are working on a proposal to further address the Standing Committee's recommendations by making any necessary amendments to the Police Service Act 1990 and Public Sector Management Act 1988.

FEDERAL MEMBER FOR HUME POLICE CORRUPTION ALLEGATIONS

On 31 May the Hon. Ian Macdonald asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice concerning Mr Alby Schultz corruption allegations. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

The allegations by the Federal Member for Hume, Mr Alby Schultz, MP, were published in several newspapers during early May 2001. I understand that this matter is currently before the Police Integrity Commission and it is not appropriate for me to comment further.

INSURANCE COMPANIES REGULATION

On 6 June the Hon. John Ryan asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice relating to the regulation of insurance companies. The Special Minister provided the following response:

I am advised by the Motor Accidents Authority that the Authority's files and records do not show that there have been any representations made by HIH Insurance or FAI regarding the regulation of the insurance industry, nor can senior staff at the Authority recall any representations.

BUILDING THE FUTURE

On 6 June the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice relating to Building the Future submissions. The Minister for Education and Training provided the following response:

A postal address included in the Building the Future draft proposal contained an error. Arrangements were made with Australia Post to redirect mail. A problem involving a change of personnel for two days caused problems with a small amount of mail. Departmental project officers have contacted schools and school community groups to ensure that the submissions made by them have been received by the Department. I am advised that five individuals contacted the Department after their submissions had been returned to them. Arrangements were made to ensure the submissions were received by the project team.

NALTREXONE IMPLANTS

On 7 June Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice relating to naltrexone implants. The following response was provided:

Question 1 I am advised that the Western Australian Medical Board has not funded naltrexone implants treatment.

Question 2 I am advised that neither the Western Australian Medical Board nor the Western Australian and Queensland Departments of Health support the use of naltrexone, administered as an implant. I am advised that only one doctor was carrying out this procedure in Queensland and the Medical Board in Queensland has altered the conditions of registration of the doctor to prevent him from carrying out the naltrexone implant procedure. I am advised that Curtin University has ceased supply of naltrexone implants until their safety and efficacy is established by a rigorous clinical trial, approved by a formal ethics committee.

Question 3 Due to lack of evidence supporting the safety or the efficacy of the procedure at this time, the NSW Government does not support the practice of inserting naltrexone implants into patients as a method of treating opioid dependence.

MARIJUANA USE ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY

On 7 June the Hon. Richard Jones asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice relating to the existence of a zero tolerance policy on the use of marijuana. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

It is the duty of police officers to enforce laws made by this Parliament, including the provisions of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The deployment of drug detection dogs or other specific police resources to investigate possible breaches of the law is an operational issue determined by the Police Service. The honourable member may be interested to know that I am advised that in the first 12 months, to April 2001, of the statewide Cannabis Cautioning Scheme police issued some 2,380 cautions, instead of prosecuting for possession of small amounts of cannabis. 16580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

LIQUOR AND GAMBLING LAWS COMPLIANCE

On 7 June the Hon. Elaine Nile asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice relating to gaming and racing compliance staff levels. The Minister for Gaming and Racing provided the following response:

From the outset, I can advise that the contribution of the Department of Gaming and Racing towards the effective regulation of the liquor and gaming laws in this State has by no means been diminished or undermined. Last year a strategic assessment was made of the Department's Liquor and Gaming Compliance Program which clearly identified that a new business and industry environment had emerged. This change was the impetus for the restructure of the Compliance Division which needed to adopt a new approach and different compliance program strategies.

In reference to the staff figures quoted by the Hon Elaine Nile, it is correct that, as at June last year, the Compliance Division had 126 established positions. However, the actual staffing was 97 officers. The restructure, which was effected in November last year provides the Compliance Division with 78 established positions and is under the direct control of the Department's Deputy Director-General.

In the first six months, it is evident that the restructured Compliance Division is performing beyond expectations and this is a view supported by a constant stream of favourable feedback to my office from the club, liquor and gaming industry. Notwithstanding that the restructure was achieved by a downsizing program, the Compliance Division's Enforcement Branch has increased work volume in a number of key areas of the compliance program. This is attributed to the Compliance Division's implementation of improved business practices and benchmarking programs, which underpin the strategic plan.

In the 2001-02 financial year it is anticipated that the compliance officers of the Enforcement Branch will institute 30 disciplinary and prosecution proceedings before the Licensing Court, resolve 1,140 complaints concerning the conduct of licensed and club premises, conduct 1,900 inspections, examinations and audits, issue 1,500 compliance notices and over 100 penalty notices, and work collaboratively with the NSW Police Service and the industry's peak bodies on about 30 special projects.

It is relevant to note that the 580 complaints referred to in the Budget Estimates figures for the financial year 1999-2000 did not include a number of internally generated projects. These subsequently accounted for over 300 matters that were referred to as case management files and have previously gone unreported. Of course, the primary objective of the Compliance Division is to enforce liquor and gaming legislation and harm minimisation programs through a professional, efficient and effective compliance program. It is important to note, however, that this role complements, rather than replaces, the activities of the NSW Police Service in this area.

The Compliance Division is doing more for less and creating public value. There is no doubt that the Compliance Division, through its nine core programs and associated strategies can regulate the industry in an effective and professional manner as demanded by its stakeholders.

PARLIAMENT HOUSE BLOCKADE

On 20 June the Hon. Charlie Lynn asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice concerning the Parliament House blockade. The following response was provided:

Regarding the private sector, to the best of my knowledge there has been no call from major unions for employers to pay workers who participated in the stop work action on 19 June 2001. It is a matter for individual employers, their employees and respective unions to resolve, having regard to the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 and any relevant industrial instruments. Regarding the public sector, I am advised that the Public Service Association nor any other public sector union has made no claim for payment.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

On 20 June the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice relating to school closures information. The Minister for Education and Training provided the following response:

Parents of all students attending schools affected by proposed changes, including Marrickville and Dulwich High Schools, have been mailed information about these changes, as well as information in community languages concerning access to the telephone interpreter service. Departmental project officers will continue to work with each school during the extended consultation period to provide continuity in the consultation process and to ensure that members of the schools' communities, including those with language backgrounds other than English, have every opportunity to be equal contributors in the extended consultation period.

SCHOOLS FUNDING

On 20 June Ms Lee Rhiannon asked a question without notice of the Special Minister of State relating to school funding. The Minister for Education and Training provided the following response:

These non-government schools received interest subsidies in 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 under the Government's Interest Subsidy Scheme. The Scheme provides subsidies to non-government schools on borrowings raised for capital developments. The subsidies only apply to facilities which are comparable in cost and area standard to government schools in accordance with the State Government's School Building Code. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16581

HOLMAN PLACE SCHOOL PROTECTED DISCLOSURES

On 20 June the Hon. David Oldfield asked a question without notice of the Special Minister of State relating to Holman Place School. The Minister for Education and Training provided the following response:

No staff member at Holman Place School in Cowra was fired or forced to transfer as a reprisal action for having made a protected disclosure. I refer the honourable member to the answer I gave on 9 May 2001.

PARLIAMENT HOUSE BLOCKADE

On 20 June the Leader of the Opposition asked a question without notice of the Special Minister of State relating to the Parliament House blockade. The following response was provided:

Questions concerning the security of Parliament House should be directed to the Presiding Officers of the Parliament.

TEACHERS WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIMS

On 20 June the Hon. Helen Sham-Ho asked a question without notice of the Special Minister of State relating to teachers workers compensation claims. The Minister for Education and Training provided the following response:

(1) On average, 1% of school teachers received compensation for stress related claims for each of the years in the period 1994 to 1999. For example, 520 (out of a workforce of 52,000) teachers received compensation for stress related injuries in the year 1998 to 1999. Over the period 1994 to 1999 the total cost of stress claims was $26 million. These payments represent compensation to teachers by way of weekly payments or by lump sums and also include payments for medical treatment, legal costs and rehabilitation. Workers Compensation coverage for NSW government employees is provided by the Treasury Managed fund. The Department of Education and Training pays premiums to this Fund. The Fund makes payments to teachers for workers compensation claims, including those for psychological injury.

(2) The Department of Education and Training has an extensive range of support and welfare strategies to assist teachers. Effective communication networks ensure that principals of schools are regularly informed of the support services available to teachers. Principals provide assistance and guidance to teachers on many issues ranging from curriculum to teachers' welfare. Each of the 40 school districts has a staff welfare officer and a personnel support officer who provide support and assistance to teachers and principals.

In addition, the Department's Occupational Health Safety and Rehabilitation Unit co-ordinates statewide provision of injury prevention, injury management and staff welfare services. Officers of the Unit and district officers work closely with GIO's injury managers to achieve early notification of injuries and a safe, timely return to appropriate duties for teachers who are injured.

The Department also has an Employee Assistance Program which provides free confidential counselling services for staff in relation to personal, work and family related problems. The Department extensively promotes the use of the Employee Assistance Program which is provided by external, registered psychologists with clinical experience. This program provides a 24 hour toll free telephone crisis service, individual face to face or telephone counselling for staff members available from 7.30am to 10.00pm Monday to Friday and serious incident counselling within 24 hours of contact with the provider.

ILLEGAL LAND CLEARING PROSECUTIONS

On 21 June the Hon Helen Sham-Ho asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice relating to illegal land clearing prosecutions. The Minister for Agriculture provided the following response:

There has been a range of unsubstantiated figures quoted on land clearing in New South Wales from various sources in the past. However, an independent report by the Environmental Research and Information Consortium (ERIC) into the rates of clearing of native woody vegetation in New South Wales over the period 1997-2000, identified that an average of 14,028 hectares were cleared annually. The report, which was commissioned by the Department of Land and Water Conservation and used satellite imagery to determine its findings, includes clearing undertaken with and without permission but does not pick up clearing of native grasslands, shrubs or isolated trees.

It should also be noted that in certain instances, clearing can be undertaken legally, without the Department's permission. Certain land and activities are excluded from the operation of the Native Vegetation Conservation Act and other routine- type farming activities are exempt from the need to obtain development consent. Prosecution proceedings have been commenced in respect of one case of alleged illegal clearing under the Native Vegetation Conservation Act. However, unlike its predecessor, State Environmental Planning Policy No 46 – Protection and Management of Native Vegetation, the Act offers a range of responses to alleged breaches, depending on the circumstances. The response chosen by the Department in all instances is designed to achieve the best environmental outcome under the objects of the legislation.

The Government is continually monitoring the Native Vegetation Conservation Act to ensure its effective implementation. As an example, a Community Reference Panel appointed by the Government has recently reported its findings on ways to enhance the regional vegetation planning process, which the Government will be taking on board. Also, an independent scientific review of the exemptions applying under the Act has been completed and the same panel is now finalising its recommendations on the review. The upshot of this should be a set of technically and scientifically sound exemptions to facilitate day-to-day farm management practices that can be clearly implemented without any ambiguity, consistent with the objects of the Act. 16582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

The Government has also provided an additional $5 million to the Native Vegetation Management Fund, increasing its investment in the fund to $20 million, as a continuing incentive to landholders wishing to conserve and enhance native vegetation on their properties. Further, the recently enacted Nature Conservation Trust Act 2000 will establish a trust to encourage conservation of natural heritage and associated cultural heritage. Among other things, the trust will operate a revolving fund, whereby it will be able to buy land with conservation value, secure it under a covenant and then sell it to sympathetic owners.

Within the Department, compliance operations have recently been strengthened and integrated at both a regional and head office level, and a draft compliance policy is to be released shortly. The policy is designed to inform and educate landholders and the wider community on their roles and responsibilities for native vegetation management. The Department's guidelines used for the assessment of clearing applications under the Native Vegetation Conservation Act are also being revised in light of an independent review and to take account of salinity impact assessment issues. Finally, the Department, in conjunction with an inter-agency technical working group, is developing statewide and bioregional targets for vegetation retention and revegetation. These targets, following input from Regional Vegetation Committees and Catchment Management Boards, will be incorporated in regional vegetation management plans and will also strengthen the parameters for assessing clearing applications.

BARWON RIVER CONTAMINATION

On 21 June the Hon. Richard Jones asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice relating to the Barwon River. The Minister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land and Water Conservation has provided the following response:

The aquatic ecosystem of the Barwon River and many of its tributaries has been affected by a number of causes. The cotton industry cannot be solely blamed for the present state of the river system. Other causes impacting on the health of the river system include urban run-off, declining riparian vegetation, increasing incidence of carp in the system, impact of weirs, changed flow regimes and increases in turbidity, salinisation, nutrients and weed growth. Equally, the cotton industry cannot be solely held responsible for the loss of invertebrates and water spiders. In this regard, a monitoring program has disclosed that numbers in irrigated agricultural areas were not significantly lower than numbers in non- irrigated areas over the same period.

This Government has implemented a range of strategies to improve the river health. These strategies include, but are not limited to, recognising environmental needs within the provisions of the Water Management Act 2000; liaising with the Queensland Government to develop Flow Sharing Plans in the Border Rivers and intersecting streams; and mitigating the long-term harm associated with the salinisation of soils and waterways through the NSW Salinity Strategy. More specifically, the Department of Land and Water Conservation has been liaising with the cotton industry, through Cotton Australia, to develop and implement the Australian cotton industry's Best Management Practices manual. Since 1991, the Department has been collaborating with the cotton industry in a pesticide monitoring project in the Macquarie, Namoi-Gwydir and Border Rivers catchments.

Furthermore, Cotton Australia and the Cotton Research and Development Corporation are actively researching alternate management practices including biotechnology and biological insect controls. As regards fish kills and pesticides in rainwater tanks, the Minister for Land and Water Conservation considers these are issues for the Minister for Fisheries, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Health to address as they are outside the jurisdiction of the Department of Land and Water Conservation.

KINGS CROSS MEDICALLY SUPERVISED INJECTING ROOM

On 21 June the Hon. Rick Colless asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice relating to the Kings Cross medically supervised injecting room. The following answer was provided:

1. I am advised that the Uniting Church in Australia, as the licensee of the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre, has engaged the services of a media consultant to prepare media releases and handle media inquiries in relation to the Centre. I am advised that as at mid July 2001, the Uniting Church has spent $30,002 on these services.

2. No.

METROSHELF WORKERS PROTECTION

On 21 June the Hon. Dr Peter Wong asked a question without notice of the Special Minister of State relating to Metroshelf workers protection. The following response was provided:

I am advised that the employees at Metroshelf were not stood down on the basis of union membership but in relation to industrial action over security of employment concerns. Further, I have been informed that the fifty workers who were stood down have been fully reinstated and negotiations continue in regard to industrial matters at Metro Shelf.

HAWKESBURY-NEPEAN CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT TRUST

On 21 June the Hon. Ian Cohen asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice relating to the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment management. The Minister for Agriculture provided the following response:

The issue of water quality in South Creek is a matter for the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Bob Debus MP. Sewage Treatment Plants and their effluent discharges are the responsibility of the Hon Kim Yeadon MP Minister for Energy. The new management arrangements for the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment will enhance and not compromise the environmental management of the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment. Minister Amery has already announced a suite of new funding initiatives for on-ground works for the Hawkesbury-Nepean funded from the immediate administrative savings accrued from the integration of the Trust's activities into the Department of Land and Water Conservation. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16583

HILLSTON CENTRAL SCHOOL TEACHERS ACCOMMODATION

On 21 June the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked a question without notice of the Special Minister of State relating to Hillston Central School. The Minister for Education and Training provided the following response:

(1) The Teacher Housing Authority of New South Wales [THA] is not aware of any situation where the absence of suitable accommodation has jeopardised the appointment of a teacher to Hillston Central School. A four bedroom THA house has been allocated to a teacher recently appointed to Hillston.

The THA has 14 dwellings in Hillston (six houses and eight villa units) which supplement private rental accommodation available in the town. Consideration is being given to increasing the THA provision as part of the 2001-02 Capital Program. In the meantime, should the need for additional accommodation arise, the THA will seek the co-operation of single teachers living in two bedroom villa units who have indicated a willingness to share to facilitate a share arrangement.

(2) There is no basis for the claim that there is inadequate teacher accommodation in country New South Wales. In the last five years, the THA has provided 94 new dwellings throughout the State at a cost of $13 million. Over the same period, the THA has spent, on average, $5 million each year in maintaining and upgrading existing dwellings.

WORKCOVER STAFF DEPARTURES

On 26 June the Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister for Industrial Relations a question without notice relating to WorkCover Authority staff departures. The following response was provided:

I have been advised that WorkCover has in place administrative polices and procedures that ensure that recruitment action is initiated promptly to fill vacant positions. WorkCover undertook a major restructuring program during the 1998/99 and 1999/00 financial years. Over this period WorkCover's staff turn over rates were 25 per cent and 27 per cent, respectively. As a result of improved management practices in WorkCover, staff turn over has stabilised during the current financial year and has reduced to 14.8 per cent. It should be noted that over the past three years, WorkCover has recruited staff to in excess of five hundred and thirty positions. I am advised that the delay in the gazettal of WorkCover's voluntary redundancies was a simple administrative oversight that has been subsequently rectified.

WORKCOVER TARIFF CLASSIFICATION

On 26 June the Hon. Doug Moppett asked the Minister for Industrial Relations a question without notice relating to WorkCover tariff classifications. The following response was provided:

I have been advised that WorkCover's workers compensation insurer in the period 1989 to September 1999 was GIO Australia. On 1 September 1999, WorkCover joined the Treasury Managed Fund. GIO Australia had placed WorkCover in the tariff classification covering Financial Institutions. On entering the Treasury Managed Fund, WorkCover was advised that the Financial Institutions classification was not reflective of all the risk factors that WorkCover staff were exposed to. Subsequently, a loading was added to the WorkCover premium to reflect the greater risk exposure. WorkCover remains in the Financial Institutions classification but with a loading added.

DULWICH HILL AND MARRICKVILLE HIGH SCHOOLS AMALGAMATION

On 26 June the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked a question without notice of the Special Minister of State relating to the amalgamation of Dulwich Hill and Marrickville high schools. The Minister for Education and Training provided the following response:

Further community consultation will take place to determine whether Dulwich High School and Marrickville High School will amalgamate and, if so, the site of the amalgamation. A working party, consisting of school, parent and community representatives, was formed in July, 2001 to complete this consultation by the end of September, 2001.

TUGGERAH LAKES COLLEGE

On 27 June the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked a question without notice of the Special Minister of State relating to the Tuggerah Lakes college proposal. The Minister for Education and Training provided the following response:

I am not personally aware of the meeting on 13 June 2001 referred to in the question or any motions it may or may not have passed. However, over the past 18 months extensive consultations have taken place around the restructuring proposal and it has the unanimous support of the Central Coast Secondary Principals Council and the Central Coast District Council of Parents and Citizens Associations. I can assure honourable Members that senior officers of the Department of Education and Training are working productively with teachers, parents and students to ensure a smooth implementation of Tuggerah Lakes College.

SCHOOLS FUNDING

On 27 June the Hon. John Ryan asked a question without notice of the Special Minister for State relating to school funding. The Minister for Education and Training provided the following response:

The estimated expenditure of $100 million, as proposed under the Government's plans for building the future of inner Sydney schools, is equivalent to the amount to be realised from the disposal of the underutilised school sites, also identified in the plan. Access to this level of funding, however, will not be contingent upon the immediate disposal of the identified sites - school upgrades will occur regardless of the state of progress of asset disposal. 16584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

GOROKAN NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH GROUP

On 27 June the Leader of the Opposition asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice concerning the Gorokan Neighbourhood Watch Group. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

The Police Service has advised that local police attended the public meeting of approximately 20 people on 25 July, 2001, and addressed the group's concerns. I understand a number of issues were discussed. The Tuggerah Lakes Area Command Crime Manager has indicated the meeting was very positive and following discussions, police agreed to raise the level of policing in Gorokan Drive and Christopher Avenue The honourable member may be assured that the Tuggerah Lakes Local Area Command continually targets crime in the area of which the Neighbourhood Watch Group plays an important part.

PRIVATE LANDS CONSERVATION VALUES

On 27 June the Hon. Ian Cohen asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice relating to private land conservation value protection. The Deputy Premier and Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning provided the following response:

The Committee has been formed and first met on Wednesday 4 October 2000. The National Park and Wildlife Service has sought funding. The Committee has considered other funding sources.

LICENSED FIREARM OWNERS

On 29 June the Hon. John Tingle asked a question without notice of the Special Minister of State relating to firearm owners. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

I am aware of no such report by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The report which I suspect the Honourable Member is referring to, entitled The Licensing and Registration Status of Firearms Used in Homicide, was produced by the Australian Institute of Criminology in May 2000. As I have stated on numerous occasions, through the provisions of the Firearms Act 1996 the Government has recognised the right of responsible and law-abiding shooters to pursue legitimate sporting activities. Whilst records are retained of all firearm licensees, I am advised by the Police Service that firearm licensees are not listed in the computerised operational policing system (COPS) as persons of special interest, nor are they categorised with known or suspected criminals.

GOVERNMENT WEB SITE

On 29 June the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice concerning the Government web site. The following response was provided:

The workers compensation premium rates were available on the website of the Department of Public Works and Services from 2pm on 22 June 2001. The electronic file for the workers compensation premium rates was received by WorkCover on 22 June 2001. As the document is a long and complex one (429 pages), it was divided into component parts before it was loaded onto the WorkCover website to allow for easier access by employers and other interested parties. The document was loaded as quickly as possible.

In the meantime, all workers compensation insurers were provided with a hard copy of the rates. In addition, the rates were distributed in hard copy and by e-mail to members of the Workers Compensation and Occupational Health and Safety Council and Industry Reference Groups prior to gazettal.

SCHOOL MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS

On 29 June the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked a question without notice of the Special Minister of State relating to school maintenance payments. The Minister for Education and Training provided the following response:

In response to concerns raised by some of the school facilities maintenance contractors regarding the processing and timing of payments for repair work in schools relating to Managed Fund (insurance) type incidents, the Department of Education and Training established a unit in the second half of last year to work closely with the maintenance contractors and the Department of Public Works and Services to resolve any outstanding payment issue.

There are 23 maintenance contractors covering the 40 school districts in NSW. The issues raised in the Daily Telegraph article on June 18, 2001 relate in the main to only two maintenance contractors. Both the Department of Education and Training and the Department of Public Works and Services are working with the relevant maintenance contractors to resolve any outstanding Managed Fund payment issues as a matter of urgency. In the meantime all maintenance contractors are continuing to fulfil their services to schools under the school facilities maintenance contract.

ETHNIC COMMUNITIES COUNCIL FUNDING

On 29 June the Hon. Dr Peter Wong asked a question without notice of the Special Minister of State relating to Ethnic Communities Council funding. The Premier and Minister for Citizenship provided the following response:

The Government's main source of funding to the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales has been the former Ethnic Affairs Commission, now reconstituted by the Parliament as the Community Relations Commission. A committee to review the operation of the Council was established by the Council and chaired by Mr. Neville Roach, AO. During the review, the Commission assisted the Council by engaging staff on behalf of the Council. It extended the employment of an executive officer by three months from 1 July 2001. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16585

The Council was strongly represented in the Roach committee that recommended 36 changes to the constitution and administration of the Council. The changes were intended to strengthen and rejuvenate the Council in the delivery of its advocacy services in our contemporary multicultural society. In regard to the constitutional change referred to by Dr. Wong, Council has amended its constitution for only three and partially a fourth of the eleven constitutional recommendations in the Roach report.

In June 2001, the Commission invited the Ethnic Communities' Council to apply for funding and it responded by submitting proposals for funding in 2001-02 and 2002-03. They have been considered by the Commission. It took into account a variety of factors such as the significant governance issues Council has yet to overcome. Taking these matters into consideration, the Commission has offered the Council a grant of $100,000 for 2001-02 to assist the core administrative components of its operations.

POLICE SNIFFER DOGS

On 29 June Ms Lee Rhiannon asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice concerning sniffer dogs. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

The Office of the Commissioner of Police informs me that there are now 12 drug detection dogs operating in New South Wales. These dogs are trained to detect a range of drugs including cannabis, amphetamines and ecstasy, and training in heroin detection has commenced. I am advised that of the small number of persons who have been searched in drug detection dog operations and found to not have drugs in their possession, many have admitted that they have recently been in possession of drugs.

HOSPITAL BED NUMBERS

On 29 June the Hon. Elaine Nile asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice concerning hospital bed numbers. The Minister for Health provided the following response:

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare recently published Australian hospital statistics for the period 1999-00 which showed a decrease in the number of public hospital beds nationally and an increase in the number of private hospital admissions. There are a number of reasons for the decrease in the number of beds, including increased day-only surgery, a greater number of patients being admitted on their day of surgery as well as increased bed occupancy rates. The public hospital system treats both public and privately insured patients, all of whom receive the same high standard of care in public hospitals.

GENETIC RESOURCES ACCESS

On 3 July the Hon. Richard Jones asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice relating to access to genetic resources. The Minister for Agriculture provided the following response:

The Government is not in a position to verify agreements in place in other States in relation to access to genetic resources. I am not aware of agreements in place in NSW to give rights to commercially develop compounds found in Australian plants or animals.

SCHOOL CLOSURES REVIEW COMMITTEE

On 3 July the Hon. Patricia Forsythe asked a question without notice of the Special Minister of State concerning the School Closures Review Committee. The Minister for Education and Training provided the following response:

Under section 28(3) of the Education Act (1990) one School Closures Committee is established within 21 days of any announcement regarding the proposed closures of schools made by the Minister of Education and Training on or before June 15 in any year. If requests for reviews are made by two or more schools then the Review Committee has to report on those two or more schools. The committee will visit each school and consider submissions from each school community. The Minister is confident that the members of the committee can deal with each school review appropriately.

Mr JOHN MARSDEN

On 3 July the Hon. David Oldfield asked a question without notice of the Special Minister of State concerning allegations of a police witch-hunt against Mr John Marsden. The Minister for Police provided the following response:

Under the Police Service Act 1990 police have a responsibility to conduct preliminary inquiries into criminal allegations and if there is sufficient evidence, to initiate further investigations. The Honourable Member will also recall that following allegations made by the Hon Franca Arena, MLC, involving Mr Marsden and others, the Police Service established Strike Force Cori to investigate the allegations which were made in the Parliament.

RURAL AND REMOTE SCHOOLS TEACHERS ACCOMMODATION

On 3 July the Hon. Doug Moppett asked a question without notice of the Special Minister of State concerning rural and remote teacher housing. The Minister for Education and Training provided the following response:

Teacher Housing Authority [THA] houses have never been furnished by the Authority. Last year the THA changed its policy with the intention of phasing out the provision of furniture in villa units. A number of concerns have been brought to the attention of the Minister for Education and Training about the possible impact of the new policy in some areas. As a result, the Minister has asked the THA to commence an immediate review of the policy. Interested parties will be 16586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

advised of the outcome of the review as soon as possible. In the meantime, furniture will continue to be available in most villa units. The Department of Education and Training provides relocation assistance to a range of teachers on first employment, certain types of transfer and re-employment. This includes assistance in meeting the costs of furniture removal.

VISITING MEDICAL OFFICERS INDEMNITY COSTS

On 3 July the Hon. Dr Peter Wong asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice relating to public hospital system indemnity costs. The Minister for Health provided the following response:

I refer the Honourable Member to my answer to a Question without Notice concerning medical indemnity and premiums on 27 February 2001. Parliament has since passed the Health Care Liability Act 2001 which contains a range of initiatives which will place downward pressure on professional indemnity insurance premiums.

SYDNEY HARBOUR JET SKIS

On 3 July Ms Lee Rhiannon asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice concerning Sydney Harbour jet ski use. The Minister for Transport provided the following response:

The NSW Government will continue to monitor the use of jet skis and user behaviour on waterways such as Manly Dam, the Hawkesbury and Nepean Rivers, Botany Bay, Pittwater, Port Hacking and elsewhere in the State. Enforcement of the legislation and the ability to measure any increases in activity will be bolstered by the recruitment of additional Boating Service Officers of the Waterways Authority and through the Authority's ongoing collaboration with the Water Police. These measures will be funded directly through increases in jet ski licence and registration fees.

KEMPSEY DISTRICT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

On 3 July the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice relating to the review of funding levels for mental health in the Kempsey District. The Minister for Health provided the following response:

In April 2000, the Carr Government reviewed funding levels for mental health services in NSW and approved an enhancement funding package of $107.5 million over three years, to June 2003. Under the enhancement funding package funding for mental health services in the Mid North Coast Area Health Service, which administers the Kempsey District, is being increased by $7.3 million or 78%, during the three year period.

SYDNEY HARBOUR JET SKIS

On 4 July the Hon. Malcolm Jones asked the Special Minister of State a question without notice concerning a ban on jet skis in Sydney Harbour. The Premier provided the following response:

The Premier is aware that jet skis do not have propellers. The Premier's reference to marine life was made in the context of protecting the safety and amenity of the Harbour for all users. His exact words were: "the State Government wants to protect it for residents, beach-goers, commercial vessels and marine life."

Despite the new regulations introduced last year the percentage of PWC infringements remains disproportionate to the number of jet ski licences. While jet skis account for only eight percent of all boating licenses, last year they were the subject of 29 percent of all complaints to the Waterways Authority and 28 percent of all infringements issued. In addition, the Government continues to receive complaints from the community and councils and an excessive use of Police and Waterways resources is still required to control irresponsible jet skiers.

TABLING OF PAPERS The Hon. John Della Bosca tabled, pursuant to the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983, the report entitled "Commission of Inquiry into Workers Compensation Common Law Matters", dated 31 August 2001. Ordered to be printed. CRIMES AMENDMENT (AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT IN COMPANY) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.09 p.m.]: As I said before question time, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission is reviewing limits to the introduction of a victim's sexual history in sexual assault cases. It has been suggested by a number of commentators both in Australia and overseas that when there is judicial discretion as to relevance, the exercise of that discretion is influenced by the judicial officer's experience, commonsense and beliefs, which are often informed by stereotypes and myths about women. This is of concern in a jurisdiction in which there are few female judges and no guarantees that the judiciary receive education on these issues. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16587

A number of community legal centres have made submissions to the review undertaken by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. The submissions seek that section 409B of the Crimes Act be reintroduced without any substantial change and that there be a study into child sexual assault matters to determine the most appropriate way to protect children from such questioning in sexual assault matters. The Greens support those submissions. I urge the Government to acknowledge the need for a range of measures to be enacted in order to reduce sexual assaults. As I said earlier, that is most important in the context of this debate. The Greens make the following suggestions for more meaningful approaches to the legislation, and hope that the Government will consider them. We believe that education campaigns that highlight the problem of sexual violence should be targeted at schools and the community in general and that adequate funding should be provided for rape crisis centres and the information role that they perform.

The Greens suggest that the police and justice systems be reformed to give greater support and protection to victims of sexual assault—something that has been an ongoing dilemma for those who tackle the issue of sexual assault. Greater support would encourage more victims to report that crime. The Department of Community Services needs to be more proactive in highlighting and thereby reducing the crime of domestic sexual violence, particularly towards children. More funding to improve lighting around railway stations and public thoroughfares is a simple way to help address this crime. That is not an exhaustive list, but it gives some examples of things the Government could do if it were generally interested in reducing the incidence of sexual assault. I make the following important point: I urge the male members of this House to remember that when men call for vengeance against those who commit sexual assault few, if any, women feel safer.

I believe that that is the essence of this legislation and it is probably why many male members fail to understand that there is a problem with the legislation. Demands for vengeance, usually from men in power, have more to do with their attempting to retain their own power rather than with assisting women to feel safe, and be safe, in their own communities. When this legislation was debated in the Legislative Assembly the Coalition moved a number of amendments. I have not been able to ascertain whether that will happen in this House. I was pleased to hear the Hon. John Hatzistergos say that the Coalition's amendments were silly, and I agree with him. However, I go further and say that they were extremely draconian. The Coalition's amendments highlight that it cannot win the law and order auction against the Government. The way in which the Coalition's amendments played out for it in the lower House demonstrated that it needs to urgently rethink its tactics. The Coalition was made to look ridiculous and out of touch.

The amendment about the prerogative of mercy leads me to ask how low will the Coalition go? The amendment clearly showed that the Coalition had nowhere to go, it was desperate, and it came up with that appalling tactic. I understand that it is common practice in criminal legislation to preserve rather than extinguish the mercy option. I said that the Coalition needs to rethink its approach to the law and order issue, but both major parties need to ditch their lock-'em-up approach. That needs to happen for the wellbeing of society, and it needs to be done otherwise the major parties will find themselves further alienated from the electorate. I hope that all members of the Coalition and not just their number crunchers are watching the trends in elections in Australia. Last weekend at the Auburn by-election we saw that more people are shifting away from the major parties. Certainly there was a big vote for non-major parties—more than 20 per cent of the electorate cast its vote for candidates who stood on a community-orientated, non-racist platform. Members of this House who take part in debate on sexual assault matters need to be mindful that only a few months ago allegations were made of a sexual assault committed in this Parliament.

The Hon. Michael Costa: Not true!

Ms LEE RHIANNON: That was a maiden interjection from the new member. He said, "Not true!" I said that there were allegations, but he is the know-all who said that it is not true. How does he know? Was he there on the night? Did he see it? That was a disgusting allegation. I was reserved in my comments when I said that there were allegations. It was disgusting to be in this Parliament at the time the allegations were made. The young woman was treated appallingly in this place by the whispering campaign about her reputation. The Government has now discovered the crime of sexual assault. If the Government wants to win back some credibility on law and order it cannot stop at this legislation. I look forward to hearing the comments of the Government in reply to know whether it is willing to tackle the crime of sexual assault in a meaningful way. Even if the Government believes that this legislation will tackle the crime of sexual assault, surely it will have to acknowledge that a lot more needs to be done. It is estimated that more than 100,000 women suffer sexual assault each year in this country. That is clearly unacceptable. We all wait to hear what the New South Wales Government will do to tackle this horrific crime. 16588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [5.15 p.m.]: The Crimes Amendment (Aggravated Sexual Assault in Company) Bill seeks to amend section 61J of the Crimes Act 1900 by creating the new offence of aggravated sexual assault in company, with a penalty of life imprisonment, as contained in new section 61JA. This new offence will apply when sexual intercourse without consent has been committed in the company of others and is accompanied by aggravated circumstances, including maliciously inflicting actual bodily harm, threatening to inflict actual bodily harm with an offensive weapon or instrument, or depriving the victim of his or her liberty for a period before or after the commission of the offence. That new offence will also apply in cases of group sexual assault when the victim is under 16 years of age or has a serious physical or intellectual disability. In effect, the bill means that gang-rape, or aggravated sexual assault in company, will join the most serious criminal offences in this State, namely murder and drug trafficking, which already carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

As honourable members would be aware, I am passionately committed to women's rights issues in this State. In particular, I am, and always have been, a vocal proponent of rape law reform in New South Wales. Nevertheless, for reasons that I will subsequently go into, I am not able to support this bill. It is appropriate at this point for me to mention that the bill has failed to gain the support of many legal experts and groups, including the Law Society of New South Wales and the New South Wales Bar Association. While the Bar Association has argued that the bill may interfere with the independence of the judiciary, the Law Society has stated that the current range of offences in relation to sexual assault is already adequate and that there is sufficient flexibility available to ensure that offenders are appropriately prosecuted and sentenced. As honourable members would know, the impetus for this bill came from the recent District Court case involving the gang-rape of two teenage girls in September last year and the ensuing controversy over the relatively short sentences handed down to the two offenders. The maximum sentence for the offence is 20 years imprisonment, but one of the offenders received a term of imprisonment of only five years and seven months, with a non-parole period of three years and six months. Another received a term of imprisonment of six years, with a non-parole period of four years. In reality, that means that both offenders could be released within four years. In the community, there was widespread criticism of those short sentences. I note that on 6 September the Director of Public Prosecutions announced his intention to appeal the sentences. Following that case, a great deal of media attention has centred on the public's dissatisfaction with the sentences handed down by judges in New South Wales. There seems to be a concern about the discrepancy between the legislative maximum and the sentences being set by judges. According to an article published in the Daily Telegraph on Friday 7 September entitled "DPP to appeal on rape penalties", 57 per cent of perpetrators of sexual assault have received total sentences of six years or less under the current sexual assault legislation. The average gaol term is between five and seven years. Statistics released by the Judicial Information Research Institute indicate that maximum penalties are rarely imposed in sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault cases. In the period from April 1993 to March 2000, only three offenders out of a possible 237 received the maximum penalty of 20 years. I admit that, like many other members of the community, I initially believed that the sentences given to the two offenders who pleaded guilty in that case were too light. As a woman, I cannot imagine a more horrific or more heinous crime against a person than group sexual assault. Having worked as a social worker for a number of years, I am well aware of how sexual assault, and especially gang sexual assault, can and does ruin the lives of victims. The stories told to me by sexual assault victims depicted both physical and emotional suffering. The most common long-term effects of sexual assault on women were fear and mistrust of men and the breakdown of family and personal relationships. Other emotional effects of sexual assault include depression, anger, loss of self-confidence, feelings of shame and worthlessness, and a fear of being alone. Suicide has been reported in extreme cases. The worst situation has been for a woman to become pregnant by the rapist. Just imagine the trauma for such women!

However, while I understand and sympathise with the community's concern about perceived judicial leniency in relation to sexual assault cases, I do not believe that introducing life sentences for gang-rapists is the necessary, or appropriate, course to take in this matter. As I see it, that would be letting anger and outrage take over reasoned debate. It is disappointing that informed and balanced debate on this bill has given way to political grandstanding and political opportunism. Both the Government and the Opposition in this State quite clearly wish to be seen as being tough on crime. Given the community's support for tougher sentences for gang- rapists, as evidenced by recent media debate, the bill was introduced by the Government and rushed through the other place last week. The Opposition—as I said, not to be outdone—proposed the absolutely draconian amendment to remove the prerogative of mercy. While I appreciate the community's concern, the issues we are discussing go to the very heart of our criminal justice system and should not be politicised. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16589

The fact is that it is not society's role to determine what is, or is not, an appropriate sentence in sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault cases. That task lies with judges and magistrates who are required to determine each case on the circumstances and on the evidence brought before them. The courts must consider a number of factors before imposing a gaol sentence, such as the personal history of the offender, the prospect of rehabilitation, the need for punishment or deterrence, and the protection of the community. Punishment is then made to fit the crime and the criminal. I understand that the Attorney General has applied for sentencing guidelines for judges to be applied to the offences of sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault. To my mind, we as parliamentarians are entering into very dangerous territory if we start to interfere with the independence of the judiciary in this way. Judicial discretion is an essential part of the sentencing exercise. It enables judges to take account of all the relevant factors of a case. If justice is to be done and if crimes are to be punished in proportion to the culpability of the offender, then all criminal cases must be judged individually on their merits.

The real problem I have with this bill is that it seeks to address the issue of judicial leniency in sexual assault and group sexual assault cases whilst ignoring a whole host of other problems currently at play in the recent gang-rape case and the criminal justice system generally. Some of those problems relate to the plea bargaining process and the limits to evidence when a guilty plea is accepted, as well as the limited use of the victim impact statements by the courts. What I am trying to say is that if the sentences handed down in the aforementioned case were in fact lenient by the community's standards, that was because the judge was not able to make a sentencing decision based on the full events. Rather, the judge was limited to the agreed set of facts of the guilty plea which allowed the youths to plead guilty and not face a trial. A number of crucial and horrific details, including the fact that one of the girls was told that she would be killed if she told anybody about the rape, were omitted from the agreed statement of facts.

At any rate, I do not believe that increasing the maximum sentence for aggravated group sexual assault from 20 years to life imprisonment will necessarily mean that judges will hand down harsher sentences. In fact, increasing the penalty may reduce sentences or result in many offenders getting off. Although sentencing is a matter for the judges in each of the individual cases, I believe that there is a very real possibility that juries will not convict a person if they know that that person could be gaoled for life. This is especially so in cases involving youth offenders. It is also relevant to note that, under the pre-1981 rape laws of this State—referred to also by Ms Lee Rhiannon—which carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, the penalty was rarely used. In 1979, for example, 46 individuals were sentenced for rape and not one was sentenced to life imprisonment. The highest sentence handed down to a rapist between 1972 and 1979 was 20 years and approximately 85 per cent of offenders were sentenced to 10 years or less.

As I stated earlier, under the current legislative regime, only three offenders have been sentenced to the maximum term of 20 years. The average term of imprisonment remains less than 10 years. These statistics very clearly indicate that increasing the maximum penalty for an offence does not result in longer sentences, in spite of what I was told in a Government briefing this morning by one of the Attorney General's advisers. There were of course other reasons for introducing major changes to the law of sexual assault in 1981. The Crimes (Sexual Assault) Amendment Act 1981, an initiative of the Wran Government, established a number of new categories of sexual offences, graded by severity and with different maximum penalties. Aside from the fact that statistics showed that the life penalty was not being used, it was also found that the prospect of a life sentence often discouraged victims to proceed with a complaint, particularly in cases where the perpetrator was known to the victim.

In addition, the magnitude of the maximum penalty of life imprisonment was found to deter alleged offenders from pleading guilty. The statistics show that guilty pleas in rape cases were much lower than for other crimes. In 1979, for example, 38 per cent of defendants pleaded guilty in the higher courts compared with 81 per cent in all criminal cases. Consequently, more victims were made to endure the ordeal of giving evidence in court than otherwise may have been necessary. I understand that the Government has stated that the bill will also send a message to society at large that in New South Wales group sexual assault will not be tolerated. Of course nobody would tolerate such a crime. The question for our purposes is therefore whether or not increasing the maximum sentence for aggravated sexual assault in company from 20 years to life imprisonment will deter the commission of this crime.

I do not believe that increasing the maximum sentence will have very much effect on whether or not people commit this offence. Having worked as a solicitor for some years, I can tell honourable members that offenders will think about a gaol sentence only if they believe they are going to get caught. Not too many offenders expect that they will be caught. The use of life sentences in other jurisdictions also indicates that they do not reduce the incidence of crime. I ask honourable members to look at the level of crime in the United 16590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

States, which carries life sentences and the death penalty for numerous offences. My point is that harsher sentences sound good, but experience shows that they do not lead to lower rates of crime in the most serious categories.

A further argument against increasing the maximum penalty for aggravated sexual assault in company is that it may lead to an increase in the number of murdered victims. It is said that, to avoid detection, offenders may simply kill their victims, whereas they otherwise may have released them. This argument raises a legitimate concern and has been voiced by both the New South Wales Bar Association and the Law Society of New South Wales. While some people who commit sexual assault offences may not turn their minds to the maximum penalty before committing an assault, the fact is that there are some offenders who may. This could, of course, be very dangerous for victims.

In summary, I do not support the Crimes Amendments (Aggravated Sexual Assault in Company) Bill. I do not regard increasing the maximum sentence for aggravated sexual assault in company from 20 years to life imprisonment to be either necessary or appropriate. Indeed, gang-rape is an horrific and horrendous crime and it should rightly be punished through the imposition of a long gaol sentence. However, I do not believe that this bill will achieve the desired effect—namely, the setting of tougher penalties for those who commit the offence of aggravated sexual assault in company—nor will it deter the commission of this category of crime. This bill is merely a knee-jerk reaction to a recent gang-rape case. It has been introduced in haste and expedited through Parliament without adequate debate. For those reasons, I cannot lend my support to the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.30 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Crimes Amendment (Aggravated Sexual Assault in Company) Bill. The bill will amend the Crimes Act 1900 to make sexual assault carried out in the company of others, and accompanied by the infliction of harm, the threat of harm or the deprivation of liberty, an offence carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. This bill is almost the result of just one court decision, on 23 August, which created great debate in the community, and the Government is responding to that debate. An article in the Australian of 24 August, referring to the decision made the previous day, stated:

The two victims of a gang rape had been badly let down … after their attackers were given jail terms under which all three could walk free within four years.

The youths are the first of 18 to be dealt with by the courts after being arrested by police investigating up to 50 rapes with apparent racial links.

Two brothers who cannot be named, aged 19 and 16, received maximum sentences of six years and five years seven months respectively in the NSW District Court.

They will be eligible for parole in four years and three years, six months respectively. But they have already served time, which will be discounted from their sentences.

The Attorney General wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions and asked that the sentences be reviewed. That review is taking place and the matter will be appealed. The Premier responded to community outrage by expressing anger and bitter disappointment at the sentences, and stating that he would consider changing the legislation to increase gaol terms for gang-rape. That is the basis for this bill. The court case had some strange aspects that are of concern. Either the victim impact statement was edited or some sections of it were not allowed to be read in court. I always thought that a victim impact statement had to be read as prepared and written by the victim. However, the young women in that case have said in the media that certain information had been deleted from the statement read in court or had not been read in court and therefore the judge was not aware of it.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: She was aware of it but disregarded it. Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: The judge may have been aware of it but legally could not take account of it. I am concerned that some of the remarks by the judge in court were in conflict with the victim impact statement. That creates a problem. The judge emphasised that these rapes were motivated by opportunity and by a pack mentality, rather than by an ethnic factor, yet that factor was raised in the victim impact statement. Some honourable members have said that the penalties do not need to be increased because everyone should be aware of them. However, the article in the Australian reported that one of the accused stated he was not familiar with the laws of Australia and was unaware that his behaviour towards the victim was criminal. I am sure all honourable members would find that hard to understand, irrespective of an offender's background or culture. Another report in the Sydney Morning Herald on 23 August indicates that a number of 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16591 gangs are carrying out gang-rapes. I do not suggest that this crime is new. There have been horrific gang-rapes in the past, such as those committed by the Murphy brothers and others, in which the victim has been murdered. However, the concentration and brutality of the gang-rapes being committed are disturbing the community. The article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 23 August stated:

The encounter was the beginning of a six-hour ordeal for the young woman during which she was raped by four groups of males.

It is unique in Australian history that a young woman should be so brutalised and handed on from gang to gang over a period of hours during one night. There is obviously something wrong with our society and, unfortunately, this legislation is justified. A strong message must be sent to the perpetrators of these crimes that this type of behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by the New South Wales community or by the Parliament. Hopefully, the bill will be a deterrent and will receive constructive, not sensational, media publicity.

I raise a question that has been on my mind and has been asked by members of the public. The bill increases the sentence but will it influence a judge who hears a case? The Premier has been put on the spot during almost every interview he has conducted on this legislation when making the point that, even though the statutory sentence may be life imprisonment, a judge can still impose a sentence of three, five, six or seven years. Perhaps the Government should consider making some part of the sentence mandatory. I accept that mandatory sentencing has been controversial in the Northern Territory and that Labor governments oppose mandatory sentencing in principle. However, a strong case could be made in this instance to consider such a proposition.

I propose to move an amendment in Committee that, after the accused's guilt has been established, the judge should specify that the minimum sentence be 50 per cent of the maximum sentence and, if the judge does not do that, he or she must give written reasons in court why that was not done. In many murder cases a life sentence often means 13 years. As I am not a lawyer I ask the Hon. John Hatzistergos to explain in reply why in our legal system all sentences are concurrent whereas in other societies such as the United States of America they are cumulative. In our society a person who rapes three women is given three rape sentences but serves them concurrently. A person who robs three banks is also given three sentences but serves them concurrently. In our society a person who robs many banks might receive only one concurrent sentence for those crimes.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: It can be cumulative. It is up to the judge.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I have never heard of such sentences being cumulative. Have you ever heard of such sentences being given?

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: It is difficult to have cumulative life sentences.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I simply raise the principle. Another matter that concerns me is that, although members are debating gang-rape and the media is discussing gang-rape, and we all know that we are talking about rape, the word "rape" does not appear in the legislation. The reason for that is that in 1981, under former Attorney General Frank Walker, the Crimes Sexual (Assault Amendment) Act was passed and new section 63 abolished the common law offences of rape and attempted rape. I was not a member of Parliament until later that year, but I was involved in the community debate on the legislation. We felt that the legislation seemed to play down the seriousness of a rape offence. A person who was involved in a rape offence and charged with rape was called a rapist, yet it was said, "No, he is not a rapist; he has committed a sexual assault." The offence could involve a number of offences, ranging from very serious to something minor.

It would be far better for our law to speak about rape and its various categories, instead of running away from the word. I thought the policy of both sides of Parliament was that legislation should be in plain English, which means language that people use rather than vague terms. I again urge the Government to consider reintroducing the word "rape" into the legislation. At this stage I do not plan to do anything about it myself or to move an amendment. However, I believe a serious error may be giving a false impression to people who commit sexual assault that it is not a serious offence. As every society knows, rape is a most serious offence. People from overseas countries that use the word "rape" in their legislation may hear about a man who has committed a sexual assault against a girl but may not understand the full impact of that terminology. I therefore believe it is extremely important that the word "rape" is used in the legislation. In view of the comments of one of the young men in the court case, I also believe that an education campaign should be embarked upon to overcome a false impression that is conveyed in the newspapers. A number of Australian-born women have been reported in the television media as saying that sometimes when 16592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

they wear light summer dresses and so on, with bare arms and bare legs, some Middle Eastern men call them sluts because women in Middle Eastern societies dress in a very modest way. I do not suggest that every Middle Eastern person has that view, but I think it should be explained that when women in our society dress in such a way it does not mean that they are immoral, or that they are soliciting male attention, and certainly not that they are sluts. I believe that all members of Parliament should be concerned about that development. We support the bill and trust that it will achieve a reduction in gang-rapes in our State.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [5.44 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the bill. I in no way resile from that position, but I wish to comment on how the bill has come to be considered by this House, and on the contemporary comments in other places relating to the bill. In all fairness, I ought to respond in relation to the context in which the bill has come before the Parliament. The bill imposes the most serious penalty that our Parliament can provide to be imposed in our legal system—that is, life imprisonment without any, or a very limited, opportunity for release. The bill, introduced last Wednesday, concerns one of the most serious issues that this Parliament will deal with in the current four-year term.

I understand that the Government expects the bill to pass through this House today. In other words, a bill imposing a very serious penalty will be rocketed through this Parliament in a week. I regard that as more like a knee-jerk political response to a bad headline than a serious attempt to address the issues relating to aggravated sexual assault that have been publicly discussed. How does the Government expect the courts to take members of Parliament seriously when we rocket a bill such as this through the House in a week? Why would the Government expect the courts to impose the penalty when members of Parliament have not seriously deliberated on or investigated the issue and have not received a detailed explanation of the matters involved?

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: But you are supporting the bill.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: The Hon. John Hatzistergos interjects, "But you are supporting the bill." If the honourable member, who aspires to be the first law officer in this place, treats a sanction such as life imprisonment with that sort of triviality, I simply put to the House that this is not an issue of political partisanship, and nor should it be. We as members of Parliament should regard such a bill as being among the gravest and most serious matters that we consider and therefore deserving of more scrutiny. I am a member of a committee in this place that is considering whether New South Wales should have a bill of rights. One of the matters the committee has looked at, an issue that has arisen in other parliaments, is that all legislation, no matter how trivial, should be examined by a committee with regard to its serious impact on issues such as human rights.

A bill such as this obviously deserves that sort of scrutiny. I do not for one moment express any level of sympathy for the monsters who carried out the crime that is in our minds as we debate this bill. If any members wish to distort my views, I simply say that they are wrong. I believe that if we are to provide a penalty such as life imprisonment without release for a specific offence, that question is worth full public scrutiny, otherwise we are not taking the penalty seriously. If we do not take the penalty seriously, how on earth can we expect the public to take it seriously or the judiciary to impose it? A judge who is able to impose the penalty in a case that runs for more than two or three weeks will be expected to consider judgment for some time—a great deal more time than the Parliament of New South Wales will have taken to consider the provision of such a penalty.

It is no secret that this bill is a result of the media pressure that has been exerted on the Carr Government by publications such as the Daily Telegraph and the political requirements of the by-election that recently took place in the electorate of Auburn. The second reading speech contains various references to clearly indicate that, and I draw those matters to the attention of the House. The second reading speech was not read to the House, I imagine, but was simply tabled in the usual fashion.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: No, it was read.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: If it was read to the House, I apologise; I was not present. In any event, I simply draw to the attention of the House that this measure is meant to be one of many other measures to be presented to the House in the future. The second reading speech reads in part:

In addition, new offences and additional powers for the police are proposed in the upcoming legislative session. The speech contains further references to future action. Another portion of it reads:

This is but one offence in a raft of legislative changes aimed at improving our criminal justice system. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16593

I do not object to considering a raft of legislation but, given the rhetoric that accompanied the bill's introduction into the House, it is fairly obvious that it is both part of a package and a response to the issues raised in Auburn and in the Daily Telegraph, particularly regarding the judgment delivered on 22 August by Her Honour Justice Latham in Regina v AEM (jnr) and AEM (snr) and KEM—the defendants in the case were not named because they were juveniles. It is not inappropriate for the Government to listen to the community—I would be the last to suggest that it should not do so. However, I believe there is a proper way to consider serious measures such as imposing the penalty of life imprisonment. It is certainly not a matter of whacking legislation through Parliament in the course of a week.

Together with other honourable members, I express my concern to the victims of the offence that was the subject of Regina v AEM and Ors. It was a particularly monstrous crime that one imagines took place over several hours. I commend the judgment to honourable members—it makes sobering reading. Those who have read that judgment will conclude that even the limited facts considered by Justice Latham were horrific, and it is concerning that she did not have the opportunity to consider other issues in formulating that sentence. It is without doubt one of the most serious offences one could imagine short of murder.

The Hon. Elaine Nile: No man could ever understand what happened.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I could not agree more: it was a serious offence. I do not suggest that any comments I make in mitigation of the measures suggested by the Government should be considered as expressions of sympathy for the offenders. I have read the judgment and I believe the court would have imposed more severe sentences if it had been given the chance to consider all the facts rather than a limited range. However, honourable members must appreciate that the lenient sentences imposed in that case were the result of a plea bargain, not the provisions of the law. This legislation seeks to amend the Crimes Act, but there is no problem with that Act. The longest sentence imposed in that case was six years but Judge Latham could have imposed a sentence of up to 25 years imprisonment under existing legislation. We do not have to impose life sentences to solve the problem specific to that case. There was a plea bargain to which the victims were apparently not party. According to their public comments, they were not given the opportunity to have a say in what facts were presented to the court. I agree that that is a most serious matter, particularly as the court was not able to consider two important facts: first, the victims were forced into a motor vehicle at knifepoint; and, secondly, one of the victims was robbed subsequent to the first offence. Those additional offences did not come to the attention of the court and therefore could not be considered because a statement of agreed facts was presented to the court. As I understand it, the victims learned of the parameters of that statement only when the sentence was passed. That is clearly inappropriate. The Premier has set in train by other means measures to ensure that in future court cases of this nature the Director of Public Prosecutions or his representative will discuss such matters with the victims. That development would be most welcome. Although many believe the sentences imposed in this case were lenient, that has nothing to do with the penalty that this bill seeks to impose. The judge in that case considered certain relevant issues that I hope will continue to be relevant to sentences imposed by New South Wales courts. First, the offenders pleaded guilty. There is no doubt that a guilty plea saves victims from stress and that it is important to offer some incentives to encourage a plea of guilty. However, DNA evidence was relevant in this case and thus the discovery of the offenders' guilt seemed inevitable. Perhaps we should review to what extent discounted sentences should be offered to those who plead guilty, particularly in circumstances when their conviction appears inevitable. The individuals who committed this offence were juveniles. A principle of sentencing is that a judge must consider the possibility of rehabilitation. Although the acts perpetrated in this case were horrific—even for adults—juveniles have greater capacity for rehabilitation than a seasoned adult offender with prior convictions. I believe Her Honour was correct to consider that relevant fact in handing down her sentence. Secondly, two of those involved were first- time offenders. Notwithstanding that the offence was grievous, it is usual for the court to consider the fact that these were first-time, juvenile offenders who were pleading guilty. However, those individuals received an extra discount because they were able to plead away other facts that were relevant to the case. The fact that the victims were forced into the car at knifepoint is relevant. The victims have said in the media that they believe the omission of that fact reflects badly on them. They said that if it was thought they had got into a vehicle with strange people voluntarily the public perception would be that they somehow brought on or deserved their eventual fate. I believe the victims, as I am sure do all decent people. The court should certainly have considered that fact. It should not have been bargained away, particularly given the offence. The victims said that, in light of the lenient sentences handed down to the offenders, they would have preferred to suffer the ordeal of a trial in order to establish those important facts. 16594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

I urge honourable members not to make this debate in Parliament or elsewhere a general attack on the judiciary. I believe Her Honour Justice Latham did her duty by considering the facts before her—and anyone who reads her judgment will come to that conclusion. The problem is that Her Honour did not have all the relevant facts before her and thus could not take them into consideration. Action is needed to address that problem. However, honourable members should not believe this bill addresses that fundamental issue, which is pivotal to the case. It is important to make that point in this debate. I note that the bill seeks to increase the severity of the sentence for this offence to the point where it can be increased no further. Those who feel that increasing sentence length acts as a deterrent must realise that if this measure does not work we will have nowhere else to go. I believe offenders generally do not consider the likely length of the sentence they will serve if convicted. In most instances their most relevant consideration is whether they will be caught.

If we are to address this issue properly in New South Wales we need not longer sentences—the Government is greatly mistaken if it believes it can cop out like that—but better detection methods and greater activity on the part of the Police Service. That would have more impact on offending behaviour than simply increasing the severity of sentences—which is a political stunt and, as such, should be questioned. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked whether increasing the length of sentences will impact on the judiciary. Apparently it will. I have studied the impact of the increased penalty for culpable driving and there is no doubt that, since Parliament increased the maximum penalty from 10 years to 20 years, the length of sentences for culpable driving has doubled. The length of penalties has increased in line with Parliament's doubling of the maximum sentence. The judiciary does take notice. There might have been an even bigger bang if we had inquired as to whether increasing the sentence from 25 to 40 or 50 years would have had the same impact.

To some extent life imprisonment is not a relevant consideration for those who commit the offence of aggravated sexual assault. The bulk of those who do so are young men. In saying that I do not intend to denigrate young people, or young men in particular, but by and large offenders are young men. It will be unusual and unlikely for the courts to impose a penalty of life without chance of release on a young person aged, say, under 30 years, knowing that the impact on that person could be imprisonment for up to 60 years. The courts are more likely to impose a determinate sentence. Not many offences of the type that this bill addresses are committed by seasoned criminals who are elderly.

If we had had the chance to think about this legislation for a little longer we may not have chosen the term of life without release. We may have been more efficient and given the courts a direction indicating that a higher level of determinate penalty was appropriate. We do not have the opportunity to consider that possibility because we are considering this legislation in the space of a week without any level of scrutiny other than that which honourable members are able to bring to it. Thank heavens the Parliamentary Library published a paper on this subject, otherwise honourable members would have almost no information on which to base their consideration of this issue at all.

Given that this bill is intended to be the first part of a raft of legislation relating to what seems to be a law and order auction which is under way in anticipation of an election that is more than 12 months away, I draw attention to the phenomenal expense of gaoling offenders. When the community is being protected, of course, as it is in this case, it is not relevant to consider the costs. I simply say, in deference to the fact that the Premier said this is the first part of a raft of legislation, that it is relevant to consider the cost of imprisonment. Imprisoning a single individual for a year in our criminal justice system costs approximately $70,000. It is appropriate to take certain individuals out of the community, but there are plenty of people in gaol for whom that penalty is probably not appropriate.

Members of Parliament have to consider the use of public resources. It amazes me that the Parliament will distribute public resources to the criminal justice system almost without question for the purpose of punishing people and yet we think twice, three times or sometimes 10 times more about giving additional resources to the school system to address literacy problems or to the health system to address hospital waiting lists. Recently the Premier announced that he will spend $165 million on more gaols during the next three or four years . To put that figure into context, that is the price of abolishing the extension of the Parramatta to Chatswood railway. That is a significant expenditure of resources. We frequently seek political popularity, and I suspect that there may well be greater political popularity in spending $165 million in resources on building a new teaching hospital in Sydney or the bush to ensure that people get better health services.

Every year, the people of New South Wales are already paying $100 million in real terms to deal with the increase in the number of prisoners that has occurred without any increase in gaol penalties. Our prison population has increased by 20 per cent. That $100 million would go a long way towards reducing hospital 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16595 waiting lists. In its first 12 months in office the Carr Government allocated $55 million to reduce hospital waiting lists and $100 million to put more people in gaol—and for fairly short periods , I might add. There are not more people going to gaol for longer periods but there are lots of people circulating through the prison system for short periods of time. One would have to question whether that $100 million is being spent appropriately. I simply say that as a guiding response to what else might be coming in this raft of legislation.

There are more effective ways than this bill of making our point to the judiciary, if that is necessary. Guideline judgments have been effective. For example, penalties imposed on people who commit the offence of culpable driving are vastly different to those that were imposed before the Jurisic guideline judgment was given. Before that judgment about 60 per cent of individuals convicted of culpable driving did not receive a custodial sentence. Since the guideline judgment every single person convicted of that offence has received a custodial sentence. That benchmark guideline judgment has had a dramatic impact on the judiciary. The truth is that a guideline judgment is more likely to be effective than what we are doing in this place. I note that the Government is making arrangements for a request for a guideline judgment to be part of the appeal in Regina v AEM (jnr) and AEM (snr) and KEM.

The briefing paper provided by the Parliamentary Library pointed out some other salient facts that honourable members ought to consider in relation to this bill. For those honourable members who are concerned that the judiciary is not handing out prison sentences for aggravated sexual assault, I point out that 96 per cent of offenders convicted of that offence receive sentences of imprisonment and two-thirds of them receive head sentences of in excess of three years. I am not saying that is in any way inappropriate, but the courts are severe on individuals who are convicted of this specific offence. Obviously something has gone wrong with the case that gave rise to this legislation. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that one of the maxims of the legal profession is that bad cases do not make good law. To some extent this is in fact law which is based on a bad case.

A total of 99 per cent of those who receive custodial sentences for aggravated sexual assault serve more than 12 months imprisonment. In fact, the individuals concerned in this matter served more than 12 months, mostly while they were awaiting sentence. They were held in maximum security gaols, which, I have to say from my experience of looking at New South Wales gaols, are the worst places where one might serve a custodial sentence. If they had been in a juvenile institution, obviously it would not be as onerous. I have pointed out that gaoling offenders is expensive, and honourable members ought to consider that. In no way do I suggest that the cost is inappropriate if the purpose of the legislation is to protect the community. In this particular case I agree that the purpose of this legislation is to protect the community and to that extent I take no particular objection to it. I simply say that this particular bill does not address the issues that honourable members thought it would.

Many honourable members might believe that increasing the severity of the penalty reduces the possibility of the crime occurring. Again and again that has been shown by extensive research not to be the case. The United States of America, a Western democracy with a similar culture to ours and with exposure to similar media, gaols seven times more people than Australia. America's gaol population, under lock and key, is the size of Sydney's population but America does not have less crime. There are 35 times more homicides in America than in Australia, yet more people are gaoled there. America has the death penalty but crime is not decreasing. In one respect we need to examine ourselves. Law and order seems to be the only policy area where people believe that more of a policy that is not working is effective. It is not. I am not suggesting that we should not take action that is effective, but simply increasing penalties does not address the specific issues related to crime.

Increased penalties do not deter crime. Most people who commit crime do not have the sort of thought processes that we have as parliamentarians. To members of Parliament and their families the thought of spending a single day in gaol would be horrific. However, incarceration solves many of the problems in the lives of those who find themselves in gaol. Some of them even welcome it. So the deterrent effect is not necessarily a relevant consideration. I believe that we should be tough on crime, but we ought to take action to deter crime, not merely to satisfy a political agenda. Any action ought to satisfy the substantial requirement of deterring crime. If there is one criticism that could be made of the Carr Government it is that it is all about dealing with the spin rather than the substance of specific issues. I want to make a brief comment about ethnic-related crime. I point out that it is relevant to the bill, in case a member is tempted to take a point of order that I am not dealing with the bill. The second reading speech states:

This offence will apply to all offenders. It does not recognise race or religion or sex of the offender or the victim. 16596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

The only reason that passage is contained in the second reading speech is because race was relevant to the discussion of the court case that this bill addresses. I could not put it any better than our candidate for the electorate of Auburn did when she spoke eloquently and succinctly on radio about this issue. She was challenged:

Do you support what the Premier says about ethnic related crime? She said:

Muslim is not a descriptor of a criminal. Lebanese is not a descriptor of a criminal. They are a description of a nationality and a religious background and they have nothing whatever to do with crime. I agree with her. They have nothing to do with crime. Rape or sexual assault is an artefact of sexism and a desire on the part of individuals to treat women as if they were objects rather than people. That is the essence of sexual assault. It has nothing whatever to do with sexuality or with culture. Our own culture has as much sexism as other cultures that are alleged to be more prone to the crime of sexual assault. Less than 20 years ago in our own country it was illegal for women to drink in the same area as men: a public bar. We have only begun to discover the importance of treating women as equals in our own community. How dare we accuse other communities that may not have made the same journey! In any event, it is not relevant to run around saying that this specific offence relates to Lebanese Muslims in Bankstown. In fact, the figures released by the Government's own crime statistics authority defy that accusation. More sexual assaults occur in country areas than in Bankstown and other places, such as Auburn, where this bill is supposed to have an impact. The truth is that whilst from time to time incidents of sexual assault may be associated with specific gangs, sexual assault is certainly not an artefact of a specific culture or a specific community group. I wish to stand side-by-side with members of the Lebanese Muslim community, even though I am neither Lebanese or Muslim, in defending the integrity of that community. It is not up for grabs, nor should it be. Unfortunately it has been. Whilst the Opposition will support this bill, we consider that it should have been the subject of greater parliamentary scrutiny. The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Are you supporting it? The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I do not know why you keep making that inane interjection. The Hon. John Hatzistergos: You have not said anything in favour of it. The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I have, but I believe the legislation is wrongly targeted. The legislation will do no harm, but it will do no good. I defy the member who makes these inane interjections to explain to the House in specific terms what this legislation will do to seriously reduce the incidence of sexual assault. It will do absolutely nothing. This bill should be the start of the Government's attempt to reduce sexual assault. I ask the House to consider both now and in the future the matters I have raised. The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.15 p.m.]: The Australian Democrats are concerned that this bill is another poll-driven knee-jerk response to crime. The Government must address crime in a more intelligent manner. Unfortunately, although Brad Hazzard and the Hon. John Ryan, as the most progressive members of the Opposition, made relevant points in their speeches about the causes of rape, the Opposition clearly plans to do what it usually does, that is, criticise the Government but vote with it. In fact, while Brad Hazzard and the Hon. John Ryan make progressive noises, the Opposition introduced amendments in the Legislative Assembly as part of a law and order auction but did not produce any evidence that the strategy will work. The Opposition in this House and the Hon. Greg Pearce in his speech criticised the bidding up of the law and order debate, but they do not do anything to lessen it. Fortunately, in this House they seem to have dropped their Legislative Assembly amendments. If the Government wants the judiciary to consider penalties and their effects seriously, it should at least do the same. I do not believe it is doing so in this bill. The bill seems to have popular support. However, there have not been any scientific polls taken. The one that comes closest is the 60 Minutes Internet poll. In that poll the first question was: Should criminals who plead guilty face reduced charges? The results were 10 per cent "Yes" and 90 per cent "No." The actual number of individual responses is not given. The second question is probably more insightful: Should gang- rapists face life in prison? As of today there were 44 responses. Of those 44 responses, the vast majority wanted severe penalties and also felt that gang-rape was the most serious type of crime. Not one respondent thought the sentencing in Regina v AEM (jnr) and AEM (snr) and KEM, the Villawood case, was just. But the public are not criminologists. They regard prison as the correct response to crime. The longer the sentence the greater the response from society. The Government and the Opposition have done little to correct that simplistic notion. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16597

Are increased penalties the answer to the problem? The Government should not introduce legislation without evidence, and if there is evidence it should be presented with the bill. The second reading speech delivered by the Attorney General did not produce evidence. I note that the excellent research paper issued by the Parliamentary Library was initiated by the library itself in response to media interest. It was not initiated by the Government, and there is no evidence that the Government has even done any research. Currently the maximum penalty under section 61J (2) (c) for sexual assault in the company of other persons is 20 years. The maximum penalty is hardly ever imposed. Data suggests that a sentence of imprisonment of more than 10 years is rare and is reserved for the worst cases. Therefore, increasing the maximum penalty for the offence to life imprisonment will not necessarily mean longer sentences.

It is difficult to ascertain statistical information on sentencing because the New South Wales Judicial Commission does not separate sentences for aggravated assault in company from other section 61J categories. That causes difficulty for both policymakers and judges. Gang-rape is not a statistically isolated sentencing category. One positive note in the proposed bill is the creation of a separate offence in section 61JA for aggravated sexual assault in company which, it is hoped, will lead to the collection of sentencing statistics on that particular offence. However, we do not need this bill to collect such statistics. The Australian Democrats support the comments of the Law Society that life sentences could have a detrimental effect in that juries may be more reluctant to find an accused guilty.

In 1981 the Wran Labor Government abolished life sentences for sexual assault because there was no evidence that they worked. In 1979, 46 individuals were sentenced for rape. None received the maximum penalty, no offender was sentenced to longer than 16 years and 85 per cent were sentenced to 10 years or less. The average sentence between 1972 and 1979 for rape and attempted rape was seven years and the highest single sentence was 20 years. Also in 1979, the maximum penalty deterred alleged offenders from pleading guilty. Statistics show that guilty pleas in rape cases were much lower than they were for other crimes. In 1979, 38 per cent of defendants pleaded guilty in the higher courts, compared with 81 per cent in all criminal cases. Why has the Carr Government not produced any evidence to show why life sentences suddenly will work, when they did not work in the past?

Despite the fact that the Democrats think that this bill will not reduce the incidence of group sexual assault and may have a detrimental effect, it is important to point out that gang-rape is different from and a more serious crime than individual rape. I draw the attention of honourable members to two studies from the United States of America. The first is "A Comparison of Group and Individual Sexual Assault Victims", by Gidycz and Koss, reported in the Psychology of Women quarterly 14 (1990), 325 to 342. The second is "A Comparison of Gang and Individual Rape Incidents", by Ullman in Violence and Victims, volume 14, No. 2, 1999, 123 to 133.

The Gidycz and Koss study is an empirical study of 44 group sexual assault victims, compared with 44 individual sexual assault victims. The study concluded as follows. Aggression in group sexual assaults increases as each man takes his turn. Twisting, holding, hitting, slapping, use of a weapon, choking and beating were twice to six times as prevalent as in individual assaults. The victims were more frightened in group assaults. Running away, as a strategy, does not work in group assaults, as it may in individual assaults. Victims of group assaults were twice as likely to think about suicide as were the victims of individual assaults. The degree of sexual contact increased greatly, on a four-point scale of sexual contact, sexual coercion, attempted rape, and rape. The index closer to rape was much higher in group assaults. In the second study, Sarah Ullman looked at the differences between gang and individual rape incidents reported to the Chicago police. The results showed that in gang incidents there was more violence—hitting, slapping and use of weapons—more victim resistance and more victim contemplation of suicide.

It is difficult to know how often gang-rape occurs. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Research, only about 15 per cent of sexual assaults are reported to police. Further, the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) does not differentiate gang-rape. Its recorded incidents of all types of sexual assault in New South Wales in the year 2000 was 3,504. It may seem somewhat cold-blooded to speak of numbers, but all the problems faced by this Parliament should be analysed systematically, and decisions made should be based on facts and evidence, not just on rhetoric and anecdotes. Accordingly, the Democrats have obtained from the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research six years of actual figures for gang-rape incidents which are likely to result in charges and to proceed to court. We obtained these figures by special request of the BOCSAR for the past six years, 1995 to 2000.

The results are divided into 25 statistical divisions throughout New South Wales. The total number of incidents of gang-rape which are likely to or have proceeded to court for each of the years is as follows: 1995, 16598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

142; 1996, 206; 1997, 201; 1998, 146; 1999, 120; and 2000, 136. Expressed in terms of gang-rapes per 100,000 population, the figures are: 1995, 2; 1996, 3; 1997, 3; 1998, 2.3; 1999, 1.9; and 2000, 2.1. There is no upward or downward trend in terms of the whole of the State. However, it should be noted that the rates in various statistical divisions show large differences. For example, in the year 2000, the rate for inner Sydney was 2.4 per 100,000 population, whereas in the north-western part of the State the rate was 7.7 per 100,000 population.

One of the problems in this debate is that no-one is asking what amount of money should go into custodial sentences and how much into prevention. How much should go into conferencing, to make offenders realise the harm that they have done? How much should go to help the victims with their quandary, "Why has this happened?" and the more destructive introspection, "What is wrong with me?" How much should go into counselling perpetrators, so that they will be able to relate to others in a less primitive way? There are now anger management courses in gaol, with the suggestion that these should be extended to people in the community. If offenders cannot relate to people in the community, they will have to be kept in gaol forever, or until they are too old to have a libido, or until they are too old and so frail as to be unable to express it. Community groups that involve youths recognise that anger and aggression management may help prevent these sorts of crimes. However, in the Villawood case that has been discussed so widely the judge's assessment of the characters, as expressed in the judgment, does not suggest that the defendants in that case would have stood out as needing anger or aggression management, as some of the accused had no previous offences, while others had car or property offences. Some were from apparently good families, and their aggression had not previously drawn attention to them. In terms of the severity of the judgment, one aspect that may have affected the judgment was that under the plea bargain, which has been mentioned in this debate before, the agreed facts did not contain the threats that were made to the girls to get into the car. This was effectively kidnapping, as was mentioned in one of the victim's statements and in the 60 Minutes interview. The judiciary should make its decision without political interference, but it probably should also make its decision in full possession of the facts. If the problem is the plea bargaining process, then that should be addressed, rather than simply bringing in this bill, which does not address at least the significant causes of the problem demonstrated in that case. The Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] intends to lodge an appeal. Given that the DPP did the plea bargaining, that is interesting. The DPP arguably wants a longer sentence for one offence because it bargained away another. According to the Gidycz and Koss study, research at a number of American universities suggests that rape is occurring at a wide range of institutions of higher education, at fraternity parties and residence halls, and that those activities involve athletes. On some campuses it "happens every week", and some of the fraternities had actually planned these group rapes as part of their activities. In almost all cases, the men did not conceptualise the assault as group rape. Instead of labelling the experience as rape, these men saw themselves as having engaged in group sex with a "willing partner". That is not peculiar to the United States of America. Although generally I do not base things on anecdotes, sometimes personal experience is worth recounting. In about 1976, having recently graduated as a doctor, and because my car was playing up, I borrowed a car to go to a party at Liverpool. In a raffle there I won a large bottle of whisky. In the small hours of the morning, after returning the borrowed car, I was walking across the university lawn carrying the large bottle of whisky when I met a fellow who said, "That's a very nice bottle of whisky." He said it was a shame to open the whisky and invited me back to his room at one of the colleges, where he plied me with port. He was a pleasant sort of fellow but I reflected at the time that although he found it easy to speak to a chap walking across a park at night carrying a bottle of whisky, he may not have related well to women. Some months later friends of my sister came to me for prescriptions for the pill, and I wrote those prescriptions. A number of them, who were in the college, seemed fairly young. It turned out that the chap who invited me for a drink of port ended up as the first lover of one of those girls, who looked far younger than her actual age. She had gone to his room one evening, where he had said in front of a couple of his friends, "If you love me, you will make love to me in front of my friends." She was reluctant, but did so. Then he said, "If you love me, you will let them have a turn also." She became very upset about this, but she complied and then left. In her haste to leave, she left her keys behind. When she returned to get them, the same process was repeated. This, effectively, was a group rape at a Sydney university college. The incident was not reported. Interestingly, the college had an award for the most animal act of the year. This fellow won the award, which of course meant that knowledge of the incident had been widely disseminated. The girl was very upset. Much later in the year she attempted to prosecute those involved, but because by that stage there was no evidence she was unsuccessful. A group of feminists then marched on the college and there was a great hullabaloo. Some tyres were let down. Although I am not certain, I think that the award was 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16599 done away with. I do not know the effect of those events on the girl, but in that case the activity was almost within the norm of the college. Presumably, the men who took part in the activity are now respected citizens in this city, which is indicative of people's understanding of what rape is and what it means. Another woman I know was the subject of an attempted rape in Darwin. One night she awoke to find that a man with a balaclava and a knife at her throat was on top of her. He said, "Just give in quietly and this will be fine." She said she went berserk and fought very hard against her attacker. As she took off his balaclava she also pulled out a tuft of his blond hair by the roots. Her attacker then fled. She was quite traumatised and had a cut hand. She thought that she recognised her attacker as a fellow from the bus stop who had been watching her somewhat too closely, but he was never apprehended. To a casual observer she would appear to be a very strong lady, but since that time—some years ago—she has had great difficulty in her relationships with men. Often, people are quite scarred by these events. When this issue arose I asked her what she thought should be done with the rapists or attempted rapists, because I doubt that she would say she has returned to the state she was in before becoming the victim of attempted rape. She said that for the first few months following the event she would have liked her attacker to be killed or put away forever. But after that initial period she said that she would rather come to terms with what had happened, that she would rather talk about it and get it out of her head than have repeated nightmares from trying to cover it up. She said that the attacker must realise what he had done. Although victims are immensely traumatised, options other than long sentences must be considered as part of the healing process. [The Deputy-President (The Hon. Henry Tsang) left the chair at 6.32 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.] The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [8.00 p.m.]: I did not intend to mention the alleged attempted rape that took place in this Parliament. However, I was very disappointed by the first interjection of the Hon. Michael Costa that the New South Wales parliamentary sexual assault allegation was untrue, and I now feel obliged to refer to it. I believe the allegation. I was disappointed at the closed-shop boys' club approach of the Labor Party, which is similar to the United States college research and the University of Sydney anecdote I related earlier. His response was a tribal one and quite at odds with the spirit of the legislation, which condemns rapists in a demonised fashion. It is one rule for some and quite another for others. The Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] investigation of the incident, which concentrated on procedural aspects, heard all the evidence against the woman but no evidence from the chief witness who would have supported her case. The ICAC verdict reflected this judicial bias and, as such, delivered suboptimal natural justice for the woman. We need to be educated about what rape means. Governments need to value the relationships between people as a high priority in social policy. The loss of a comprehensive education system, the increased polarisation of society between rich and poor and the lack of support for kids at risk, particularly those with drug-affected parents or parents in gaol, are all factors that reduce understanding and increase alienation in society. Positive policies must be introduced to counter this and social research must document what is happening and address it. The legislation is not helpful. It is a gimmick. Let us consider the financial downside of the legislation, which was dealt with by my colleague the Hon. John Ryan, who is also a member of the Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population. The legislation will increase the gaol population and the length of gaol sentences without any evidence that they will have any effect on the problem. Mr Carr proudly said that he was spending $165 million on new gaols, but he did not say that he is selling schools for $115 million to pay for them. He did not consider the cost of extra prison time, which is the biggest cost factor in gaol. At a cost of $60,000 per person per year, how will an increase in the gaol population impact on the budget? Mr Carr did not mention that legislation passed recently in this House to amend the Victims Compensation Act would reduce the amount that a rape victim, for instance, can claim for psychological injury. Money spent in one area cannot be spent in another. The legislation will certainly lead us down the wrong path. We will always have people who want to get tough on crime. They may be talkback callers, they may be politicians responding to talkback callers, they may be security firms. Recently I sat on a plane beside a person who was marketing security devices and services. She said that Australia was a tough market compared to the United States because we were not yet fearful of crime. It was clear that her mission was to increase this fear. In the United States prisons are built on spec by private operators who then urge tough sentences to increase the chances of filling their new prisons. In this country the Department of Corrective Services is empire building. Although its rhetoric is more progressive, the spending on education and activities outside its walls are not improving very much as a percentage of its budget. It is incarceration rather than rehabilitation at the cost of other strategies to help victims and provide prevention programs. The legislation contributes nothing. It is merely a knee-jerk response and it should be opposed. 16600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

The Hon. IAN COHEN [8.07 p.m.]: As was clearly indicated by Ms Lee Rhiannon, the Greens oppose the bill. Increasing the maximum penalty for gang-rape from 20 years to life imprisonment will fail to reduce the incidence of gang-rape and sexual assault in our community. The bill fails to address the underlying reasons why individuals commit rape, and fails to set in place programs that may reduce the incidence of sexual assault. The Greens want policies and programs that reduce the incidence of sexual assault in our community. We would like the Premier, the Attorney General and experts in the community to sit down and thrash out a way to reduce the incidence of rape and gang-rape. To do this we must realise that sexual assault is a very complex matter. Rape is about power, violence and domination. It is a brutal, terrifying and sadistic act.

The legislation fails to deal with the complexities of the issue. Why is it that each year thousands of women in this country are raped? It is estimated that 100,000 sexual assaults occur each year. What is it in our society that allows this terrible incident to occur? Some 90 per cent of victims know the perpetrators of their attacks, but only 20 per cent of rapes are reported and only one in 20 reported rapes results in a conviction. According to the Young People and Domestic Violence Survey released last year, one in seven female teens have been raped, sexually assaulted or in a situation where a boyfriend has tried to physically force them to have sex. These statistics are shocking! Victims and assailants are most frequently of the same race. Rape happens to women of all ages, although those under 25 are most at risk. Victims come from all races, religions, and socioeconomic and ethnic groups—all of them. It is not appropriate in these circumstances to target any ethnic, religious or socioeconomic group in the community.

In 1981 the Crimes (Sexual Assault) Amendment Act abolished the crime of rape, established new graded offences and extended the definition of sexual intercourse. Prior to 1981 the crime of rape carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. In a parliamentary briefing paper on the bill prepared by Rowena Johns, Gareth Griffith and Rachel Simpson it was pointed out that, under the old regime, the life penalty was not being used and it deterred victims from proceeding with their complaint. The possible penalty—loss of liberty for the rest of their lives—deterred alleged offenders from pleading guilty. In 1979, two years before the sexual assault amendments, 38 per cent of defendants involving rape pleaded guilty in the higher courts compared to 81 per cent in all criminal cases.

The result of a not guilty plea is that victims have to endure the ordeal of giving evidence. That can be a terrifying event for the victim. Not only does the victim have to face her alleged attacker; she—and I say "she" as most victims are women—has to relive the whole experience over again. We should not ignore the incidence in this case of homosexual rape. The victim may be subjected to savage and relentless cross-examination, particularly when the alleged perpetrator is facing a possible life sentence. The 1979 statistics obtained by researchers from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research again indicate that a life penalty was not being used when it was available. Forty-six individuals were sentenced for rape and none received a life sentence. No offender received a sentence of more than 16 years and 85 per cent received 10 years or less.

Between 1972 and 1979 the average sentence for rape and attempted rape was seven years. During that five-year period one offender received a sentence of 20 years. For those reasons the life penalty was replaced by a sliding scale of maximum penalties ranging from 20 years to two years. The Greens are concerned that the legislation may have a negative impact on victims in that alleged perpetrators may be reluctant to plead guilty because too much is at stake and juries may be less willing to convict, leading to fewer convictions. Not only does the legislation fail to address the causes of rape; it fails in any way to deal with the issues of low reporting and low conviction rates. That is an area that is worthy of reform. The process for dealing with sexual assault victims is obviously not working well. Victims are afraid to come forward and they are unsupported by the system when they do. It was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 26 August that, in the last year, five victims of gang-rape sought counselling at the sexual assault unit at St George Hospital. However, none of the victims reported the assault to police; they have all been too afraid. We must look at ways to enable victims to come forward when they are assaulted. There is a culture of silence and fear. The Government would be better advised to direct its efforts towards resolving those issues. One suggestion would be more education at school level on the whole sexual assault issue. The New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP], Nicholas Cowdery, and the Law Society recommend retaining the current penalty regime. They argue that a maximum of 20 years is a sufficient penalty for an offence of this kind. Nicholas Cowdery argues that the maximum sentence is not the problem. The problem is that the trend in sentencing has slipped over the years—a long way down from the maximum. Statistics available from the New South Wales Judicial Commission show that for 237 people charged with aggravated sexual assault in the past seven years the average minimum sentence was 3.9 and the average maximum was six years. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16601

Lower court judges are bound by the decision of a higher court when they sentence offenders. If they move away too much from the sentences established by higher courts the defendant has a right to appeal. A judge would have to take into account Regina v Rushby, a Court of Criminal Appeal decision in 1999. In that case, which was described as falling into the worst category, a 13-year-old girl was raped by two youths, one aged 16 and one aged 18. The victim was subjected to vaginal and anal rape. The perpetrators were given six and eight years in a lower court, despite the fact that the victim was left tied up in a remote location. The Court of Criminal Appeal declined to interfere with the lower court's sentence.

Working within the existing framework and educating the judiciary may well impact on judicial decision-making in a positive way. That can be achieved through adequate and compulsory gender bias and judicial training on sexual assault. If an increase in penalties is what is necessary for gang-rape it is important not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Educating the judiciary may achieve an increase in penalties, whereas a life sentencing regime may be unlikely to increase penalties and is likely, according to past experience, to lead to fewer guilty pleas and fewer convictions. The position of the Law Society is different from the position of the DPP. The Law Society argues that increasing the maximum penalty from 20 years to life for gang-rape could put more victims' lives at risk. The President of the Law Society, Nick Meagher, said to the Sydney Morning Herald on 27 August:

If someone is facing the same maximum sentence for rape as for murder, then a "what have I got to lose" mindset can certainly come into play. It might mean that some victims who otherwise could live through their ordeal are murdered.

In a letter to members on the crossbenches dated 5 September, Nick Meagher stated:

Juries may be even more reluctant to find the accused guilty who face life imprisonment.

He also said:

Worldwide experience, particularly in America and Britain, has shown that punitive sentencing as a deterrent simply doesn't work. Look at the number of people on death row in Texas—the number just keeps increasing. The Greens are concerned about some of the issues raised by the Law Society. We would like the Minister's response to some of the more alarming issues raised. Can the Minister give an assurance that this legislation will not endanger victims' lives, as noted by the Law Society? Is there any research on this issue in other jurisdictions where life sentences are imposed for rape? Is there any evidence in other jurisdictions to indicate that longer sentences provide a deterrent? Professor Mark Findlay, Acting Director of the Institute of Criminology, referred to the deterrence factor in relation to increasing penalties as follows:

If we change the sentence for murder from life imprisonment to capital punishment, the American research seems to indicate this has no impact on whether people commit murders or not. He also said:

The whole idea of sentencing here is to make the public feel more comfortable and to express public outrage and that's important, but whether that in fact has an impact on public safety or not, I would doubt. One area of the law which needs to be looked at to determine whether reform is necessary is charge bargaining. Charge bargaining is where there are a large number of charges and some might be dropped, or where a serious charge might be dropped to a less serious charge in exchange for the offender pleading guilty. According to Mr Lloyd, a former senior New South Wales Crown Prosecutor, charge bargaining is a necessary evil so that the courts are not clogged up with not guilty pleas. That would cause the courts to become incapable of doing all their work. In sexual assault cases guilty pleas can save the victim the agony of having to give evidence, relive their experiences and be subjected to brutal cross-examination. Cindy Wockner of the Daily Telegraph conducted an analysis on the DPP's guidelines for charge bargaining. Essentially, those guidelines are that prosecutors are to encourage the entering of pleas of guilty to appropriate charges. If a plea of guilty is to be accepted to a charge which is different from that in the original indictment, it must be approved by the DPP or a Crown prosecutor, except where it is an alternative charge and there is no substantial difference in the criminality. The alternative charge must adequately reflect the essential criminality of the conduct. The process is one of negotiation between the prosecutor and the defence, and the police and victims are consulted. The agreed facts must reflect the facts that are able to be proven by the evidence and must not present a distorted or inaccurate picture. In this case the accused agreed to plead guilty, but only on the basis that the agreed facts did not specify that they had forced their victims into the car and threatened them with a knife. However, the victims said in their statement to police that they were indeed forced into the car and threatened with knives. Mr Lloyd said of this case: 16602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

To go from the victim did not voluntarily get into the car to getting into the car voluntarily is a fundamental change which I don't think a prosecutor should have agreed to.

The sentence may have been very different if the victims' version was in the agreed statement of facts. Then again, the defendants may not have agreed to plead guilty to a different statement of facts. The victims should have been made aware of the agreed statement of facts and its implications. If the victims did not agree with the facts and the defendants would not agree to anything else, the victims should have been given the option of proceeding with a guilty plea or a not guilty plea and the implication of making that decision. Perhaps what is needed is stricter charge bargaining guidelines and more consultation with victims about the agreed statement of facts so that victims are well informed as to what has been agreed to and the likely judicial outcome regarding a particular statement of facts.

This all points to the fact that sexual assault is a complex issue, requiring sophisticated laws to deal with those complexities. Increasing the penalty for aggravated sexual assault to imprisonment for life is an extremely crude and simple way of dealing with this complex issue which, in the Greens view, will fail to achieve what we in this Chamber want—that is, a reduction in sexual assault. The Government has reacted with one eye on the media and in a way that was not well considered. I believe it is political legislation, rather than legislation for the benefit of the victims in our community who are suffering. As a member of the Greens I oppose the bill.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [8.20 p.m.]: I support the bill, but in doing so I wish to reiterate the concerns expressed by the Hon. Ian Cohen and earlier by the Hon. John Ryan in regard to the time allowed for debate on this important legislation. I think the Hon. Ian Cohen summed it up in his final statement—this is a political bill, as opposed to something designed to right a wrong in our system of justice. The bill is designed to introduce life sentences for gang-rapists but the issue is not related to maximum sentences; the issue here is about a desperate Premier on a headline hunt. During the past two weeks he has had more spin on issues than one would get in a Shane Warne innings. Every day there was a new headline. Before we had time to digest the implications of the headline, he had moved on to another headline. That is what it was like for the duration, all because of the scheduled by-election in Auburn where the voters were about to judge the performance of this increasingly arrogant Government.

There can be no doubt that the chooks are coming home to roost for this Government. One only has to look at the outcome of the Cabramatta police inquiry, which we have yet to debate in this House. The inquiry has exposed the lie in regard to crime and drugs in our society, the operation of gangs, the hopeless task that police have in front of them, and the fact that the judiciary is not reflecting community expectations in regard to crime. One only has to look at the disgraceful Cecil Hills high school stunt that the Government pulled last year—never mind the young kid from that school who will probably suffer for a long time as a result of Walt Secord and his spin. One only has to look at the crises in health and education. They all manifested themselves this week in the Auburn by-election result, where the swing against the Government in a safe Labor seat was double the average. The Government is trying to spin its way out of that as well. It is interesting to note that the Premier had to reach out to embrace Opposition policy in respect of gang-rapists. In the Legislative Assembly on 4 September Andrew Tink sought leave to introduce a bill for an Act to amend the Crimes Act 1900 and the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to increase the maximum penalty for aggravated sexual assault from imprisonment for 20 years to imprisonment for life, and for other purposes. In debate on the Crimes Amendment (Aggravated Sexual Assault in Company) Bill in the other House, the shadow Attorney General, Chris Hartcher, exposed the Premier as playing catch-up politics on television in regard to this issue, when he said:

The real point has been missed … that is, the dishonesty of the Premier … The Premier promised that he would support life imprisonment for gang-rapists, those who engage in aggravated sexual assault in company, but he has not done that. The Premier has given us a bill that provides, in section 61JA of scheduled 1, life imprisonment for a person who commits sexual assault in company with others, and who maliciously inflicts actual bodily harm at the time of, or immediately before or after the offence, or uses an offensive weapon to threaten to inflict actual bodily harm, or who deprives the victim of liberty for a period before or after the commission of the offence. He went on to say:

Under the Premier's bill, despite his promise to introduce life sentences for gang-rapists, one has to not only be a gang-rapist but also maliciously inflict actual bodily harm, or have a weapon such as a knife or a gun and threaten to inflict actual bodily harm, or kidnap and impose the person in detention for a period. The Premier has not delivered on his promise of life gaol terms for gang-rapists, because a gang-rapist would not fall under that category. A gang-rapist would have to be one stage higher; the gang- rapist would have had to have inflicted actual bodily harm, or threatened to inflict actual bodily harm with a weapon, or kidnapped the person. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16603

I commend the shadow Attorney General for exposing that flaw in this bill. As has been said previously in the debate, it is a disgrace that we have to debate an issue of such importance to everyone in this State but have been given absolutely no time to do it. The bill is being rushed through Parliament. We received a research paper prepared by Rowena Johns, Gareth Griffith and Rachel Simpson, and I commend them for the work they put into it. However, that was delivered to us only this afternoon and we have had to read it, come to terms with it and debate it. This bill is too important for that. There are too many issues arising from it.

This stunt by the Premier needs to be exposed because the legislation alone will not do anything. Honourable members referred to some statistics for gang-rapists, but the average gaol sentence is between three and six years. We could have a 20-year maximum sentence, a life sentence, 40 years or 50 years, but it will not matter if the judiciary is handing out sentences averaging three to six years. In fact, only 1 per cent of cases— three cases out of 237—received the maximum penalty of 20 years. Once again, the Premier and this Government are exposed in the hunt for a headline.

The impact of rape, particularly the offences that initiated this bill, is very serious. The first thing we have to understand is that rape is a life sentence for the victim. A victim never recovers from rape. I do not think there would be any argument in that regard. When a victim has been raped—I know there are different levels, whether they had been assaulted or kidnapped, and all the other aspects that go with it—the mere fact that they have been raped places them in a defenceless position. They place their entire trust and faith in the parliamentary and judicial system to protect them, to make them safe. They are screaming out for some form of safety and protection when they tell the Crown what happened.

In the circumstances of the particular case that has been referred to during debate the Crown went away and changed the facts. Surely justice requires that any sentence be based on truth. In respect of this absolutely horrific case, which involved a number of issues—I will come to those later—the Crown betrayed that confidence, in my view, because it changed the story. The Crown said there was no knife, and that the victims were not forced into the vehicle but got in voluntarily. The victims went through this horrific circumstance, which no member of this House could imagine unless they had experienced it. The suffering they went through and the fear they held for their lives is something that no-one in Australia should have to experience.

The issue of the plea bargaining to get a conviction may well have satisfied the needs of the Director of Public Prosecutions, some of the legislators and so forth, but it will never satisfy the victims. The victims are the people whom we are supposed to represent in this Parliament, the people who have been disadvantaged or attacked and who are defenceless. There are a number of viewpoints in this well put together research paper. The tragedy is that we have not had enough time to digest it, to discuss it amongst ourselves, to consult with community groups and then have a proper, informed debate. One of the issues of concern in the community is that sentences these days are just too lenient. The shadow Minister for Police was quoted in a Sun-Herald article on 12 August as saying:

The Coalition opposed downgrading the sentence 20 years ago and Parliament should now be reconsidering the reinstatement of life penalties for the worst cases of aggravated sexual assault …

The honourable member knows what the community expectation is for these sorts of crimes. The Lebanese have been stigmatised in this debate. Charlie Moussa, of the United Australian Lebanese Assembly and whom I met about two weeks ago, is reported in an AAP wire article headed, "Lebanese leader says sentences too lenient" as saying:

Criminals should be punished as much as we can … There is a judicial system in this country that we have to respect … Its up to the legislative powers to amend it …To deter these people, we need much tougher sentences.

The editorial in the Sun-Herald on 26 August stated:

Premier Carr acknowledges its seriousness by announcing that those convicted of gang rape or sexual assault will face sentences ranging up to life in prison. This is commendable—particularly after the extraordinary courtroom leniency last week—but it is not the only answer.

Importantly, it went on:

The longer term solution is to get inside the minds of a generation of young Australian Muslim men who seem to have a grossly distorted notion of what our society is about.

We cannot deny that. That is an important part of this debate but one that we will not have time to explore. The editorial in the Sunday Telegraph of 26 August stated: 16604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

This disgusting crime cannot be tolerated in a civilised society.

The police are the ones who operate at the coalface. They are the ones who first see the victims in their traumatised state. Ian Ball, President of the New South Wales Police Association, said:

If the courts don't start to reflect community views and the views of the Parliament then at some point they're going to forfeit their right to judicial independence … Some members of the judiciary have decided, for whatever reason, they'll exercise their own social conscience without having to live with the consequences. You don't see too many of them living out where people [experience crime daily].

Of course, a couple of old boilers in the Women's Electoral Lobby go along with these views. Eva Cox said:

People are going to be very reluctant to convict a 16 or 17-year old if there is going to be a life sentence, so I think it's going to reduce sentences.

The Hon. Elaine Nile: They were the ones who pushed for the change from rape to sexual assault. They pushed for it.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I cannot understand why these old boilers get involved in the debate. They just do not understand it. They are certainly not representing women's interests. One of the other issues brought up is the independence of the judiciary. The President of the New South Wales Police Association referred to this. I know it is part of our system but it needs to be commented on. On 24 August the Leader of the Opposition in the other place said on ABC radio:

I think the judiciary have an obligation to reflect community views and community values and community standards and I have not spoken to a single person who believes the three people involved in this crime have got what they deserved and it's as simple as that.

Ken Marslew, who heads up the victims support group Enough is Enough, said on 28 August:

Tougher sentences were not the answer because judges would continue to work in isolation, ignoring community expectations, and were therefore unlikely to impose the harsher sentence anyway. Life should mean life, and if judges start to impose life sentences then it might be a deterrent and we might see a reduction in crime … The judiciary is so out of step with the rest of the world.

Again, on 4 September the Leader of the Opposition said:

Clearly, Premier Carr has the ability to appeal the sentences handed down to three gang rapists, yet to date he has refused to do so. Mr Carr should immediately order his Attorney General to take action to appeal the sentence today as the legislation enables him to do so.

I would say the Premier has asked Walt Secord what is going to get the bigger headline, a call for an appeal or a life sentence announcement, and Walt has said there is a much bigger spin on the life sentence, so they went that route. There is no doubt the judiciary has to be independent but there must be reality checks along the way. If members of the judiciary are going to have lifetime security, perhaps every four or five years they should have to live in Campbelltown, Auburn or Cabramatta, experiencing what ordinary people have to live with on a daily basis. That may be a good reality check for them. The other issue is plea bargaining. I wish to put on record some statements made by the victims. The mother of one of the victim's said:

They [the DPP] told us when we went to the plea bargaining that the sentences would still be many years longer than what was handed down by Judge Latham. They were like a salesperson selling the plea bargain to talk the girls out of a trial. My daughter is very strong-headed and the only reason she backed down was because she thought they were going to get a fair few years … We were convinced by the people who were handling it [the case] that they were going to get enough years that we didn't have to worry about her going through the agony of going through the court.

I understand that since then the victims have said they would have preferred to have gone through the court process rather than have the outcome that was achieved. The other victim's mother is quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald of 25 August as saying:

It was wrong for victims to be gagged. We only just wanted to get our point across to the judge. The Government should really look at the legal system totally and that victims should have some voice. Something has to be done.

In a 60 Minutes transcript of 2 September, Sue, one of the victims, said:

I did expect the sentencing to give me some sort of closure so I could start getting on with my life. But it's been the exact opposite. It's just made things worse because it's like, now my story has been changed by the legal system … The facts were changed and I want to stop that. My story should be told the way it happened. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16605

They could have told us at least that they were going to change it and then let us decide what we wanted to do from there. But they didn't. Personally, I would rather go through the process of court because at least my story is getting told and they are actually getting sentenced on what they did and not what they didn't do.

That is an indictment on the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] and on the plea bargaining system that operates at the moment. If I had been the parent of Sue, the victim, I would have felt betrayed by the system. The DPP needs to be called into line. The shadow Attorney General has announced in the other place that the Opposition believes a committee of this Parliament should oversight the DPP. At the moment the DPP is a law unto himself. He displays an arrogance on a par with the Government and he should be accountable to somebody.

The other issue is ethnic gangs. Anyone who raises this issue is immediately branded a racist. This sort of political correctness has contributed a lot to the problem, because it means that the community is in denial of the real reasons. As I said earlier, the Lebanese community has been stigmatised. We met a fair few members of that community over the last few weeks. They feel as badly about the situation as anybody else. But we cannot deny the fact that some of these victims, according to the victims and others, have been targeted by Lebanese gangs because they are white females. That is what I have read; that is what I have heard. The New South Wales Commissioner of Police, Peter Ryan, said on 29 November 1996:

Here the crime is partly Lebanese based, partly from the old Soviet Union, Hong Kong, Vietnam and China, and they all have their own milieus. There are vast amounts of money, principally based on drugs. Crime here is horrific. There is a large domestic murder rate.

In an article titled "Rape, hatred and racism" published on 12 August, Miranda Devine wrote:

Why did it take two years and as many as 70 rapes for us to be made aware of what appears to be a home-grown form of systematic ethnic cleansing by a group of men said to be of "Middle Eastern" extraction?

On 18 August in an article in the Australian titled "Rape menace from the melting pot", police commissioner Peter Ryan is quoted as saying:

I've never come across something quite like this before where a particular, clearly defined cultural group of attackers attack a very clearly defined cultural group of victims.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Who said that?

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: The Commissioner of Police, Peter Ryan.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Are you quoting him with approval? Your fellow party members today were denigrating him.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I am not denigrating Commissioner Ryan at all. In fact, I have the utmost respect for Commissioner Ryan.

The Hon. Michael Egan: You better tell Michael Gallacher.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I have respect for Commissioner Ryan. However, I think that your part- time police Minister and part-time publican is the bloke that should put his full attention into the issue and not spend half his time in the pub down the street and half his time on police issues. That is where the responsibility lies.

The Hon. David Oldfield: Who are you talking about, Charlie?

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I am talking about the part-time publican and part-time police Minister who is running the police force on a part-time basis. In an article on 23 August Charlie Moussa, whom I said I met a couple of days ago, said:

The Lebanese community abhorrently and vehemently denounces and condemns the cowardly, dirty and barbarian acts carried [out] by rapists and every other criminal. We are privileged to be Australians but want to be treated equally. Mr Carr should foster harmony and work harder not to alienate the Australian public from ethnic communities.

An editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald on 23 August stated: 16606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

There should be no taboo in discussing crime occurring in any particular ethnic community. Equally, there must also be great care to avoid stereotyping, which can slip so easily into racial denigration … The problem of ethnic crime gangs has not gone away … But it is disappointing that the experience of the years of confronting such crime honestly while not inflaming hatred and division by careless stereotyping has not prevented the latest ugliness … Terrible though they are, these assaults by young Australian men of Lebanese background have been hardly distinguishable from any number of others by packs of other young men over the years. To suggest otherwise is to cross the line from proper, open discussion of social problems to dangerous, racial stereotyping.

The targeting of Australian girls is very serious. It deeply upsets the older Australian community particularly. Over the years I have met many veterans who served this country, and particularly those who served in the south-west Pacific area. Many of their statements are on the record. They knew that they were all that stood between an invading enemy and their families back in Australia. They said, "We didn't want to die but we were prepared to die if we had to." And many did. Their worst nightmare was to have their families attacked or raped by an invading enemy. They just despair at their daughters being subjected to gang-rape simply because they are Australian females. We have to confront the issue, debate it and find out why it is happening. I referred earlier to the editorial in the Sun-Herald. It stated:

The longer-term solution is to get inside the minds of a generation of young Australian Muslim men who seemed to have a grossly distorted notion of what our society is all about.

That should be the essence of this debate. But the debate is all about the Premier's desire for a quick and cheap headline. This issue is more important than that. He should be condemned for cheapening the debate, for pushing the bill through with undue haste and without proper debate. I support the bill but condemn the Government for the way in which it has acted and for the haste with which the bill has been produced.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [8.46 p.m.]: The Hon. Charlie Lynn suggested that the Premier ought to be condemned. I was not quite sure why. Prior to the dinner adjournment I was certain that the Premier had referred to Lebanese gangs in press conferences or in the media somewhere. After checking it out during the dinner adjournment I was surprised to learn that the whole question of ethnic gangs began with the Police Service. On 21 August the head of the Islamic faith was reported by the Australian Associated Press as saying that the actions of the rapists were a reflection of Australian culture rather than Lebanese culture. On the same day the Daily Telegraph stated:

Despite the mufti's claims, police sources yesterday told the Daily Telegraph most of those arrested over earlier attacks were of the Muslim faith.

It seems to me that in defending the Police Service the Premier has been labelled with the kind of inflammatory remarks that were made by Sheik Taj el-Din Al Hilaly and police commissioner Ryan. I raise this because so much seems to be turning on the question of ethnicity and gangs, even though there is no reference in the bill to ethnicity or anything other than the offences dealt with. I oppose the bill. In doing so I am taking exactly the same position that the Labor Party and Frank Walker took in 1981. In that year the offence of rape was abolished and replaced with various categories of sexual assault. The Coalition argued at the time that life in prison for aggravated sexual assault should not be abolished. The Coalition at least has remained consistent over the years in that respect.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: No, it did not; in 1991 it changed the law and it did not build in life imprisonment.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I will be guided by the future Attorney General about what happened in 1991.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: This is their section. In 1991 they changed it and they left it at 20 years. They did not increase it.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: The point I wanted to make is that in 1981 the Labor Party took a position—

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: I took issue with you only because you said that the Coalition had been consistent. It was inconsistent.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: You have floored me because I was clearly under the impression that in 1981 the Labor Party took a certain position under Frank Walker and has now reverted back to that position. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16607

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: They had a period in between in government.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I am totally ignorant about what happened in between.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Twenty years is a long time.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: What—to change your mind?

The Hon. Michael Egan: Absolutely.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: The point made in the lower House by the shadow Attorney General, Chris Hartcher, is that people object to politicians' lack of consistency. Whatever politicians might think of themselves, they are not trusted by the community. My point is that politicians are not regarded as consistent. In the lower House Chris Hartcher said that the lack of consistency and lack of principle that politicians apparently demonstrate is the reason for their problems in the community. I draw the attention of honourable members to the latest edition of Reader's Digest, which has a report on a survey of trust in Australia.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: You would hardly put Reader's Digest forward as a model of trust.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I am not suggesting anything other than that Reader's Digest conducted a survey of the 730,000 people in Australia and in New Zealand on its mailing list.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: They are all the ones who keep trying to get off the mailing list.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: Despite what the Hon. Jan Burnswoods says, I understand that the people on the mailing list represent customers who have subscribed to a product in the previous three years. The readers of Reader's Digest were asked the following question:

For each of the groups or types of people listed below, please indicate by circling the appropriate number how much you trust them. One means you do not trust them at all and ten means you trust them completely.

The survey listed 25 categories of employment ranging from doctors and nurses to plumbers and police officers. The result of the survey was that the most trusted employment category was firefighters. They were closely followed by pilots, nurses, members of the armed forces, pharmacists and police officers. At the bottom of the list, after banks, trade unions, marketers and car salesmen, were politicians. My point is that politicians do not have credibility in the community, and one reason for that is their lack of consistency and their apparent lack of principle when it comes to bills such as this. In her contribution Ms Lee Rhiannon made the point that only one in five sexual attacks is reported to the police and that only one in 20 complaints results in a conviction. People know from their own experience that women are subjected to appalling treatment in the legal system, and they know that this bill will do nothing to address that problem.

As politicians we have the authority and the mandate to pass just laws that protect our citizens, and the vulnerable in particular. No-one would dispute that women are vulnerable to violent sexual crime, but we fail in our duty when we introduce knee-jerk laws for cynical political purposes. This bill falls into that category. As I said earlier, the Premier was attributed with certain remarks about gangs. Although he did not refer to "Lebanese gangs", according to my research, he certainly referred to "ethnic gangs". In the context of the debate about the particular crimes that were being discussed on 21 August, unfortunately the Premier seems to have been left with that label. For example, on page 5 of the Sun-Herald of 9 September, Alex Mitchell and Vicki May stated:

[The security] alert coincided with Mr Carr's public condemnation of Lebanese gangs linked to a spate of violent rape offences.

In the Sydney Morning Herald of 7 September Jennifer Hewett stated:

But surely the prize for the greatest cynicism of all has to go to our Premier, Bob Carr. Just in time for faltering poll numbers, he has discovered the horror of ethnic gangs while insisting he is not singling out any particular group. Sure, Bob, sure.

Finally, in the Sydney Morning Herald of 8-9 September Adele Horin stated:

Bob Carr, beating the drum about Lebanese gangs, has further encouraged Australians to throw restraint to the wind and give vent to their bigotry.

The Hon. Michael Egan: Does she ever get anything factually right? 16608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I cannot say whether she does or not.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: But she said that the Premier had never used the word, so you can say that she got it wrong. You said the Premier didn't use the description.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: That is right. The Premier did not use the description, so Adele Horan certainly got it wrong on this occasion. In answer to the Treasurer's question, I cannot say whether she consistently gets it wrong but she is wrong on this occasion.

The Hon. Michael Egan: The problem generally with the media is that when there is a misstatement of fact in one source they then repeat it. They do not do their own research.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: The incorrect attribution to the Premier of describing Lebanese gangs as being responsible for crime is one that pervades the whole issue. Far be it from me to say what the Premier should do about the problem, but to align himself with the police, as he has done on this occasion, has certainly got him into trouble. On 21 August I wrote to the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research asking about the alleged link between ethnicity and crime in Bankstown. The bureau wrote back to me on 28 August advising that the rates of sexual assault are no higher in Bankstown than elsewhere in the State and there is no evidence that persons of Middle Eastern appearance commit more crime than people of other ethnic descent. In other words, police observations about the alleged link between ethnic gangs and sexual offence crimes are unsupported by the facts.

One statistic provided by the bureau indicated a spate of about 70 sexual assaults between April and July 1999 in the Bankstown area. It turns out that these offences were not committed by members of a gang but by a single individual named Lesley Ketteringham, who has been convicted and sentenced for wilful and obscene exposure offences. Another statistic I received from the bureau—this also explodes the myth that ethnic gangs are raping and pillaging the suburbs—is that the recorded rate of sexual assaults involving multiple offenders is not as high in Bankstown as it is in several other areas of the State. According to the bureau, the recorded rate of sexual assaults involving multiple offenders is almost twice as high in the northern statistical division and more than twice as high in the north-western statistical division. This means that this bill has been generated by incorrect information and irrational fear and loathing whipped up by the Government under its law and order agenda. In his second reading speech the Treasurer said:

The time has come to better protect our citizens.

I agree with that sentiment, but I do not agree that this bill is the way to do it. The Treasurer mentioned that life in prison is currently the maximum penalty for the worst kind of drug trafficking offences. However, he failed to mention that only one or two offenders have been sentenced to life in prison for drug trafficking. In other words, increasing penalties for serious crime does not better protect our citizens. In the same vein, the current maximum penalty for aggravated sexual assault is 20 years, yet only two or three offenders have been given the maximum penalty. Does the Government seriously believe that increasing the maximum penalty from 20 years to life in prison is likely to result in further convictions? This bill is window dressing and nothing more than a cynical response to a genuine concern in the community about better protection of its citizens.

The way to protect our citizens is to support the police force and put more police on the ground. When the Government faced the electorate in 1999 it promised to increase police numbers. Today I am reliably informed that more police are leaving the force than are joining. How does the Government intend to better protect our citizens with fewer police instead of more? Another way to better protect our citizens is to educate our young people and teach them about equality of the sexes. Instead of creating divisions in the community over ethnicity and inflaming racism and bigotry, the Government should be promoting human rights, including equality rights. In the Daily Telegraph of 21 August, the same day as the report I referred to earlier about ethnic crime, the Premier is quoted as saying:

If a Bill of Rights had been included in the Commonwealth Constitution in 1901 it would most likely have enshrined the White Australia Policy.

This is a perverse view of our constitutional origins and a rewriting of Australian history. Australia's draft Constitution, as prepared by Tasmania's Inglis Clark, included about 12 citizens' rights, including the right to equality. Most of those rights had to be removed from the draft Constitution because they contradicted our racist factory and immigration laws, not to mention laws discriminating against Aboriginal people. I note in passing that one right that the Constitution does protect is the right of State premiers to make racist laws—not that I 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16609 suggest that this is a racist law. The white Australia policy is the very reason that we do not have a bill of rights; to suggest the reverse—that is, that the white Australia policy would have been included in a bill of rights—is a rewriting of history of David Irving proportions.

The Hon. Michael Egan: What does the bill of rights have to do with this legislation?

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I was referring to equality of the sexes, the rights of males and females, and the fact that we ought to be teaching our children about that. Labelling offenders according to their ethnicity may appeal to certain elements of the community, but Australia happens to be the most culturally diverse country in the world after Israel. Each of us has a friend, relative or spouse who belongs to a different ethnic origin from our own. To suggest that one ethnic group is more likely to commit crime than another is simply not true and the vast majority of people know that it is not true. Every candidate in last Saturday's Auburn by- election agreed that crime is crime and has nothing to do with culture or religion. Promoting the idea that ethnicity can be linked to crime is simply to propound a lie. It is in that context that we are asked to consider this bill and for that reason I urge members to reject it.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Wong.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.02 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

CHILDREN OF IMPRISONED PARENTS

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [9.02 p.m.]: The latest issue of the journal of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, which is entitled Family Matters, contains an article headed "Forgotten families—the impacts of imprisonment". Honourable members would know that for some time now a select committee of this House has inquired into the increase in prison population. It is regrettable that its reporting date continues to be delayed. However, the article contains matters that we should all think about, and I congratulate the journal on publishing it. The article, in its opening statement, makes an obvious point. It states:

The purpose of a prison sentence is to punish offenders, not their children.

As a moment's thought would tell us, and as is stated in the article:

It is likely that the disruption associated with parental imprisonment, and the values, attitudes and behaviours that are promoted in the child throughout this experience, will be a very negative experience for the child, and may increase the probability of the child him/herself offending later in life.

Given what we know about the intergenerational pattern not only of offending and imprisonment but also the pattern of social disadvantage that is both cause and effect of that pattern, this point is perhaps fairly simple. However, I think it is worth making. The article points out that despite a long period of consideration on this topic—not least by the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues, which I now chair, in its inquiry into the children of imprisoned parents some time ago and the very sensible recommendations it made— we still do not know a great deal about prisoners as parents or about children of prisoners. The article discusses quite a number of studies in relation to that, in particular a study recently carried out in Victoria, and also draws attention to the fact that in New South Wales, other States of Australia and many countries throughout the world, the number of people in prison increases both absolutely and relatively. As a matter of commonsense, more and more children are being affected and this is particularly the case given that, among increasing rates of imprisonment, women disproportionately are in gaol in increasing numbers. What happens to the children of parents who are in prison depends largely on whether it is the primary caregiver who is imprisoned. In most cases, the children of male prisoners will be in the care of the children's mothers whereas the children of female prisoners are often likely to experience far greater disruption in caregiving arrangements, with grandparents and other family members playing a role. Indeed, many children of imprisoned parents end up in various forms of State care. The effect on these children ranges across a number of different aspects. Often there is considerable trauma associated either with visiting parents in prison or with not visiting them. There are feelings of shame and confusion when children visit prisons. If they do not visit the prisons, there is massive disruption and dislocation as a result of their parents vanishing. 16610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

Relocation of the family often becomes necessary, with all of what that means for children's friendship networks, community links, schooling and so on. A number of psychological effects also seem fairly well attested to. They include powerlessness, loss of parental authority, a sense of losing touch. The long-term effects of those feelings are commented on in the article. Organisations that are working with prisoners' families point out that the overwhelming evidence indicates that children who may already be disadvantaged are likely to suffer further discrimination, stigmatisation and hardship following the imprisonment of a parent. That disadvantage stems from stereotyping and from blaming the children. The other, more positive side of the story is that prisoners who are able to maintain contact with their families and those who are members of families which are able to maintain good contact with the imprisoned parent are less likely to re-offend after release. There is some evidence that the children, as they grow up, are much less likely to continue the intergenerational pattern. [Time expired.]

HOMEBUSH WEST PUBLIC SCHOOL

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [9.07 p.m.]: As this is Education Week I believe it is appropriate to take up the case—on behalf of the school council and the parents and citizens association—of a school that was the subject of correspondence received by me this week. The school is in a Labor electorate and one would have thought that, particularly as it is in a Minister's electorate, the Government may have been more diligent in following up problems on behalf of this school. This is a school whose community and parents and citizens association have given much: the Homebush West Public School. The parents group and the school community are very proud of the school. They have indicated to me that in recent years they have done much to enhance the school environment through the provision of reverse cycle airconditioning in old wooden classrooms, heavy investment in computer technology, the provision of eight computers, a library server, a printer and a digital camera, books and computer software, and the provision of landscaping expertise and assistance, musical instruments—including a piano, cellos and clarinets—as well as a salary for the music teacher for the school's unique music program.

These groups also fund a yearly concert and contribute to the school and the local community in many ways. I mention that background information because the Homebush West Public School's centenary is approaching. This school has much to look forward to except that, as a consequence of the foundations of the main school having deteriorated in 1997, it now has significant structural problems that the community and parents and citizens association believe should have been resolved by now. Despite the fact that in 1999 the Department of Public Works and Services undertook some stabilisation work, as a consequence of the foundation problems other significant problems now exist. Indeed, the school is surprised that it has been unable to receive funding to have those problems resolved. The school has highlighted to me that the front half of the main school building, which contains the reception area, school office and two classrooms, is sliding or sinking forward. In the case of one classroom the floor is almost totally unsupported. It is on a definite incline and bounces when walked on. As result of problems with the foundations and despite the fact that new bitumen has been laid around the school, those problems persist.

This year the cracks in the walls and ceilings throughout the whole building are so numerous and large—one crack is in excess of two centimetres—that the department removed the plaster from around the cracks because the crumbling plaster was a safety issue. The school provided me with a set of photographs that depict occupational health and safety concerns for both teachers and students, such as crumbling plaster, dust and cracked walls. Dust from the crumbling plaster is of great concern because it has an adverse effect on children with asthma. Homebush West Public School has had to write to the shadow Minister because it is so disappointed at the lack of response from the Government. Over the past five years student numbers have increased dramatically and the current enrolment is 248. For the same period last year the figure was 190, so there has been a 30 per cent increase in student numbers.

The area has significant high density developments and the school is barely a stone's throw from the Olympic facilities. Although we have been rightly proud of the facilities that we showcased to the world at Homebush last year, Homebush West Public School is crumbling to the stage where there are serious concerns for the wellbeing and safety of the students. The exterior is hardly a showcase for positive education, despite the work and efforts of the school community and the fact that the school centenary is fast approaching. I entreat the Government to take seriously the problem of Homebush West Public School and not to disregard its concerns. Now that the school is in a safe Government electorate I ask the Government not to ignore the needs of the school but to listen to the plea of the school council and parents and citizens association and provide a positive funding response to resolve the problems at the school. 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16611

CONSERVATORIUM OF MUSIC REDEVELOPMENT

The Hon. ELAINE NILE [9.12 p.m.]: I congratulate the Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, on the redevelopment of the Sydney Conservatorium of Music. I have in my possession many negative reports from 1998 to February 1999. However, I attended the official reopening of the Sydney Conservatorium of Music and the Conservatorium High School and it was a wonderful afternoon. The building is truly magnificent. It was refreshing to see what had been done with the artefacts that had been dug up. Indeed, it will be a wonderful experience for schoolchildren to see the heights that can be reached when they have a love for music. I believe members of Parliament should also have due regard to this magnificent building without bias. Situated on a beautiful site rather than being stuck away in the backblocks of Rozelle, it can be enjoyed both by tourists and, most important, students of music. Every person attending the reopening was provided with a beautiful program, which contained an extremely informative message from the Premier. The message reads in part:

In 1912 and 1913 the State's first Labor Government under Premier Jim McGowen and his successor W. A. Holman had the vision to plan a range of new cultural facilities for Sydney, including a recital hall.

The venue chosen was of immense historical importance—it was the Government House stables built at huge expense by Governor Macquarie, an extravagance that contributed to his recall in 1821. By early last century the motor car had rendered the stables redundant and they were derelict.

The building was opened as the NSW State Conservatorium of Music on May 6, 1915, only 11 days after Gallipoli. The new recital hall was placed in the stables courtyard and the first students began their courses the following year. It was a wise, farsighted decision to continue and complete this project in the midst of war…

Eight decades after the Conservatorium's opening, it fell to my government to seize the opportunity posed by the Conservatorium's superb location in the Botanic Gardens, by the Harbour and in reach of Utzon's Opera House. The "Con" had to stay in Macquarie Street, but it had to be rebuilt.

That was one of the best decisions this House has ever made. The Premier's message continues:

The students and staff are reunited on the one site for the first time in over 25 years. They have a library, a music café and jazz club, four new recital halls and a gathering space in the new atrium. Here the important archaeological remains uncovered during excavations have been carefully conserved and displayed against sandstone.

I offer my sincere thanks to all those who had the courage to realise this ambitious project. In particular I thank the concept architect Chris Johnson and the Government Architect's Office, project architect Barry McGregor and architects Daryl Jackson Robin Dyke, acoustic engineers Kirkegaard Associates and the archaeological team led by Mary Casey.

The reopening of the Conservatorium of Music is something that Sydney and this Parliament should be extremely proud of. I had never visited the old "Con"; I know that it stank from the rain, had holes in the roof, and so on. But today Sydney should be very proud of what it now has. The program also provides a history of the Conservatorium. When it opened to students in March 1916 its stated aims were to provide tuition of a standard at least equal to that of the leading European conservatoriums and to protect amateurs against the frequent waste of time and money arising from unsystematic tuition. The reference to European standards and the appointment of a European director were not uncontroversial at the time, but criticism subsided after the arrival of the first director, Belgian conductor and violinist Henri Verbrugghen, in 1915. A great deal of history goes with the Conservatorium. The people we met at the reopening who were part of the orchestra and the Conservatorium choir were absolutely thrilled. [Time expired.]

LITHGOW SILICON SMELTER

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [9.17 p.m.]: Earlier today the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development informed the House about the progress of an important regional project that, when commenced, will bring great economic benefit to the State's economy as well as its environment. As the Treasurer said, the Lithgow silicon smelter project will bring a new industry to country New South Wales and will create real and lasting jobs for more than 250 country people. The Government and the company have been working closely together and, together with community support, will achieve exceptionally good outcomes for the people of New South Wales. The project involves the establishment of a new silicon smelter at Lithgow, a quartz mine at Cowra, a charcoal plant at Moruya, and 8,000 hectares of trees, or eight million new trees, in the Liverpool Plains. These plantations will provide a future wood and charcoal supply for the smelter, help tackle salinity and offset greenhouse gas emissions.

As the Treasurer and the Minister for Forestry have said on several occasions, this material will come from forests that have a completed regional forest agreement. The documents the Government has made available tonight clearly demonstrate that the material for charcoal production can be supplied from wood 16612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

residues and waste. The documents also show that not one tree will be cut for the sole purpose of charcoal production. The documents explain in detail the facts and the various aspects of the project. There is also a set of photographs showing the residue wood that is used for charcoal. These documents, together with a copy of the independent report from State Forests certifying the availability of sufficient residue and waste wood to meet the needs of the project, are also available from the Treasurer's office. Honourable members should be aware of the lack of support from the Commonwealth Government for this project. In February this year the New South Wales Government invited the Prime Minister to invest in this nationally significant plantation. However, to date—after seven months—the Prime Minister has still not responded directly to the Premier's letter. Instead he asked his office to reply, giving no sign of positive support for the project and fobbing off the Premier's invitation to the bureaucrats. Despite the Prime Minister's lofty pronouncements and grandstanding about committing resources to battle salinity, it appears that he is not really interested in what happens in one of the worst salt-affected areas of this country that is situated in the middle of the electorate of the Leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister, who is currently the Acting Prime Minister. The New South Wales Government's forest strategy has many benefits for rural and regional New South Wales and honourable members may wish to consider some of the most important of those. The New South Wales forest strategy protects high-conservation old-growth forests. It actively encourages plantation development for wood and helps find solutions to salinity. It is creating new markets in carbon trading and renewable energy and generating certainty for industry and jobs for timber workers. It will facilitate important projects such as the Lithgow silicon smelter that will bring economic and environmental benefits to this State. That means that the New South Wales Government is the first and only government to achieve an effective balance between the competing conservation and development objectives in the forest debate. The New South Wales Government has already granted approval for the development of the smelter at Lithgow and the mine at Cowra. The company is currently completing an environmental assessment of the charcoal plant at Moruya, which is due to be completed in December this year. I am pleased that the New South Wales Government has given a commitment to continue to play its part, and it will be up to the company to then proceed to invest. However, it appears that the Federal Government poses the greatest risk to this project. Let us hope that the Prime Minister gets the message that this project is worthy of Federal support. If it were left to the Prime Minister to take the initiative in areas such as this, nothing would happen in this country. With the support of the New South Wales Labor Government and the willing support of the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development and the Minister for Forestry, we have the opportunity to establish a good project in regional New South Wales. I urge the Federal Government and the Prime Minister to get the message and to make a positive commitment to supporting this project, which will have many benefits for rural and regional New South Wales, thereby ensuring its success. PARLIAMENTARY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [9.22 p.m.]: On 17 November 1999 I addressed this House about what I considered to be the inadequate resources provided to Opposition members to enable them to carry out their primary responsibility of making an increasingly arrogant Government accountable to the people of New South Wales. It is a joke that a member of this House who has no constituency to represent, no party structure to report to and who cannot even attend Parliament when it is in the session is entitled to two staff members while a shadow Minister with one or more shadow portfolios is allocated only one staff member. In normal circumstances an adequate information technology support system could compensate for this deliberate Government tactic of starving the Opposition of resources. When I raised this issue in November 1999 the Treasurer mocked my statements with witty comments such as "Haven't you heard of a diary book?" and "What is wrong with a pencil and paper?" That is the sort of contempt and arrogance that was soundly rejected by the voters in the Auburn electorate on the weekend. The winner of the by-election for that previously safe Labor electorate, which the party held with a 25 per cent majority, was determined by the distribution of preferences. That pattern will be repeated in Parramatta in the next few months. The last time I spoke about this matter I focused on resources. Opposition members are given computer hardware that is obsolete before it is issued. For example, we received a Gateway notebook and the company has just gone bust. We get incompatible equipment that cannot transfer data between mobile telephones, laptop computers and so on. It is still uncertain whether we will receive Palm Pilots five or six years after their introduction when everyone else has them. We are forced to work with computer programs that do not meet our needs. When I came to this place the world was using Microsoft Word but we were using WordPerfect. We have since transferred to Word, but that means we must stay with Windows 95—and it is 2001! 11 September 2001 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16613

We do not have an effective contacts database, publishing programs, training support or a suitable accounting system. The Parliamentary Information Technology Services [PITS] management position was vacant for something like two years. There is no 24-hour helpline for access by people who work outside Parliament House during working hours and away from Sydney. Parliamentary Information Technology Services is overworked with its old system. However, the real motive may be a little more sinister, and that motive does not appear to relate to resource allocation and obsolete equipment. It seems that old computer systems and equipment are easy for anybody with sophisticated password sniffing equipment to access.

Last week I met with a computer expert who told me that it takes between one and two minutes to bypass our passwords. Any government in a democracy has a duty of care to ensure that all members of Parliament can maintain confidentiality of information given to them by people who come to see them. The Government is failing them. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods can joke about the matter but I understand that about a year ago the Government was advised about that vulnerability but did nothing. It is absolutely disgraceful that now that Government members have been exposed as having aggressive, sophisticated illegal software on their computers, the Government blames PITS staff—the most vulnerable in this Parliament.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: We didn't blame PITS.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: Yes, you did. Last Tuesday the Premier blamed PITS. You should read Hansard. That is gutless and disgraceful.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Haven't you read the report?

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: Yes, I have read the report. We will hear more about that report. Today the Treasurer failed to give a commitment to provide the much-needed resources to ensure the integrity and security of the system. The Treasurer can smirk about it, but I would have thought he would have taken the technical information on board. He has a duty to provide us with secure equipment.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Are you attacking John Evans?

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I am attacking this arrogant Government. The Hon. Jan Burnswoods can laugh about it now but let me tell you—

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: We are laughing at you!

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: Go ahead.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Janelle Saffin): Order! I cannot hear the Hon. Charlie Lynn.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: It is a pity that we now have to resort to considering a notice of motion to more widely debate this issue. We will be debating that whitewash report that was given to us too. It is an absolute disgrace.

SOLITARY ISLANDS MARINE RESERVE

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [9.27 p.m.]: The Solitary Islands Marine Reserve is situated on the mid- north coast of New South Wales and adjoins the eastern fringe of the Solitary Islands Marine Park. Both the reserve and the park comprise an important part of the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas [NRSMPA]. The Commonwealth Government is currently developing a plan of management for the Commonwealth reserve, with the primary objective of maintaining ecological processes and systems to protect the habitats and biodiversity of the Commonwealth waters of the Solitary Islands region.

The Australian Marine Conservation Society has strong reservations about the ability of the draft plan, in its current form, to achieve its primary objective. The Australian Marine Conservation Society fails to understand how the limited conservation measures proposed will protect the marine systems of the Solitary Islands region from what will otherwise largely be unmitigated human activities. The proposed zoning plan recommends full protection to less than half a per cent, 0.49 per cent, of the total area of the reserve in a single no-take sanctuary zone, that is, World Conservation Union [IUCN] category I. Although there are three equally important ecosytem types identified in the reserve, the sanctuary zone is proposed for Pimpernel Rock only, a unique feature of the reserve, but not representative of the suite of ecosystem features present. 16614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 September 2001

The Australian Marine Conservation Society believes that as a minimum, 15 per cent of each ecosystem type within the reserve should be conserved and managed in no-take sanctuary areas, equating to IUCN category I or II. These include open-ocean habitat, mid-water reef habitats, deepwater reef habitats, and soft substrate habitats. They believe that total protection of 15 per cent of these systems is the minimum necessary to safeguard the integrity of the Solitary Islands region from impacts, and to act as a buffer when traditional resource management approaches fail to achieve sustainability in the reserve. Failure to protect at least 15 per cent of each habitat in sanctuary zones will serve only to undermine the success of the reserve in achieving its primary objective, and will further undermine the area's ability to contribute to the NRSMPA.

The draft plan proposes to allow the following activities in the so-called habitat protection zone: recreational line fishing and charter fishing, recreational spear fishing, recreational line and spear fishing competitions, commercial pelagic fishing, spanner crab netting and possible collection of others species, other than corals or aquarium fish. The Australian Marine Conservation Society argues that these activities are inconsistent with the intent of habitat protection zones, and that allowing these activities in the zone could cause substantial impacts either singularly or cumulatively, directly or indirectly.

There is evidence that fishing removes reef species, some of which are important to the shaping of reef communities. Spear fishing and line fishing competitions often target larger, higher order, prize species. Such species are often important for maintaining diversity in a particular area. There is also a great paucity of knowledge regarding the sustainability of a range of fishing activities in the Solitary Islands region, therefore making it even harder to justify allowing these activities in the habitat protection zone. The IUCN gives international guidance on the categorisation of protected areas, and the Australian Government is committed to using this system in establishing the NRSMPA. While the application of IUCN categories in the marine environment is open to a certain level of interpretation, it is widely accepted that hunting and fishing should be prohibited in category 2 protected areas. I ask the Minister to examine these proposals carefully and to ensure that the Solitary Islands Marine Reserve is a real marine reserve, not merely a clayton's marine reserve.

EAST TIMOR ELECTIONS

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [9.31 p.m.]: In the brief time available to me, it is my pleasure to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor [UNTAET] has certified the results of recent elections in East Timor, clearing the way for the inauguration of the territory's new 88-member Assembly, which will have the job in coming months of drafting a constitution. In ceremonies held yesterday in the East Timorese capital, Dili, the United Nations Independent Electoral Commission declared the vote free and fair. I should like to make a few comments on another occasion about the conduct of the election process of East Timor's first open and democratic election since 1974. I acknowledge the efforts of people from this Parliament—including my assistant, Mr Stephen Senise, and the Hon. Jan Burnswoods' assistant, Ms Melanie Stewart—who were observers in East Timor during the ballot. It gives me great pleasure to say that during the whole process—the registration of the political parties, the official registration of the voters, the campaigning and the huge party rallies to the voting and aftermath—not a single drop of blood was shed. Members of different political parties attended one another's rallies and were largely complimentary and encouraging towards each other.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at 9.32 p.m. ______