ALBURY ELECTORATE AUSTRALIA DAY HONOURS RECIPIENTS ...... 26785 AUSTRALIAN WOMEN'S CRICKET TEAM ...... 26786 BAIL (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2013 ...... 26808 BALGOWNIE PUBLIC SCHOOL ...... 26784 BELLS LINE OF ROAD UPGRADE ...... 26826 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE ...... 26754, 26787, 26803 COMMUNITY RECOGNITION STATEMENTS ...... 26781 CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO BE ACCORDED PRIORITY ...... 26801 CRIMES (ADMINISTRATION OF SENTENCES) AMENDMENT BILL 2013 ...... 26769 CRIMES AMENDMENT (INTOXICATION) BILL 2014 ...... 26807 DANNY AND JILL YOUNG, ESPRESSO BOTERO ...... 26786 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS ...... 26786, 26795 DROUGHT ASSISTANCE...... 26803 FARMLINK PROJECT ...... 26783 HEBERSHAM PUBLIC SCHOOL PRESENTATION DAY ...... 26785 HELEN ROSE, BAULKHAM HILLS WOMAN OF THE YEAR ...... 26783 IMAGINENATIONS CHURCH, ORCHARD HILLS ...... 26830 INNER WEST PUBLIC TRANSPORT ...... 26794 JAMM AND SLAMM 2014 WHEELCHAIR BASKETBALL CHALLENGE ...... 26824 JESMOND MICHELE'S PATISSERIE ...... 26782 JOHN HOLT, MEDAL OF THE ORDER OF AUSTRALIA ...... 26781 KATIE EBZERY AND JENNI SCREEN, AUSTRALIAN BASKETBALL CHAMPIONS ...... 26785 LAKE ILLAWARRA MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 26825 LAKE MACQUARIE ELECTORATE ORDER OF AUSTRALIA MEDAL RECIPIENTS ...... 26785 LAKEMBA ELECTORATE CITIZENSHIP AWARDS...... 26782 LIGHT RAIL SCHOOL STUDENT SUBSIDY ...... 26797 LINDFIELD UNITING CHURCH CENTENARY ...... 26782 LUDDENHAM BICENTENARY ...... 26784 MATHOURA STATE FOREST ...... 26827 MENAI DISTRICT SPORTS AWARDS ...... 26828 NATIONAL SERVICEMEN'S ASSOCIATION ...... 26782 NIDA EADE 100TH BIRTHDAY ...... 26782 NSW SERVICE FOR THE TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION OF TORTURE AND TRAUMA SURVIVORS ...... 26786 ORANGE JOBS GROWTH ...... 26829 PARLIAMENTARY BOWLING CLUB ...... 26782 PETITIONS ...... 26800 POLICE AMENDMENT (POLICE PROMOTIONS) BILL 2013 ...... 26754 PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS ...... 26824 QUESTION TIME ...... 26787, 26795 RETIREMENT OF SCHOOL PRINCIPAL JOHN RICE ...... 26783 RICHMOND RACE CLUB CENTENARY ...... 26784 RURAL AND REGIONAL ROADS ...... 26791 SCHOOL FUNDING AND INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 26788 SHELLHARBOUR PUBLIC SCHOOL SECURITY ...... 26825 STATE ECONOMY ...... 26796 TARONGA WILD! RHINOS ART EVENT ...... 26786 TERRA LALIRRA, THE HAPPY WALK ...... 26785 TRIBUTE TO BILL WAY ...... 26783 TRIBUTE TO CHARLOTTE DAWSON ...... 26783 WALLARAH 2 COAL PROJECT AND MR NICK DI GIROLAMO ...... 26793, 26795, 26800 WALLARAH 2 COAL PROJECT ...... 26787, 26790 WARREN ROSSER, MEDAL OF THE ORDER OF AUSTRALIA ...... 26784 WESTERN SYDNEY CHINESE ASSOCIATIONS BUSHFIRE APPEAL ...... 26784 WESTERN SYDNEY INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 26798 WILEY PARK GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT ACHIEVEMENTS ...... 26826

26754

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Wednesday 26 February 2014

______

The Speaker (The Hon. Shelley Elizabeth Hancock) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Notices of Motions

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.

POLICE AMENDMENT (POLICE PROMOTIONS) BILL 2013

Second Reading

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [10.10 a.m.], on behalf of Mr Greg Smith: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Police Amendment (Police Promotions) Bill 2013 implements the recommendations of a review into the police promotions system, as established by the Police Act 1990, and the Police Regulation 2008. The bill proposes to reform the police promotions system to improve the ability of the NSW Police Force to fill promotional positions while protecting the integrity of the system. It aims to maintain corruption resistance.

Amid a regime of corruption alleged over many years, a ministerial inquiry was conducted into the police promotions system. This led to the current rank-oriented process being implemented in 2006, with the first appointments made in 2008. The scheme covers promotion to sergeant, senior sergeant, inspector and superintendent. Officers are selected for, and appointed from, promotion lists for each rank. Officers must pass a number of assessments to obtain an eligibility mark, which determines their place on the promotion list. Applicants are graded on their on-the-job performance, technical policing knowledge, examination, learning, and assessment components. Officers must also meet other specifications, such as time spent at rank, and pass an integrity clearance.

A review of the police promotions system was conducted by the Hon. Lance Wright, QC, former President of the Industrial Relations Commission. The review made a number of recommendations regarding specialist and leadership positions including superintendents and senior sergeants. The New South Wales public sector as a whole is focusing on improving leadership and strengthening its leadership levels. It is timely for the NSW Police Force to bolster its leadership ranks with improved ability to get the right people into the right jobs. A key concept of the current promotions system is that it is the same for all ranks, including superintendents. However, the NSW Police Force does not believe the present system delivers candidates who can perform in any position at the rank of superintendent.

There are few superintendent positions in the NSW Police Force—only about 130—and that reflects the seniority of those positions. Superintendents head up commands including local area commands. Some superintendent positions require unique skills, knowledge and experience. Some commands may have unique challenges such as counterterrorism. They are our key front-line leaders who manage serious incidents on a daily basis and front the media to report on issues. They provide strategic leadership to their officers, who at times number in the hundreds. That is no easy job. I have had the privilege of meeting a large number of our fine hardworking men and women, particularly superintendents, across the State. I concur that it is no easy job. I know they have the full support of everyone in this place. It is tough on the front line, where they put their lives at risk to protect the community. I am in awe of them and pay tribute to them at every opportunity. That is why we need quality superintendents who can empower their teams, be they detectives or general duties, to provide superior policing that the community expects and deserves.

26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26755

The bill gives the Commissioner of Police a greater role in the appointment of superintendents, given their importance to the management of the NSW Police Force. Appointment would still be from the promotion list, potentially out of ranked order but still on a merit basis. The current pre-qualifying process for superintendents would remain in place, with an additional interview and selection committee process to ensure the best officer is appointed to the role. This is required because the officer with the greatest merit for a particular superintendent position might not necessarily be the person who is ranked highest on the promotion list.

The NSW Police Force must use modern management techniques, supported by strong leaders, to be efficient and effective. At the same time a key component of good management is the integrity of the organisation, and officers are the foundation of this ethos. The bill promotes integrity and anti-corruption principles consistent with an increased emphasis on this culture across government. It builds on measures implemented by the NSW Police Force arising out of the Wood Royal Commission to prevent misconduct and corruption. To be promoted, officers must pass an integrity check at two stages in the process: once before proceeding to the eligibility program—one of the final assessment stages—and again when an officer is selected from a promotion list for appointment to a position. The commissioner may change a decision to appoint a person based on integrity grounds and can suspend or remove a person from the promotion list or process on integrity grounds.

However, at present the commissioner may refuse a promotion only if the integrity information is "information that was not previously considered". The bill removes this limitation. It allows the commissioner to consider all relevant integrity information regardless of whether it has been previously considered. This is crucial because pertinent and at times significant information relevant to an integrity check may come to light some time after the initial information was considered. It may occur because investigations can span many years—decades, in fact. No police officer is above the law and if criminal conduct is alleged they will be subject to the same processes and procedures as any other member of the community.

This Government has made sure the Commissioner of Police has strong powers to deal with misconduct, up to and including dismissal. The reforms outlined in the bill are prudent and should be strongly supported. They will deliver enhanced powers to the NSW Police Force to help fill positions against a backdrop of integrity and transparency. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON (Blacktown—Leader of the Opposition) [10.17 a.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I speak in debate on the Police Amendment (Police Promotions) Bill 2013. The bill follows the completion of a review of the police promotion system that was carried out by the Hon. Lance Wright, QC. He is a man of the utmost integrity who has held many senior positions, including serving as the President of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. The Wright review found that the police promotion system generally worked well but proposed a number of recommendations to improve the system. This bill implements a number of those recommendations by proposing several alterations to the legislative scheme underlying the New South Wales police promotions system.

The bill includes amendments that will allow promotion appointments to certain specialist positions to be made from outside the relevant promotion list. These positions include undercover officers, forensic officers, child protection officers and counterterrorism officers. The bill makes specific provision for the Commissioner of Police to require appointees to undergo psychological assessments in order to be appointed to specialist positions. It also makes it explicit that the commissioner may, following a selection process, appoint superintendents on the basis of his or her opinion as to merit.

The Opposition consulted the Police Association of NSW prior to determining its position on this bill. I thank the association and its officers and staff for their valued input and advice. The New South Wales Labor Opposition believes in a police force that appropriately rewards hard work and talent and gives officers a fair opportunity to advance through the ranks. By proposing minor improvements to the legislative scheme underlying the police promotions system, the bill will help to achieve those goals. For that reason the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON (Camden) [10.19 a.m.]: I support the Police Amendment (Police Promotions) Bill 2013, which seeks to reform the police promotions system in New South Wales as a result of recommendations made by a review required under the Police Regulation 2008 and conducted by the Hon. Lance Wright, QC, former president of the Industrial Relations Commission. The main purpose of the review was to ensure that the promotions system in the Police Force was working in the best way possible. The review 26756 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

found that in general the system was working but made recommendations for improvements to the central concepts of the system. During the review, the Government's response to the review and the drafting of this bill, the NSW Police Force and the Police Association were consulted extensively.

Currently the promotions system is a rank-orientated process that recognises both merit and policing experience. An officer must provide their readiness for a rank rather than a position. Competitive stages must be completed by the officers seeking promotion and they will then be placed on a promotions list. Usually the highest ranked officer on the promotions list will be offered the next vacant promotional position. Prior to this system being implemented problems such as delays in filling vacancies, a drawn-out and costly appeals process, an inefficient emphasis on experience and a lack of transparency all existed. Changes for improvements to the system will be made in this bill and, in tandem with this bill, to the Police Regulation 2008 and also through the Police Force's administration.

The bill will improve some vacant specialist positions by allowing officers to be provisionally appointed to certain unfilled specialist positions via an interview and merit selection process, outside the rank-based promotions list. For this to happen the officer must have the required time at rank and permanent appointment would occur only after a minimum of two years and if the officer gains requisite qualifications for placement on the promotions list. Specialist positions will be allowed to be identified as requiring unique knowledge, skills or experience, with the highest ranked officer on the promotions list meeting those requirements to be promoted.

An officer on the promotions list will be able to be provisionally appointed to a specialist position even though the officer does not hold the required qualification for that position. However, the officer will be required to complete the qualification within a specified period for the appointment to be permanent. Officers applying for some specialist positions will be required under this bill to undergo psychological assessment for suitability for that position. This is for the protection of all police from psychological injury. The commissioner will now be able to select the right officer from the promotions list for superintendent positions through an additional interview and selection committee process on a merit basis, although potentially out of ranked order.

Senior sergeants will be removed from the promotions system and an expression of interest process implemented to fill senior sergeant positions on a non-permanent basis. The bill also removes the requirement with respect to the commissioner's power to suspend or remove a person from the promotions list or promotion process on integrity grounds, to consider whether the integrity information was information that was previously considered. The Police Regulation 2008 will be changed to support the removal of senior sergeants from the promotions process. An officer will be allowed to be suspended from a promotion list for up to three months if they have their hand up for a position, received an offer for that position and then refused that position without reasonable grounds for the refusal.

The Police Regulation will be changed so that the time required at rank for the position of inspector or superintendent is increased from two years to three years. Also to be changed in the regulation will be the requirement to ensure that officers have a more recent on-the-job management performance review score and will ensure that an automatic review of a very high or a very low on-the-job management performance review score is undertaken. I am sure this bill will be very relevant to the Camden Local Area Command, with the many outstanding officers who are constantly building on already successful careers within the Police Force.

Mr Lee Evans: Name them.

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: I will. I never miss an opportunity to support my local police or my electorate. So I mention the Camden Local Area Command detectives led by Detective Sergeant Clements, who is an outstanding officer; Detective Senior Constables Deas and Gill; and the proactive team leader Detective Steve Quinn. Steve Quinn has been Rotary Police Officer of the Year and does an outstanding job. I mention also the Youth Liaison Officer, Mark Scambary—I have nominated Mark, who does a great job, for this year's Rotary Police Officer of the Year award—and Christine Millman, who is the community liaison officer. I have nominated Christine for her outstanding work as well. I am looking forward to attending those awards in March. I mention also general duties Constables Trautsch, Mondello, Hughes, McDonald and Zeromski. They all do outstanding work in the Camden Local Area Command. All of these people, with their colleagues, continually perform great work in our area and have well and truly earned the respected reputation they have in our community.

The Camden Local Area Command operates at an authorised strength of 97 police officers and has had an impressive start to 2014 with crime figures down in all categories. It is implementing new initiatives such as 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26757

the intelligence response team and the proactive crime team. The bill is about superintendents. We have been lucky to have some outstanding local area commanders in the past. I remember that Ian Foschollo did a great job. Pete Gillam was chief superintendent. He left us only about 12 months ago, but he did an outstanding job. Danny Doherty has just left us as the local area commander. I think many of these people come to Camden, they are seen to do a tremendous job and then get moved on, as happened with Peter and Danny. Greg Rolph is a local boy. The previous Government saw his merit—I think Morris Iemma was Premier at the time—and he was pulled into many committees to talk and advise on policing. He did an outstanding job.

At present we have Ward Hanson, who came to us from the Goulburn Local Area Command. Ward is an extremely proactive superintendent who has the support of the troops and will do an outstanding job in Camden. Camden is lucky to have Ward as its local area commander. All good leadership stems from the top so I know that the local area command is in good hands. It is always potentially unfair to single out one person, but I will single out a good friend, Steve Blackmore. Our kids do karate together. I caught up with Steve last Friday night. Steve is the Detective Superintendent, Operations Manager of south-west Sydney. He does an outstanding job in our area. It is people like Steve who give the force a tremendous name. To all the people I have mentioned today, I thank you for your wonderful efforts because the outstanding job you do is not lost on the Camden community. But back to the bill: The purpose of this bill is obviously to improve the ability and efficiency of the Police Force to fill promotional positions in the most integral, equitable and transparent manner possible. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

Mr RON HOENIG (Heffron) [10.29 a.m.]: I support the indication given by the Leader of the Opposition that the Opposition will not oppose the Police Amendment (Police Promotions) Bill 2013. The bill follows a review undertaken by the Hon. Lance Wright, QC, who is a former President of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales, in compliance with clause 137 of the Police Regulation 2008. In respect of police operations, I certainly support the concept of promotion within the Police Force being on merit, just as I support the recommendations, provisions and sentiments of the bill as well as the review recommendations made by the Hon. Lance Wright.

However, I will make some observations in relation to the police and the task they perform based on my experience in the criminal justice system which consists of mostly defending, prosecuting for a short period, and acting as counsel assisting. Law enforcement officers of the NSW Police Force undertake one of the most difficult tasks and jobs that can be undertaken on behalf of the community. Often we use metaphors such as the thin blue line when we refer to the Police Force. Sometimes we do so in jest while at other times we refer to it in passing, but police officers are in fact the thin blue line. As part of the jobs or professions of the men and women of the NSW Police Force, they see things on a day-to-day basis that nearly all the community never sees. They have to deal with some of the worst behaviour, some of the worst tragedies and some of the worst conduct of which we may see only newspaper reports.

As members of Parliament we often deal with people who are the victims of crime or, alternatively, who are the victims of the failures of our criminal justice system. Nevertheless, police officers operate in a difficult environment in which they are subject to huge volumes of oversight, and that makes their task even more difficult. As a practitioner in criminal law, I would be the first to support the concept of review. This is a free society in which we are entitled to go about our lawful business unhindered by officers of the State or Executive Government. Interference with our freedoms and our liberty requires oversight and review, and that interference should occur only when the law entitles it to occur. To ensure our freedoms, a proper review needs to be undertaken and mechanisms for dealing with complaints or errors need to be available.

The issue I wish to address is that there needs to be one basis or one type of review. It is unreasonable for law enforcement officers, with the exception of offices of the courts who have to make judgements, to be oversighted by so many different statutory organisations. It not only is a huge cost to the State but also makes the task of police officers very difficult and at times almost impossible. It also interferes with the promotional system because it has been known that people have received promotions based upon ticking a variety of boxes in compliance with statutory requirements, but the boxes may not necessarily directly relate to policing. Over a number of years the situation has incrementally improved substantially. Some decades ago when the promotional prospects system was changed, there was a time when police officers were being promoted to the ranks of patrol commander when their sole experience had been in traffic.

When the royal commission occurred and, for example, the payments of informants and oversight of those activities effectively were delegated to patrol commanders, senior detectives were reluctant to have their informants and the payment of their informants oversighted by people who did not have experience within the 26758 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

criminal justice or criminal investigation systems. The implementation of promotional prospects based upon merit or based upon varieties of expertise and recognition of police officers in a variety of functions adds to the ability of the NSW Police Force to professionalise itself in particular areas. For example, there is no point in having a police officer as head of domestic violence matters in a particular command if that police officer does not have any experience in dealing with domestic violence. Hopefully, this bill will give the Commissioner of Police flexibility to be able to make decisions based upon the best interests of criminal investigation.

Appropriately, the bill makes provision for psychological examination of police officers who apply for promotion or are being considered for promotion. The provision is not designed to penalise a police officer. At times police officers experience terrible trauma when they deal with specific areas of policing. Consequently, that traumatised police officer requires help and assistance to be provided by the Police Force and the Executive Government who oversights it. Psychological examination is not used as a device to prevent promotion: It may well be an advantage to identify an area of need when a police officer has not sought the assistance necessary to address a particular problem. The police promotions review provides an ideal mechanism by which police officers can become even more effective through promotion. However, I sound a note of caution. It is essential, when the commissioner makes appropriate appointments or expresses his confidence, to include particular expertise in merit decisions. In other words, instead of having deputy commissioners allocated on the basis of jockeying for positions with a view to who may take up the role of commissioner, senior police officers must be appropriately experienced and any police officer applying for promotion has to be allocated to the right task.

To illustrate the point I make, I refer to a quite well-known inquiry in which I was involved. A tragic death of a lady on a cruise ship occurred and the Marine Area Command dispatched police officers—one had expertise on diesel motors and the other young detective had limited experience—to investigate a quite serious homicide case. Hopefully, as a result of an inquiry and subsequent recommendations, procedures have moved forward. I do not highlight that example to be critical of the police; I highlight it to emphasise that if promotional prospects of police officers are to continue to be effective, police officers must be appointed on merit in relation to their experience, such as undercover ability, which was referred to by a member who preceded me in this debate. In conjunction with implementation of the provisions of this bill, we must streamline oversight so that there will be one point of oversight of police officers. We do not want police officers on the streets taking conservative views or not making decisions because somebody might complain about them or one of a dozen bodies might oversight officers in the NSW Police Force.

Mr KEVIN ANDERSON (Tamworth) [10.39 a.m.]: I support the Police Amendment (Police Promotions) Bill 2013 which follows a review of the police promotions system undertaken in 2006 by the Hon. Lance Wright, QC, former president of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales in compliance with clause 137 of the Police Regulation 2008. That review endorsed the current promotions system but recommended minor improvements. The majority of the recommendations which were accepted were included in the Police Amendment (Police Promotions) Bill 2013 which passed through the Legislative Council. This bill will improve the police promotions system and help to fill managerial positions with the best qualified officers.

The Oxley Local Area Command which serves the Tamworth electorate performs a difficult job in managing crime in the region. This week we welcomed Superintendent Clint Pheeney, who has been unwell for some time, back to the helm of the command. I thank Inspector Jeff Budd for filling his shoes and for doing a wonderful job in a difficult environment. I also thank a number of other inspectors in the Oxley Local Area Command and, in particular, crime manager Inspector Phil O'Reilly for doing an extremely difficult job. He often has to front media calls concerning certain incidents and he has to report on what members of the Police Force are doing. Given the level of crime in communities across New South Wales, the job of our police officers is difficult. When members of the community run away from an incident our police officers have no option other than to confront it, which is why they need our support.

This bill will reform the police promotions system and improve the ability of the NSW Police Force to fill promotional positions while ensuring integrity, transparency and equity. It will give police the power to lead and command, which will filter through to rank and file officers. Good leadership plays a significant role in the culture of any organisation. There is strong community focus on driving down crime in the Oxley Local Area Command under the stewardship of Superintendent Clint Pheeney who has excellent support from rank and file officers in police stations throughout the Tamworth electorate.

Police on the beat are involved not only in progressive and proactive policing but also in various community activities and in working with communities. It is simply not good enough to expect our police 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26759

officers alone to drive down crime; they need community support. This Government is giving police the resources and tools that they need to drive down crime. Through a revised organisational structure people with years of experience will initiate and drive this process and a task force will be established to combat organised crime, alcohol- and drug-fuelled violence, and prevent civilians who are out to do the wrong thing from corrupting our community.

As a member of the Committee on the Ombudsman, the Police Integrity Commission and the Crime Commission which oversights the Crime Commission, the Inspector of Police and a number of important organisations that help keep our communities safe, I see firsthand the difficult role undertaken by our police officers, which is why we need to give them the power and authority they need to combat crime. We must ensure that they are properly resourced at a grassroots level to deal with the crime of breaking and entering in one community after a number of individuals have gone on a rampage and have then moved on to other communities in Tamworth, Dubbo, Parramatta, Walgett or Armidale. The police go to great lengths to try to catch the perpetrators of those types of crimes which have an enormous impact on our communities when often they are committing them only for the thrill of doing so.

The police want to break the nexus from juvenile crime for things such as breaking and entering through to organised crime by outlaw motorcycle gangs. Oxley Local Area Command is keeping a close eye on a number of motorcycle gangs in the Tamworth region. We must ensure that there is honesty and integrity from the Crime Commission, which has oversight of organised crime, through to the western region commander, the Oxley Local Area Command and to the probationary constables who join the force. We must support our police officers in every way we can, remove all impediments and give them the power they need to drive down crime. That is why this bill, through the police promotions system, will give them some confidence that this Government is looking out for them.

The bill will enable officers outside the rank-based promotions list to be provisionally appointed to certain unfilled specialist positions via an interview or merit selection process. An officer must have the required rank at the time and a permanent appointment will occur after a minimum of two years if the officer gains the requisite qualifications for placement on the promotions list. This Government is focusing on getting new recruits into the system and boosting police numbers but it needs experienced officers at the top to guide, direct and mentor new police officers which is why this promotions system will assist senior police and those officers with years of experience.

Retired police officers from the old school made sure that their communities knew when they were out on the beat. We must ensure that our police officers have the ability and the resources to combat crime and alcohol and drug-fuelled violence. The Oxley Local Area Command in Tamworth is fighting, as are other communities, for resources for a drug unit and dog squad. I live in a regional community where a lot of the crime is driven by drugs. Offenders commit breaking and entering offences, steal items, sell them, get cash and buy drugs. We must ensure that police have adequate resources, leadership and power to form task forces and to conduct operations to combat crime. Local police officers who understand local networks are better able to combat crime committed by outlaw motorcycle gangs in our regional communities. We need superintendents who have vision and drive and who are able to pass on that experience to newer officers to help keep our communities safe. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD (Myall Lakes) [10.49 a.m.]: I support the Police Amendment (Police Promotions) Bill 2013 and commend the Hon. Michael Gallacher, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, for introducing this bill—a progression of improvements in the police promotions system that have been developing over a number of years. When I joined the NSW Police Force, the number given to a police officer depended on how he or she scored in the exams. The guy who came first in the class was given the number directly after the guy who came last in the previous class, and every officer thereafter was given a subsequent number and remained in that position on the seniority list for the rest of his or her career. A book at each police station contained a list of every police officer, from the commissioner to the lowest-ranking constable, each of whom had a number. Occasionally when I went to work a sergeant with a ruler and a red pen would say, "So-and-so died last week", and he would then cross out the entry and see how far he had moved up the promotions list. That was how promotions occurred in the Police Force. No matter how good or bad police officers were, they would be promoted when it was their turn, according to the list.

Thankfully, that promotions system has gone and we now have a merit-based system. Imagine what it was like in the past when a guy who came last in the exams in a previous class remained ahead of officers in the next class for the remainder of their careers. When I was working in the Police Force and I moved from station 26760 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

to station, from general duties to detectives, I would come across these guys and think, "How on earth did they ever get here? How on earth did that person get to be the local area commander?" We now have a different system. I am not talking about superintendents; in those days there were inspectors. Thankfully times have changed and the Minister is improving that system.

The purpose and description of this bill is to amend the Police Act 1990 to create exceptions to the general requirement that appointments by way of promotion to vacant non-executive police officer positions of a particular rank are to be made from the promotion list for that rank and according to rankings on that list. As a result of the proposed Act, promotion appointments to certain specialist positions, being positions which require specialist qualifications or unique knowledge, skills or experience and which are specially designated by the Commissioner of Police may, if the position has not been able to be filled after being advertised to persons on the promotion list for the rank concerned, be made from outside the relevant promotion list. The current exception that enables appointments to specialist positions to be made from a promotion list otherwise than in accordance with the order of rankings on the promotion list is continued.

The bill also provides for police officers to be promoted following a selection process to superintendent positions otherwise than in accordance with the rankings on the relevant promotion list. Appointments of sergeants to senior sergeant positions will also be made following a selection process as there will no longer be a promotion list for the grade of senior sergeant. One can see, therefore, that there is no need for senior sergeants to go through the list and cross off names as they meet their demise; it will be done on merit, on interview and on application.

In his second reading speech to Parliament, the Hon. Michael Gallacher, the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, indicated that the bill seeks to improve the process for promoting New South Wales police officers. In doing so, it aims to boost the ability of the NSW Police Force to select the best officer for the job while ensuring integrity, transparency and equity in police promotions. In 2006 new legislation established a new promotions system for police officers with the exception of constables and executive officers. That is the current system. It was established because of problems with the previous system, such as extensive delays filling vacancies, a protracted and costly appeals process, insufficient emphasis on experience and a lack of transparency, and because a ministerial inquiry and a Police Integrity Commission investigation confirmed a new approach was needed.

The current promotion system is a rank-oriented process which recognises merit and policing experience. Officers must prove their readiness for promotion to a rank rather than a position and complete a series of competitive stages to be ranked on a promotions list. As required by clause 137 of the Police Regulation 2008, a review of the current promotions system took place. This review was conducted by the Hon. Lance Wright, QC, before whom I had the pleasure of appearing in mediation some years ago, and I must say he is an outstanding jurist. That review found that the system was generally working well and its central concepts should be retained. However, it made a number of recommendations for improvement, the majority of which have been accepted by the Government and included in the bill, although the Government has also supported several alternative proposals which it believes are practical solutions for the NSW Police Force. Both the NSW Police Force and the Police Association of New South Wales were consulted during the review, the Government response to the review and the development of the bill.

At present, under section 66 of the Police Act 1990, the Commissioner of Police must, in deciding to appoint a person by way of promotion to a vacant non-executive police officer position of a certain rank, appoint a person from the promotion list for that rank who has the greatest merit according to rankings on the list. An exception currently exists for appointments to positions that require specialist qualifications, in which case a person who has the qualifications required for the position may be appointed from the relevant promotion list and not necessarily in accordance with the order of rankings on that list. Schedule 1 [4] to the bill restates the existing exception to which I referred and inserts new provisions dealing with promotion appointments to vacant non-executive police officer positions in other cases.

New section 66AA (3) provides that, in the case of a specialist position designated by the commissioner that has not been able to be filled from the promotion list after being advertised to persons on the list, an appointment may be made from outside the promotion list on the basis that the person obtain the required qualifications for the position within a certain period, which is dealt with in proposed subsection (5). Similarly, new section 66AA (6) provides that a person may be provisionally appointed from the relevant promotion list to a specialist position that requires a specific qualification even though the person does not hold the qualification. The permanent appointment of the person is subject to him or her obtaining the relevant qualification within a 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26761

certain period. New section 66AA (8) authorises the commissioner to require a person who applies for a specialist position to undergo a psychological assessment of his or her suitability for the position, something that I would have thought could have been in the Act and would have been applicable many years ago. I saw a number of people in senior positions struggling when I was in the job.

Mr Nick Lalich: How did you get through that test?

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD: I have a certificate to say I am sane. New section 66AB enables promotion appointments after a selection process to be made to vacant positions of the rank of superintendent from the promotion list for that rank regardless of the rankings on the list. The legislation makes a number of other changes, all of which improve the promotion process. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MATT KEAN (Hornsby) [10.59 a.m.]: I speak in support of the Police Amendment (Police Promotions) Bill 2013, which better enables the NSW Police Force to recognise and reward talented officers for senior promotion. Every day of the week in Hornsby I see the great work of the fine men and women who serve our community in the NSW Police Force. I saw no greater example of their commitment to our community than their response to an incident over the Christmas holidays. All members were saddened by the tragic death of one of my constituents, Daniel Christie, who suffered a king hit on New Year's Eve. He was just going about his business doing what any citizen, particularly any young citizen, of this State should be entitled to do, that is, enjoy a night on the town without the fear that some thug will knock him down in a gratuitous, disgraceful and cowardly attack.

So often we see examples in Australia where the worst that can happen brings out the best in people. This was no more evident than in the case of Daniel, a beautiful young man cut down in the prime of his life. However, there was a tremendous community response and leading that response was the NSW Police Force, which was there every step of the way for Daniel's family. From the time that young Daniel was hit to the time his respirator was turned off the police were there, standing shoulder to shoulder with Daniel's family, who should have been doing anything but grieving for their beautiful son. I can attest firsthand to the amazing work of the NSW Police Force.

I take this opportunity to pay my respect and express my gratitude to the extraordinary work of Kuring-Gai Local Area Commander Jeff Philippi. It is with great regret that I learned in January that Jeff will no longer be serving our community as he has been moved to Mount Druitt Local Area Command, but our loss is Mount Druitt's gain. Jeff is a remarkable public servant and a remarkable human being. I wish him all the best in his new role at Mount Druitt. I know he will continue his service to the people of that community with the utmost distinction and professionalism that he has shown to my community.

Another outstanding public servant and policeman is the current acting Kuring-Gai Local Area Commander, Inspector Colin Lott, whom I first met when I was elected. As a green member of Parliament— I mean new, not Greens—it was wonderful to have someone of his experience, professionalism and compassion to help me understand the way the local area command works, interacts and supports the community. I place on record my deep gratitude to Col for his personal support and thank him on behalf of a grateful community, which has benefited greatly from this outstanding man's public service.

Talking about outstanding public service reminds me that the bill before the House ensures highly trained officers like Col and Jeff reach their potential and are promoted to the jobs best suited to their individual skills and abilities. I firmly believe that the reforms to this outdated promotions system will help improve the ability of the NSW Police Force to fill promotional positions while ensuring integrity, transparency and equity. I know that those who serve on the thin blue line are some of the most outstanding individuals in this State and country and all members know only too well the remarkable work they do. However, we want a promotions system that will help the NSW Police Force fill promotional positions while ensuring integrity, transparency and equity.

In 2006 legislation was established for a new promotions system for police officers, with the exception of constables and executive officers. The system was established because of well-documented problems with the previous promotions system where officers applied for and were promoted to specific positions. Under the present promotions model officers prove their readiness to promotion to a rank rather than a position. Reforms in this bill arose out of a review of the promotions system by the Hon. Lance Wright, QC, former President of the Industrial Relations Commission. The review was required by clause 137 of the Police Regulation 2008. The review found that the system was generally working and the central concepts of the promotions system should 26762 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

be retained. It also made a number of recommendations to improve the system. The Government accepted the majority of the recommendations from the review, although the Government has supported several alternative proposals.

The reforms arising from the review are implemented by this bill as well as through changes to the Police Regulation 2008 and through administrative changes being implemented by the NSW Police Force. The bill will give officers greater flexibility to be provisionally appointed to certain unfilled specialist positions with an interview or merit selection process. During this time the officer will be given time to perform at this new rank and after a minimum of two years will be given the opportunity for permanent appointment. This is a great opportunity for all those yet to hold the required qualifications for a new senior role.

Other advantages of the bill include an additional interview and selection committee process for superintendent positions to better enable the commissioner to select the right officer. Senior sergeant positions will be removed from the promotions system; an expression of interest process will be implemented to fill those positions. We should support a system that encourages outstanding individuals such as Superintendent Jeff Philippi to be promoted and to lead local area commands. That is why I support the bill. The bill will enable the commissioner to suspend or remove a person from the promotions list or promotions process on integrity grounds and to consider whether the integrity information was an issue previously considered.

The more significant changes to the Police Regulation 2008 will allow officers to be suspended from a promotions list for up to three months if they have put their hand up for a position and have been offered the position but subsequently refused the offer without reasonable grounds; increase required time at the rank of inspector and superintendent from two years to three years; and ensure officers have a more recent on-the-job management performance review score. I remind the House that clause 137 of the Police Regulation 2008 required a review of the police promotions system, which was introduced in 2006. That regulation stipulates that the current promotions system be endorsed with some changes. The Government has now made the necessary changes to improve the regulation that the police promotions system can better identify and fill managerial positions with the best qualified police officers.

As members, we should all strive to have the best qualified people appointed to those roles. I see every day in my community the outstanding work of the NSW Police Force and I take this opportunity to thank them for their remarkable service. Often the police are all that stands between us and those who seek to put us in harm's way. We must show our utmost respect to the police by giving them the powers and support they need to do their job and letting them know we are grateful for their wonderful service to our communities. I take this opportunity also to remind the House that under Premier Barry O'Farrell and the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Mike Gallacher, our police have been given that support through additional police powers to help with their role in our communities. I commend the Minister for Police and Emergency Services for standing up for police and supporting communities.

Dr Geoff Lee: And the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr MATT KEAN: And the Parliamentary Secretary for Police and Emergency Services, who is at the table. The Government is committed to supporting and protecting police by giving them the powers they need to keep our communities safe. It is committed to ensuring that when families like the Christie family are put in harm's way they are given the support and protection that every citizen in New South Wales deserves.

Mr ADAM MARSHALL (Northern Tablelands) [11.09 a.m.]: I support the Police Amendment (Police Promotions) Bill 2013 and acknowledge the efforts of the police Minister, the Hon. Michael Gallacher, and thank him for introducing this bill. This bill is an excellent piece of legislation that aims to boost the ability of the NSW Police Force to select the best officer for the job while ensuring integrity, transparency and equity in the police promotions system. It would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to publicly acknowledge and commend the fine police officers and the leadership team in the Northern Tablelands area who serve the New England Local Area Command. I acknowledge the Parliamentary Secretary for Police and Emergency Services, who is at the table. I acknowledge also Superintendent Bruce Lyons, who has been a longstanding servant of the people of New South Wales and has just clocked up his fortieth year in the NSW Police Force. Bluey, as he is known, is a font of wisdom, a mentor and a guide for many people in this Parliament. Not only is his influence felt among the officers within the Police Force, in which he inspires nothing but loyalty and confidence, but his impact also is felt within the community because his old-style policing is all about community policing. 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26763

In the charges he has inspired and mentored in the Police Force—I refer particularly to our duty officer Inspector Roger Best, our new duty officer Chris McKinnon and our Crime Manager Ann Joy—he has instilled his values that a police officer not only must serve in their role but also must reach out to the community and build relationships because that makes a better police officer. I acknowledge Bluey for his 40 years and pay tribute to a great career. Currently, he is again serving the people of this State well by filling in as head of the Firearms Registry at Murwillumbah while Fred Trench is acting Superintendent for the Northern Tablelands region. Despite Fred's small setback in hailing from Tamworth, he is doing a very good job serving in the New England Local Area Command.

Dr Geoff Lee: That's a shame; Tamworth is a nice place for line dancing.

Mr ADAM MARSHALL: Tamworth is a nice place for line dancing, but we have instilled in acting Superintendent Trench the New England command philosophies of community policing and building relationships. I very much enjoy travelling around the electorate for our community safety precinct meetings to meet with chambers of commerce representatives, mayors and representatives from the liquor industry to talk about individual community issues where police can play a greater role along with other community organisations. Fred is doing a fantastic job filling in for Superintendent Bruce Lyons. Roger Best, who is a very longstanding local police officer, is doing a fine job as duty officer, to which he was promoted last year. We welcome from Young our new duty officer and inspector, Chris McKinnon, who started in the last few weeks. I am sure he will do a great job, ably supported by Inspector Ann Joy, command Crime Manager.

As I said at the outset, this bill is a welcome initiative supported by police officers throughout the State. The amendments to the Police Act 1990 build on previous legislative changes to the promotions system in 2006. This will ensure that our Police Force is able to recruit and promote the best person for the job, a process with which we all agree, particularly approaching preselection time. By selecting the best person for the job we maintain integrity and transparency in the system and also ensure an end to the protracted and costly appeal processes and extensive delays in filling vacant positions that wrought the promotions system prior to 2006. When that happened the losers always were our local communities, who were going without policing resources. This bill addresses all of that. We now will have a very robust and transparent system that does not allow any undue delays so that communities receive police resources and the best police officers and leaders to fill vacant positions. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr CHRIS HOLSTEIN (Gosford) [11.14 a.m.]: I support the Police Amendment (Police Promotions) Bill 2013, which was introduced in the other place by the very capable Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and Minister for the Central Coast. The Central Coast has an outstanding group within its local area commands. I take this opportunity to commend Superintendent Danny Sullivan of the Brisbane Water Local Area Command and Superintendent Dave Swilks of the Tuggerah Lakes Local Area Command. Those two capable gentlemen run a fine constabulary team on the Central Coast and are a credit to their profession. The purpose of the bill is to enhance and boost the availability of the NSW Police Force to select the best officer for the job while ensuring integrity, transparency and equity in police promotions. Prior to 2006 it was well documented that the system had problems as it was based on officers applying for specific positions in specific locations. Protracted and costly appeals resulted in extensive delays in filling vacancies.

In 2006 new legislation established a new promotions system for police officers, other than for executives and constables, where they proved their readiness for promotion to a rank rather than a position. This rank-orientated process recognises merit and policing experience. An inbuilt review process was enshrined in clause 137 of Police Regulation 2008. This review was carried out by the Hon. Lance Wright, QC, former President of the Industrial Relations Commission. The review endorsed the current promotions system and the retention of the central concepts, but made recommendations for some minor changes. The Government has accepted most of the recommendations and, indeed, also supported several alternative proposals that were deemed practical solutions for the NSW Police Force. One area of contention in the review related to the ability of the promotions system to effectively fill specialist positions, such as undercover officers, child protection officers, counterterrorism officers and special tactics officers.

This bill provides that certain vacant specialist positions can be filled by means of an interview and merit selection process outside the rank-based promotions list. The bill gives the commissioner the power to require an officer to undergo psychological assessment for position suitability—for example, for child sexual assault investigator or undercover roles. The changes allow officers to be appointed provisionally to certain specialist positions, with permanent appointments to occur after a minimum of two years if the officer gains the requisite qualifications for placement on the promotions list. This bill addresses also the role of senior sergeant. 26764 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

The review found that the promotions system disadvantaged the role of higher ranked substantive sergeants. The bill proposes that in future senior sergeant positions will be filled by an expressions-of-interest process with no permanent appointments being made and the appointee will receive the salary and benefits of a senior sergeant for the duration of the appointment. The process is open only to substantive sergeants with at least two years at rank. Senior constables will not be eligible for promotion to this position.

The bill institutes also an additional interview and selection committee process for superintendent positions to enable the commissioner to select the right officers from the promotions list potentially out of rank order yet on merit. Other changes deal with integrity checks, which are central to the promotion process. The commissioner should not be obliged to inquire whether integrity information has been considered previously. This bill makes that consideration irrelevant. The bill makes changes also to Police Regulation 2008 to suspend officers from a promotions list for up to three months if they have indicated interest in a position but subsequently refused taking the position without reasonable grounds.

The bill also increases the required time at rank of inspector and superintendent to be increased from two years to three years. The bill addresses issues in relation to management performance scores by ensuring recency and automatic review of very high or very low on-the-job management performance review scores. As I stated earlier, we are blessed on the Central Coast to have very capable police officers, including two superintendents located at the Brisbane Water and Tuggerah Lakes local area commands respectively. They are outstanding officers. We also have many exceptional police officers within those commands who do an outstanding job. It is important that we in this place ensure that our officers are able to access promotional opportunities through adequate systems. I reiterate that this bill ensures integrity, transparency and equity in police promotions. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr LEE EVANS (Heathcote) [11.20 a.m.]: I congratulate Madam Acting-Speaker, the member for Wollongong, on her ascendance to the chair. I am sure she will perform the duties with aplomb. It gives me pleasure to speak to the Police Amendment (Police Promotions) Bill 2013. A review of the police promotions system that was introduced in 2006 was required by clause 137 of the Police Regulation 2008. The review was conducted by the Hon. Lance Wright, QC, former President of the Industrial Relations Commission. The overall review endorsed the current promotions system but recommended minor improvements. The majority of these recommendations were accepted and they are included in the Police Amendment (Police Promotions) Bill 2013, which has passed the Legislative Council. The bill will improve the police promotions system and help fill managerial positions with the best qualified police.

The member for Tamworth, in his contribution, stated that he is a member of the Committee on the Ombudsman, the Police Integrity Commission and the Crime Commission. As deputy chair of that committee, I see firsthand the work that police do and the stresses that they are exposed to. Part of the work of that committee is to make sure that police are properly prepared and resourced to carry out their duties. Over the past couple of years issues within the Police Force have been dealt with by the committee. It never ceases to amaze me how the Police Force comes together as a family to work out its issues. It makes me proud that a professional organisation such as the NSW Police Force can self-manage, as well as be managed by the New South Wales Government.

The bill reforms the police promotions system to improve the ability of the NSW Police Force to fill promotional positions while ensuring integrity, transparency and equity. Legislation in 2006 established a new promotions system for police officers. The new system was established because of well-documented problems with the previous promotions system where officers applied for and were promoted to specific positions. Under the present promotions system officers prove their readiness for promotion to rank rather than a position. The reform bill arose out of a review of the promotions system by the Hon. Lance Wright, QC. The bill improves the promotion process for some vacant specialist positions by allowing officers to be provisionally appointed to unfilled specialist positions via the interview and merit selection process, outside the rank-based promotions list. An officer must have the required time at rank. Permanent appointment will occur after a minimum of two years if the officer gains the requisite qualifications for placement on the promotions list.

The bill provides that for some specialist positions identified as requiring unique knowledge, skills or experience, the highest ranked officer on the promotions list meeting the requirements is to be promoted. The bill allows an officer from the promotions list to be provisionally appointed to a specialist position even though the officer does not hold a required qualification for that position. The officer must complete a qualification within the specific period in order to be permanently appointed. The bill gives the commissioner the power to require an officer applying for some specialist positions to undergo psychological testing to assess their 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26765

suitability for the position. The bill institutes an additional interview and selection committee process for superintendent positions to enable the commissioner to select the right officer for the promotions list, potentially out of rank order but still merit based. The bill also removes senior sergeants from the promotions list system and instead institutes an expression of interest process to fill a senior sergeant position on a non-permanent basis.

I recognise and pay tribute to two outstanding officers within my electorate: first, Superintendent Julian Griffiths, who is new to the job but has taken to the position like a duck to water. It is Mr Griffiths' first appointment to superintendent and he has done a fantastic job at the Sutherland Local Area Command. Second, Senior Constable David Hayes has performed community work within the Sutherland electorate by single-handedly starting a charity event called Sutho Cops and Rodders Road Safety and Car Show. Mr Hayes has gained sponsorship for the event and there has been no cost to the State government or the NSW Police Force. The event is now approaching its third anniversary. It has been a boon for community and police relations, as well as bringing together professionals from the Police Force as well as the Army, Navy and Air Force. It is a great promotion for people interested in any of those careers.

Mr Hayes has promoted an excellent relationship with the hot rod community. The hot rod community is proud to display its cars at the event. As I said, Senior Constable David Hayes single-handedly runs this charity event. Last Saturday Senior Constable David Hayes organised a charity cricket match between the Police Force and State Emergency Service, raising $25,000 for Bowel Cancer Australia. He does this charity work for the community; it is not a part of his police work. I congratulate and pay tribute to Senior Constable David Hayes from Sutherland Local Area Command. The bill allows officers to be suspended from the promotions list for up to three months if they put their hand up for a position but subsequently refuse an offer without reasonable grounds. The bill increases the required time at rank for inspector and superintendent positions from two years to three years. I congratulate the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and the Parliamentary Secretary.

Dr Geoff Lee: Whose name is?

Mr LEE EVANS: The member for Tweed, who is 100 per cent for the Tweed. I congratulate the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and the Parliamentary Secretary on the work they have done on this bill and I commend the bill to the House.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Noreen Hay): Order! I take this opportunity to acknowledge Kyle Stewart and Wayne Starling from Wollongong Local Area Command and Lake Illawarra Local Area Command.

Dr GEOFF LEE (Parramatta) [11.28 a.m.]: I congratulate the member for Wollongong on her appointment as Acting-Speaker. I support the Police Amendment (Police Promotions) Bill 2013. Like many of my colleagues who have previously spoken to this bill, I support and congratulate the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, the Hon. Michael Gallacher, on this sensible bill before the House. I note that the Parliamentary Secretary and member for Tweed is present in the House. I commend him as a great Parliamentary Secretary for Police and Emergency Services. He takes an active interest in all aspects of policing throughout the State, not just in the Tweed. I will not go through the specifics of the bill because many of my colleagues have covered them previously. I commend the bill, which allows the selection and appointment of candidates based on merit. This is most important not only in the Police Force but also for any position, whether it is in the public service, nursing or the fire brigade.

We must take into account the special nuances of the roles and responsibilities of police, particularly the skills, aptitudes and abilities of superintendents who are candidates for a position. I praise the Parramatta and Rosehill commands, which have excellent superintendents looking after those areas. Scott Whyte has a distinguished background and has done an excellent job in his position as commander of the Rosehill Local Area Command. While he was in the position of Acting Gangs Squad Commander his squad arrested alleged high-ranking Hells Angels bikie club members and seized large quantities of alcohol and liquor, prohibited drugs, weapons and cash, which was reported in the media. Scott balances toughness when it comes to maintaining law and order with fairness to those who deserve it.

Wayne Cox is commander of the Parramatta Local Area Command. Like Scott, he also has a distinguished record and experience in crime enforcement. I have met Wayne a number of times through his various roles on the community liaison committee, working on the beat, and in closed meetings. Wayne was the commander at Mount Druitt for four years. Under his command there was a reduction in incidents of breaking, 26766 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

entering and stealing. He has many strengths, including an ability to work closely with numerous diverse groups. That is particularly important in Parramatta, which is not an average suburb. It is a diverse suburb, with nearly 50 per cent of residents born overseas. They made the right choice in making Parramatta their home. They know it is the capital of Western Sydney and the place to move to if people want to enjoy a quality lifestyle. I thank the member for Baulkham Hills and the member for Granville, who have been great supporters of Parramatta.

Mr Tony Issa: Always on your side.

Dr GEOFF LEE: Thank you. The member for Granville has always been a big supporter not only of his electorate but also of Parramatta.

Mr Tony Issa: It is in my heart.

Dr GEOFF LEE: That is right.

Mr Tony Issa: Good neighbours.

Dr GEOFF LEE: I agree that we are supportive neighbours. I return to the great work of police in the local community, which is expressed in today's edition of the Parramatta Advertiser. Probationary Constable Chelsea Morsillo was nominated for a Commander's Commendation after one month in the job. She and another probationary constable were responsible for the apprehension and arrest of a suspect while they were off duty. Parramatta Inspector Robert Toynton said that this showed "the effectiveness of the training officers go through". It is a clear testament to the value of our Police Force, and I commend all the probationary constables involved.

Policing is very important to the Rosehill and Parramatta commands. We take a proactive approach. It is essential and critical to have high-visibility policing not only to promote deterrence but also to give the public confidence that police are preserving community safety and maintaining law and order. Both commands undertake covert and undercover operations to target suspected criminal activities and, although we do not see them in action, the results are clear when they conduct their arrests. The police are proactive in searching the streets for potential criminals. They use statistics to the best of their ability to target areas that may have a problem. A delicate balance exists between the high-visibility, undercover and proactive methodologies that are used to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour. It is great to know that 15 out of 17 major categories of crime are stable or falling in the local area. This proactive approach is spearheaded by the local area commanders.

Other outstanding local area commanders include Bob Barnett, Robert Redfern and Karen Webb, who have looked after the Rosehill and Parramatta commands holding various positions at different times. My colleague the member for Granville is fully supportive of those police. In respect of proactive policing, we have been able to employ more officers on the beat. Since the member for Granville, other members and I were elected in 2011, an extra 27 officers have been appointed in the Parramatta area. That is a fantastic tribute to the O'Farrell-Stoner Government for delivering—

[Interruption]

Thank you, Tony. I appreciate those words of support.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lee Evans): Order! The member for Parramatta will refer to the member for Granville by his correct title.

Dr GEOFF LEE: I thank the member for Granville for his support not only for me but also for the police. He certainly supported the police during the election campaign. Parramatta has a fantastic Motorcycle Response Team, comprising seven officers. The team clears up congestion and oversees various issues within the Parramatta central business district to ensure that traffic moves faster. Capital cities such as Parramatta face increasingly difficult traffic problems. We are working hand in hand with police to resolve other issues involving the Telopea area, the Ermington shops and the Parramatta mall. There is a great partnership between Parramatta City Council, the NSW Police Force and crowd managers at the games of the Western Sydney Wanderers, which is a fantastic team. Their supporters, the Red and Black Bloc, are great. I note that members are singing their tune, "Who Do We Sing For?" It is great to have support in the House for the 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26767

Western Sydney Wanderers, under the excellent stewardship of Mr Lyall Gorman. We rely upon the police, who are important members of our community. They run in when others run out. They are sworn to protect and serve the community. The police enforce the law and the community must get behind those hardworking officers.

Mr DAVID ELLIOTT (Baulkham Hills) [11.38 a.m.]: It is with pleasure that I support the Police Amendment (Police Promotions) Bill 2013. I am always delighted to speak in this House about policing, and particularly about amendments to the legislation governing the police, because I have worked with and for the NSW Police Force on a number of occasions, most notably between 1993 and 1995 in the police media unit. While working there I met a pretty, young superintendent's daughter named Nicole. She spent 11 years working for the police and subsequently made the wise decision to marry me. Her father was Superintendent Fred Brame, who is known to some former police officers who are now members of this place. He spent 35 years in the NSW Police Force, including as the local area commander at Mount Druitt. He also established the Moorebank command and played a significant role in the backpacker murder investigation as the commander of the team that searched the Bangalow State Forest.

Given that I married into the NSW Police Force, I speak with passion about this Government's policing agenda. Like the member for Parramatta, I also have a strong relationship with my local area command. I acknowledge the new Castle Hill Local Area Commander, Superintendent Rob Critchlow, who has moved to The Hills from the eastern suburbs. He grew up in the Goulburn area and still has family in that electorate who are very ably represented by the Minister for Family and Community Services, the Hon. Pru Goward. Members who follow rugby would know that Rob was a prominent rugby player before joining the NSW Police Force. I acknowledge him not only because of his wise decision to work in The Hills Local Area Command but also because crime in my electorate is well and truly under control.

During the last visit by the Minister for Police and Emergency Services to our area the member for Castle Hill and I were able to boast that the Minister had announced that alcohol-related crime in The Hills district had significantly reduced. I give credit to local police for that achievement. It is a tribute not only to the work they do but also to the way in which they deal with the community. Local police officers coordinate a safety committee that meets every two months at The Hills Shire Council. The police also work with the RSL club and local hotels to ensure that any alcohol issues are addressed. The Hills Local Area Command has assumed leadership roles throughout my community, and I am very grateful for that.

The bill introduces important reforms that will improve the process by which the NSW Police Force fills positions while ensuring integrity, transparency and equity. The bill is the result of a review of the promotion system undertaken by Lance Wright, QC, who found that while the system was generally working well improvements could be made. It has been 20 years since the Wood Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service, which resulted in a number of amendments being made to the organisation's structure. Those amendments brought the force into the twenty-first century and highlighted the fact that police officers are not simply public servants in uniform. Like soldiers, they have sworn an oath of office and they put their lives at risk in the service of others. This bill implements recommendations made by Mr Wright along with other proposals designed to improve the police promotions system.

Police officers currently demonstrate their suitability for promotion rather than address the attributes required in a given position. That is not appropriate given the complex nature of many of the roles they are required to perform. It is an issue when an officer who can otherwise fulfil the duties of a position is prohibited from applying because he or she does not have qualifications that are not relevant to that position. As I said, police officers are not simply public servants in uniform and the NSW Police Force is not simply a force of constables on the beat. New South Wales has one of the biggest police forces in the world; in fact, it is larger than more than half the world's armies. We have the Police Air Wing, a water police unit, a VIP protection unit—

Mr Geoff Provest: And an anti-terrorism unit.

Mr DAVID ELLIOTT: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for reminding me of that. The police counterterrorism unit undertakes operations and exercises with the military. New South Wales police officers also travel overseas to work for the United Nations. Of course, the force also has detectives, chaplains, domestic violence officers and officers who deal with paedophilia, drugs, ethnic gangs and so on. This bill will improve the promotions process by allowing officers to be appointed based on merit to a specialist position on a provisional basis rather than a rank-based promotions list. For example, if a law graduate joined 26768 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

the NSW Police Force and a position became vacant in the police prosecutions unit, with the passage of this legislation that officer could be identified as having that unique knowledge and experience. Officers on the promotion list will also be able to be provisionally appointed to specialist positions if they are not qualified for the position on the basis that they will complete the qualification over a specific period while also completing on-the-job training. This legislation will make the promotions process seamless for a police officer who studies for a law degree part time, as many do. Police officers will now have a better and more manageable career path.

Some specialist positions will require officers to undergo psychological assessment to ensure that they are suitable. This bill adds processes for promotion to superintendent positions that will give the police commissioner more power to select the best officer based on merit. That is what this Government is trying to introduce into New South Wales after 16 years of neglect; we want a meritocracy. The bill removes the position of senior sergeant from the promotions system. I remind members that the rank of staff sergeant in the Army, which is equivalent to the rank of senior sergeant in the NSW Police Force, was abolished some time ago. As a result, there was no equivalent rank between the two services during interservice operations and exercises, and the removal of the rank of police senior sergeant will make the situation more harmonious. An expression-of-interest process to fill current senior sergeant positions on a non-permanent basis will be implemented to recognise the unique role that those officers play.

This bill ensures that managerial and specialist positions are filled by those most qualified to fill them. It will also ensure that the NSW Police Force is more efficient and better equipped to manage the demands of modern policing. The bill demonstrates the Government's commitment to improving services and ensuring that the force is able to meet the needs of the community. I conclude by doing an advertisement for the NSW Police Force recruiting unit. Whether people want to be a musician, pilot, detective, homicide officer, constable on the beat or personal protection officer, the NSW Police Force offers those options, and this legislation will make those career paths more manageable and attractive. It will give young people wanting a career in law enforcement a much better avenue to fulfil their dreams. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.48 a.m.], on behalf of Mr Greg Smith, in reply: I thank the Leader of the Opposition, and member for Blacktown and members representing the electorates of Camden, Heffron, Tamworth, Myall Lakes, Hornsby, Northern Tablelands, Gosford, Heathcote, Parramatta and Baulkham Hills for their contributions to debate on the Police Amendment (Police Promotions) Bill 2013. This bill is the result of extensive consultation undertaken with the NSW Police Force and the Police Association of NSW. The Government has listened to the concerns expressed about the existing arrangements and we believe the proposed changes will strike the right balance.

The ability of the NSW Police Force to fill promotional positions will be improved, while protecting the integrity of the system. The rank-based process will be complemented, with additional measures to fill certain specialist positions in limited circumstances. Consultation will continue after the bill is passed to determine the most appropriate time to commence the new arrangements. This will ensure that there is no disruption to the promotions system. I have faith in Commissioner of Police Andrew Scipione, Deputy Commissioner Nick Kaldas and Deputy Commissioner Catherine Burn. I have no doubt that they will welcome and support this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Motion by Mr Geoff Provest, on behalf of Mr Greg Smith, agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Council without amendment. 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26769

CRIMES (ADMINISTRATION OF SENTENCES) AMENDMENT BILL 2013

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 November 2013.

Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [11.51 a.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill 2013. The Opposition does not oppose the bill. The object of the bill is to make miscellaneous amendments to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act as follows:

(a) to require remuneration earned by inmates as participants in external work release programs to be paid directly to the Commissioner of Corrective Services on behalf of the inmates,

(b) to expressly authorise the Commissioner to deduct from such remuneration an amount to contribute towards the costs of such programs and of the inmates' imprisonment, and to validate past such deductions— which have been made without the benefit of this legislation—

(c) to reframe the basis on which the Commissioner may make segregated custody directions,

(d) to provide for the recording of conversations made over inmate cell call alarm systems in correctional centres— which is in accordance with the Coroner's recommendation—

(e) to protect persons involved in community service work from civil liability in relation to community service work performed by offenders while residing in premises declared to be residential facilities under the principal Act …,

(f) to impose a statutory condition as to supervision on parole orders made on the basis of exceptional extenuating circumstances,

(g) to enable a parole order made on the basis of exceptional extenuating circumstances to be revoked if the circumstances cease to exist,

(h) to make the time at which the State Parole Authority may consider parole to avoid manifest injustice for an offender whose parole has been revoked the same as it is for an offender whose parole has been refused,

(i) to make warrants issued by the Parole Authority that commit offenders to correctional centres effective on their signing by the secretary of the Parole Authority,

(j) to enable a judicial member of the Parole Authority or of the Serious Offenders Review Council to prohibit the disclosure of information about the content of a report or other document the disclosure of which has been prohibited under the principal Act,

(k) to extend the classes of offenders who may be accommodated in residential facilities,

(l) to provide for the testing of correctional centre staff employed at correctional centres managed by private contractors for alcohol and prohibited drugs,

(m) to enable the Secretary of the Parole Authority to act as a non-judicial member for the purposes of constituting a quorum of the Authority in urgent circumstances …

The bill also contains other miscellaneous provisions. Many of the amendments may be regarded as minor but they may well have significant impacts upon the inmates of correctional centres. I ask that the Minister indicate in his reply whether any consultation has taken place with either the Inspector of Corrective Services or the Ombudsman in relation to the proposals contained in the bill. I note that a number of the proposed amendments affect parole, which seems, on the face of it, to be eminently sensible. As I have indicated, the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.54 a.m.]: I make a brief contribution to debate on the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill 2013. The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 is the principal Act governing the administration of sentences in New South Wales and under which Corrective Services NSW operates. Amongst other things, the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill 2013 amends the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 to reframe the basis on which the commissioner may make a segregated custody direction, to allow conversations made over inmate cell call alarm systems in correctional centres to be recorded, and to provide for drug and alcohol testing of correctional staff at privately managed correctional centres.

It is important that the Attorney General has carriage of this bill because it is expected that our correctional facilities will operate in an open, transparent and professional manner. In the electorate of Tweed 26770 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

some of my constituents are parolees and I have had a number of dealings with the Attorney General's department regarding the transfer of parolees across the State border. Indeed, I have always found the staff to be very professional, open and transparent in their dealings. The bill also amends the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 to enable biometric identification systems to be used in any correctional centre—at the moment they are used only in maximum security correctional centres—and the Fines Act 1996 to authorise the commissioner to deduct victims' support levies from remuneration earned by offenders on external work release programs. No doubt the community will widely support this common-sense approach.

Members will be aware of the current Law Reform Commission review in relation to parole in New South Wales. The bill proposes a number of amendments to strengthen existing parole processes and improve the operational efficiency of the State Parole Authority. The proposed amendments will provide for supervision of parole orders, allow the secretary of the State Parole Authority to sign commitment warrants, and enable a judicial member of the State Parole Authority or Serious Offenders Review Council to prohibit the disclosure of information about the content of a report. This is the subject of wide community debate in both New South Wales and other jurisdictions. For instance, I note the current reviews in Victoria and in Queensland into the effectiveness of parole and its administration. Hopefully the review will highlight a way forward and satisfy concerns expressed by the wider community from time to time. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr TONY ISSA (Granville) [11.58 a.m.]: It is with much pleasure that I speak in support of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill 2013. The object of the bill is to allow amendments to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 to improve the administration of sentencing in New South Wales. The bill covers many points, some of which I will talk about in further detail. The bill amends the principal Act to allow conversations made over inmate cell call alarm systems in correctional centres to be recorded. The bill will protect offenders from civil liability claims in relation to community service work performed while in residential facilities and will provide for supervision of parole orders made on the basis of exceptional circumstances and allow those orders to be revoked. The bill will align manifest injustice provisions for offenders where parole has been revoked with those where parole has been refused.

This bill will enable a judicial member of the State Parole Authority or the Serious Offenders Review Council to prohibit the disclosure of information about the content of a report and will enable the secretary of the State Parole Authority to act as a non-judicial member of the authority in urgent circumstances. The bill provides for drug and alcohol testing of correctional staff at privately managed correctional centres. The bill authorises the Commissioner of Corrective Services to receive remuneration on behalf of inmates on the external work release program and to make deductions from that payment to contribute towards the cost of the program and the inmate's imprisonment.

The efficiency of the parole system will be improved to allow the secretary of the State Parole Authority to sign commitment warrants and to act as a non-judicial member of the authority in circumstances deemed as urgent. The bill also provides for the accommodation of certain classes of offender in Corrective Services residential facilities and provides protection from civil liability claims for those offenders housed in residential facilities who are involved with community service work. The capacity of Corrective Services NSW will be improved to ensure the good order and security of the correctional system by making amendments to the Act in relation to segregated custody directions and the recording of conversations over cell call alarm systems.

The bill addresses the remuneration earned by inmates from external work release programs. The external work release program gives inmates the opportunity to gain employment that may be ongoing after their release and to participate in vocational training. The program assists inmates with their rehabilitation and eventual reintegration into the community. Under clause 7A the remuneration that is paid by an employer to an inmate must be paid to the commissioner on behalf of that inmate. Schedule 2 [1] to the bill also extends the definition of prison earnings in the Fines Act 1996 to include remuneration earned by inmates as participants in any external work release programs to allow for the enforcement of victims support levies that are payable by inmates. Victims will benefit from the amendments to the Fines Act 1996 because the victims support levies may be taken directly from the remuneration earned by inmates in the program.

In regard to the recording of conversations made over cell call alarm systems, this amendment implements a Deputy State Coroner's recommendation that recordings be retained in cases where inmates use the cell call alarm system for an emergency. At present the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 prohibits the recording of a private conversation by a listening device unless all the parties to the conversation have given consent. This requirement for the consent of all parties to the recording of a conversation requires inmates to give consent to the recording of any conversation using the cell call alarm system. This has been problematic, 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26771

given the emergency purpose for which the alarm system is installed, and it will be resolved through this amendment. The bill extends the general provisions of the Act that deal with community service work performed by offenders housed in declared residential facilities. Corrective Services' usual practice requires residents, on admission, to sign an undertaking to abide by rules such as curfew requirements and participation in program requirements. Residents are encouraged and assisted to gain paid employment; however, for those without paid employment, voluntary community work is encouraged to assist them to adapt to a work ethic and structure in their life.

In regard to parole orders, there is no provision under the Act to monitor parolees or to revoke that parole. Schedule 1 [12] to the bill also enables the State Parole Authority to revoke a parole order made on the grounds that the offender is dying or because of exceptional circumstances. Schedule 1 [9] to the bill amends the injustice provisions of the Act to overcome the difficulty presented by the definition of "parole eligibility date" so that the State Parole Authority can consider the granting of parole to avoid manifest injustice in relation to an offender whose parole has been revoked at any time after revocation. The amendments now enable a judicial member of the State Parole Authority or of the Serious Offenders Review Council to prohibit the disclosure of any information relating to the content of a report.

The State Parole Authority and the Serious Offenders Review Council often receive sensitive criminal intelligence information from the NSW Police Force and Corrective Services about activities of high-risk violent offenders and associates. This information is necessary for the functions of those bodies to be exercised in the public interest. The NSW Police Force and the Ministry for Police and Emergency Services support these amendments. Schedule 1 [2] to the bill now requires correctional centre staff to be tested for alcohol and prohibited drugs to ensure that staff are not under the influence of alcohol or drugs when they are on duty. Corrective Services NSW does not currently have the legislative capacity to give a direction to a private management company to conduct drug and alcohol testing. These amendments give the commissioner the statutory power to direct correctional centres to conduct drug and alcohol testing of staff. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [12.08 p.m.]: The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill 2013 covers a range of changes to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999—the principal Act—the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 and the Fines Act 1996. I will be concentrating on changes to the principal Act relating to work programs and prisoner remuneration obligations and suggesting they be extended to include home detention and Intensive Correction Orders [ICOs]. Before doing that I first want to welcome the regulatory change to enable biometric identification systems to be used in any correctional centre, not just maximum security correctional centres. This Government recognises important technological advances and is moving with the times.

The major amendment to the Act on which I will now focus requires inmates in external work release programs to have some of the remuneration they earn paid directly to the commissioner on their behalf and expressly authorises the commissioner to deduct contributions towards the cost of the program and the inmate's imprisonment. This will allow money to be deducted automatically for living expenses, program costs and transport requirements. This apparently has not been compulsory in the past, but has been common practice. These changes would also enable the payment of victim support levies. As I will argue, if the scheme were expanded even further to include prisoners working while on home detention and Intensive Correction Orders, more expenditure could be recouped.

Work release programs and internal prison work programs not only force inmates to make a contribution to the cost of their living but also help them to build self-esteem, maintain work skills and contribute to society. I completely support measures to ensure expenses are deducted from prisoners who receive remuneration for work carried out whilst serving their sentence. This remuneration can be used to cover their costs while in prison as well as support family members and pay victim support levies. Unfortunately, only low-risk prisoners or those nearing the end of their sentences are presently eligible for work release or other prison work programs in New South Wales. There are few disadvantages for prisoners in these schemes. Depending on the type of work offered, they enable prisoners to work productively outside their cells or prison, and reduce idleness and isolation. The schemes improve job skills and greatly enhance prisoners' ability to re-enter the workforce on their release.

The United States has long been at the forefront of prison work programs. There are examples in the United States where prisoners grow food and care for livestock used in prison meals. There is also an example in Arizona where stray animals are housed by the prison and prisoners care for them before charging people a 26772 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

fee to adopt them. At the Canon City Correctional Complex in southern Colorado a fish farming enterprise is staffed by prisoners who kill, gut, clean, chop and vacuum-seal fish for retail sale. Across 6,000 acres of prison grounds low-security inmates raise cows and goats, make fishing rods, build chairs for State agencies, grow flowers, train dogs and recycle trash for resale. The Canon City complex receives no tax dollars and generated $57 million in revenue in 2010.

Some private prisons have set up internal workplaces for multinationals to employ the incumbent prison population on low wages for greater profit. In 37 American States the contracting of prison labour by private corporations including IBM, Boeing, Microsoft, Revlon and Dell inside State prisons has been legalised. Prison labour can be particularly beneficial for entrepreneurs. United States Federal law requires companies to pay minimum wages, but they can save a lot of money on other costs. Prisoners should be able to derive satisfaction from working for their living whilst reducing costs to taxpayers, but prisoners' rights should not be eroded and they should never be treated as slave labour. There is always a risk that work programs are taken too far.

I believe that prisoners should learn to take significant responsibility for their upkeep, whether it is on the inside or on the outside. Prisoners in Holland may soon have to pay for their cell accommodation. If a current bill is passed by the Dutch Parliament prisoners will have to pay €16 per day for a maximum of two years from 1 January 2015. In the United States, Michigan and Ohio have pay-to-stay prisons. They attempt to charge every inmate on a sliding scale that takes into consideration their earnings, dependants and other financial data. However, I understand they have had mixed results and little of the charges levied have been recovered. This could be addressed by taking contributions out of money earned whilst in prison. For many prisoners, a Corrective Services employment scheme may be the first time they have been engaged in meaningful and productive work that contributes to the community around them.

In New South Wales inmates in work release programs may be employed in a range of positions such as poultry process workers, fresh produce process workers, labourers, licensed forklift drivers, customer service people, telemarketers, retail pick packers, car detailers, car sales people or onsite construction workers. They also could contribute in many other areas, including production for the armed forces and charities, or training for the army reserve or State Emergency Service. Work camps were founded in Queensland to help clean up and rebuild Charleville after the floods of 1990. This work program continues to provide help to communities that experience floods, storms or other natural disasters. Training inmates for these eventualities could likewise be invaluable for New South Wales communities that require assistance. Such a program might include a wide range of willing prisoners; not just those who are deemed low risk.

Corrective Services NSW statistics indicate that in 2010 only 123 prisoners out of a prison population of approximately 10,000 were participating in work release programs. Eighty-three of them were from Silverwater jail. It is often prisoners who have committed the worst crimes and remain in jail longer than others who might benefit most from a more productive and satisfying prison environment. To encourage participation by higher-risk prisoners in these work programs certain benefits or conditions may need to be withheld as incentives to participate. Internal work programs structured around higher levels of supervision would need to be developed also.

It should be compulsory for all prisoners in these work programs to have money for board and lodgings deducted from their pay. Everyone else in Australia has to pay for necessities, so why should working prisoners be exempt? And why should prisoners who have committed dangerous crimes be exempt from working? They of all people should be giving back to the community they have wronged. It is also unfair—if not patronising— to prisoners to assume they cannot work. Just because they committed a crime that does not mean they should not be able to live a structured and productive life in prison. Often it is a lack of structure that leads to a life of crime. We need to show prisoners the benefits of structure and purpose in improving the quality of their future lives. If they do not like the increased structure of prisons and the requirement to work they should make sure they never return to jail.

This brings me to home detention and its benefits for both prisoners and taxpayers. In 2010 the net operating cost for an offender on home detention was $47 per day compared with about $187 for an offender in a minimum- or medium-security prison. In 2008-09 in the United Kingdom 11,316 offenders served time in home detention. In 2013 there were only 84 people in home detention in New South Wales and fewer than 200 Australia-wide. [Extension of time agreed to.]

Home detention is a positive alternative to full-time imprisonment. It is currently restricted to a maximum sentence period of 18 months and is administered by the Corrective Services NSW Community 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26773

Compliance Group [CCG]. A home detention order can be made only if the candidate is regarded as suitable and agrees to comply with certain obligations, and if the people with whom the candidate will reside agree in writing to the arrangement. It is available only to prisoners who have committed certain offences and is not available to criminals with a history of sexual, domestic violence, stalking or drug trafficking offences. White collar crime, driving infringements and minor drug offences are commonly punished using home detention or intensive correction orders. Home detention conditions are strict. They include: electronic monitoring; accepting home visits at any time from Community Compliance Group officers; and being tested for illicit drugs or alcohol, which are forbidden.

Offenders may complain about being a prisoner in their own homes, but being with their family is generally better than remote imprisonment. Because they are often first-time offenders, the relative freedom of the sentence is sometimes underappreciated. A prisoner on home detention can enjoy the benefits of continuing in paid work while remaining with the family and not mixing with hardened criminals. Costs for such schemes include maintaining monitoring technology, support staff, and drug and alcohol testing and treatment. To cover these costs and pay victim support levies prisoners on home detention should also be forced to contribute a proportion of their pay.

There are multiple benefits to expanding the current home detention scheme to include a range of lower-level criminal offences. A number of reviews of the New South Wales home detention program have been conducted over the past 15 years including a legislative review of the New South Wales home detention scheme in 1999, the July 2000 Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population, a NSW Corrective Services review in February 2006, and a Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice 2006 report. All of them recommended an expansion of the scheme, but little has been done.

In September 2010 the Auditor-General released another report recommending the expansion of the scheme into regional areas, but offender participation has dropper even lower since then. As at March 2013 there were only 84 offenders on home detention. Between 2000 and 2013 prisoners on home detention declined, from 213 to 84. This is despite the above reports recommending its extension and highlighting its greater financial and social benefits, including cost effectiveness, reduced risk of reoffending by prisoners, keeping less serious offenders out of the prison system and keeping families together. I believe Corrective Services NSW and the Government need to expand the program and more actively promote its use within the court system. The scheme enables prisoners to remain functioning and supporting members of their families, communities and workplaces. It is also much cheaper to run per person when more offenders are included. Further, if the offender continues to work and compulsory remuneration deductions are made, it helps pay for the scheme.

Home detention is currently available in Sydney, Wollongong and Newcastle, and in some regional areas. Some people and organisations remain opposed to an expansion of the home detention scheme. They cite a high failure rate of detention bracelets, although technology continues to improve, and the supposed high risk of suicide by prisoners in their own homes. In my opinion the current amendments should simply be a start to better recognising the financial obligations of prisoners. We need to create more opportunities for prisoners to work and legislate for them to recompense the State for their program, treatment and living expenses as appropriate. The New South Wales Government should not be expected to totally fund a prisoner's lifestyle, especially when the prisoner is actively engaged in work programs or employment. By encouraging more prisoners to work, the Government is saving money. At the moment society is paying too much for many prisoners' living expenses, often for many years.

A free ride is no deterrent to committing another crime. Punishment for a crime should not include a free ride. Corrective Services NSW statistics indicate that 42.4 per cent of inmates released in 2009-10 returned to prison within two years. Clearly, experiencing life in prison is not a sufficient deterrent to committing crime. We need to charge prisoners for their incarceration and make them work for their crime. Taxpayers work for a living and prisoners should too. If we show prisoners ways to participate positively in their community, including making a financial contribution, they might use these skills on release to improve their prospects and become better functioning and independent members of society. Therefore I support the proposed legislation, but I believe we need to do more. We need to send a message not only that crime does not pay but that prisoners should work and pay.

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD (Myall Lakes) [12.22 p.m.]: I support the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill 2013. This bill makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 to improve the administration of sentences in New South Wales. These amendments concern a broad sweep of matters and affect numerous pieces of legislation. I congratulate and 26774 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

commend the Attorney General for his work, and for the continued updating and modernising of legislation, particularly in this field. The object of the bill is to make miscellaneous amendments to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, as well as other Acts and regulations. The amendments to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act are as follows: to require remuneration earned by inmates as participants in external work release programs to be paid directly to the Commissioner of Corrective Services on behalf of the inmates; and to expressly authorise the commissioner to deduct from such remuneration an amount to contribute towards the costs of such programs and of the inmates' imprisonment, and to validate past deductions.

The amendments also include reframing the basis on which the commissioner may make segregated custody directions; providing for the recording of conversations made over inmate cell call alarm systems in correctional centres; protecting persons involved in community service work from civil liability in relation to community service work performed by offenders while residing in premises declared to be residential facilities under the principal Act; imposing a statutory condition as to the supervision on parole orders made on the basis of exceptional extenuating circumstances; enabling a parole order made on the basis of exceptional extenuating circumstances to be revoked if the circumstances cease to exist; making the time at which the State Parole Authority may consider parole to avoid manifest injustice for an offender whose parole has been revoked the same as it is for an offender whose parole has been refused; and making warrants issued by the Parole Authority that commit offenders to correctional centres effective on their signing by the Secretary of the Parole Authority.

The amendments also enable a judicial member of the Parole Authority or the Serious Offenders Review Council to prohibit the disclosure of information about the content of a report or other document, the disclosure of which has been prohibited under the principal Act; extend the classes of offenders who may be accommodated in residential facilities; provide for the testing of correctional centre staff employed at correctional centres managed by private contractors for alcohol and prohibited drugs; and enable the secretary of the Parole Authority to act as a non-judicial member for the purpose of constituting a quorum of the authority in urgent circumstances. The bill amends the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 to enable the commissioner to authorise the operation of a biometric identification system in any correctional centre. Lastly, the bill amends the Fines Act 1996 to authorise the commissioner to deduct victim support levies payable by offenders from remuneration earned by the offenders on external work release programs and to validate past deductions.

I will now deal with some provisions in more detail. Schedule 1 [21] relates to the alcohol and drug testing of staff at privately managed correctional centres. This is a common-sense amendment that requires operators of privately managed correctional centres, whether management companies or sub-management companies, to prepare and implement a program approved by the commissioner for the testing of their correctional centre staff for alcohol and prohibited drugs and to ensure that staff are not under the influence of alcohol or prohibited drugs when on duty or when present at their place of work and about to go on duty. The item also enables the commissioner to direct an operator to require its correctional centre staff to undergo testing for alcohol and prohibited drugs in accordance with the operator's approved testing program or the testing regime provided in the principal Act for correctional officers and other persons employed by Corrective Services NSW.

Over the years there have been a number of occasions when correctional centre staff have been under the influence at a facility or dealt in illicit contraband. This requirement is imposed in many professions and places of employment, whether it be bus drivers, police officers, mine workers or numerous other occupations. It is only right that private companies that perform work on behalf of the New South Wales Government ensure that their employees are capable at all times of performing their duties in a professional way, and the only way that can be done is by them being sober and free of drugs. In terms of remuneration earned from external work release programs, Corrective Services NSW administers external work release programs under which eligible inmates may work in paid employment in the community during their sentences in accordance with a local leave permit issued under the principal Act.

Schedule 1 [1] makes provision with respect to remuneration earned by an inmate as a participant in such a program. Under proposed section 7A such remuneration is to be paid by the employer to the commissioner on behalf of the inmate. It is proposed that through the implementation of this bill the commissioner may deduct an amount from a prisoner's remuneration as a contribution towards meeting the cost of administering the external work release program and defraying expenses related to the inmate's participation in the program, such as travel fares, and the cost of the inmate's imprisonment during the period in which remuneration is earned. Any deducted amounts are to be calculated in accordance with the directions of the Minister for Justice. Schedule 1 item [3] will make a consequential amendment. 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26775

Schedule 1 item [24] inserts a provision to validate any deductions from remuneration earned by an inmate as a participant in an external work release program that were made before the commencement of proposed section 7A (2), if those deductions would have been validly made had they been made on or after the commencement of that provision. Members who preceded me in this debate dealt at length with prisoners contributing towards meeting the cost of their accommodation and keep and programs for which prisoners are privileged to be selected. From the point of view of taxpayers of the State, it is only sensible that prisoners should contribute to meeting the cost of their accommodation and keep and the programs.

Amendment of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 will enable the commissioner to authorise the operation of a biometric identification system only in correctional centres in which high security, extreme high security or extreme high-risk restricted inmates are accommodated, or in which inmates are received before they are classified. Schedule 3 item [4] removes restrictions to enable the commission to authorise the operation of a biometric identification system in any correctional centre. The amendment will assist the department in identification of inmates, which is so important in relation to persons who commit crimes and prison inmates.

In relation to segregated custody directions, the bill assists the commissioner to make good decisions by modifying the basis on which the commissioner may direct that an inmate is held in segregated custody, if the commissioner is of the opinion that the segregation is necessary to secure the safety of others or the security or good order and discipline within a correctional centre. This contrasts with segregation if a commissioner is of the opinion that the association of the inmate with other inmates constitutes, or is likely to constitute, a threat to safety or security, or good order and discipline. For the reasons I have stated, I commend the bill to the House.

Mr KEVIN ANDERSON (Tamworth) [12.32 p.m.]: I support the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill 2013 and congratulate the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice on the great work he is doing in relation to corrective services. The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 is the principal Act that governs the administration of sentences in New South Wales and under which Corrective Services NSW operates. The bill amends the Act to require money that is earned by inmates through external work release programs to be paid directly to the commissioner on behalf of the inmates and to expressly authorise the commissioner to deduct a contribution towards the cost of the program and the inmate's imprisonment.

Tamworth has a Corrective Services NSW facility that employs 53 full-time staff and six casual staff and administers arrangements for courts in Tamworth and Armidale. The Tamworth Correctional Centre caters for 89 inmates. Primarily, it is a remand centre and deals with approximately 500 inmate movements a month. The centre plays a very important role in the Tamworth community. Under the command of the security manager in Tamworth, Mr Michael Page, many of the centre's inmates engage in various forms of community work.

Mr John Williams: He is from Broken Hill.

Mr KEVIN ANDERSON: The member for Murray-Darling is correct and I note his acknowledgement of the great work of Mr Michael Page, who is formerly from Broken Hill but now is living in Tamworth and who is the security manager of the Tamworth Correctional Centre. Michael Page envisages further engagement with the community through work release programs in endeavours such as agriculture, equine and farming. One program involves restoration of furniture that has been discarded by the Department of Education and Communities. The inmates sanded and repainted the furniture and it was put back into good use. Recently on graffiti busting day, a number of inmates from the St Heliers Correctional Centre at Muswellbrook combined with inmates from Tamworth to paint out graffiti in a number of locations. It was an excellent exercise.

I spoke to the inmates, who were appreciative of the opportunity to contribute to the community through their efforts. From the Tamworth electorate office's funding, I paid for high-visibility vests worn by the inmates, on the back of which was written "Giving Back to Tamworth". Work release programs in regional communities, which provide prison inmates with an opportunity to give back to a community in which they have offended, are a great way of showing that a good majority of inmates are prepared to rehabilitate and give back to their community. It is only fair that they make a financial contribution to costs associated with the facility to which they have been committed.

Recently there has been a great deal of discussion about the State's correctional facilities reaching breaking point as prisoner numbers increase. It is very expensive to house an inmate and the benchmark is 26776 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

approximately $110 a day. Because the Tamworth facility is a remand centre with approximately 500 movements a month, each time an inmate enters the centre they have to be issued with new clothing and new footwear and they have to be housed and provided with services such as vocational education and training, psychiatry, physiotherapy, medical and dental care. All of that is taken care of at taxpayers' expense. Once prisoners are committed to a correctional facility, it is only fair that they make a financial contribution towards meeting the costs of that facility to ease the cost of running corrective services facilities in this State.

Every department across the New South Wales Government has been asked to tighten its belt. Corrective Services NSW requires prison administrators, such as the governor of the St Heliers Correctional Centre at Muswellbrook who oversights the Tamworth facility, to find ways of reducing costs and saving money. Part of the income stream of a facility can be derived from prisoners who are undertaking external work and who are deriving income from an industry or organisation. The revenue can be used to offset costs associated with operating the correctional facility. The bill also refers to victims support payments, which are only fair and just. If a court orders victim support payments and a prisoner is receiving income as a result of being incarcerated and earning income, it is only fair and right that they should contribute to victim support payments. Correctional facilities play a very important role in regional centres. I have mentioned the Tamworth Correctional Centre and the St Heliers Correctional Centre at Muswellbrook, which strengthen local communities through employment of staff and through work release programs.

In most instances one will find that prisoners and inmates in regional facilities are from regional areas and had a skill before they were imprisoned. When an inmate is committed to a facility their skills should be identified so that they can be enhanced and put to good use. For example, the local TAFE can upskill inmates in vocational education and training; if an existing inmate has a high level of skill, that can be passed on to other inmates. I have a very close working relationship with the Tamworth Correctional Centre because it plays a very important role in our community. I have been advised that most minimum security inmates want to work and further their skills so that when they return to their communities they will be better persons. They want to be rehabilitated and do not want to go back to the correctional facility. Corrective Services and the community aim to rehabilitate inmates so that they do not return to the correctional facility. We are living in a changing environment. When prisoners are locked up they should be put to good use.

I have had the pleasure of visiting the South Coast Correctional Centre near Nowra where I saw the excellent programs that are being rolled out to Muswellbrook and Tamworth. We encourage inmates to have a work ethic by providing them with meaningful employment when they are in custody. Some of them are generational offenders as their parents and grandparents have never worked and they know no different. A correctional facility provides the perfect opportunity to teach them skills that will provide a pathway to rehabilitation to make them better citizens. I think our correctional facilities are in that zone. We want to release people from the facilities who can once again have a meaningful relationship with their families and who are committed to making a worthwhile contribution to their communities and will do so. Corrective Services plays a very important role in our communities. I support the Tamworth Correctional facility and the hardworking 53 full-time and six casual staff who do an excellent job under Michael Page and Norm Provost from the Muswellbrook St Heliers Correctional Centre. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr CHRISTOPHER GULAPTIS (Clarence) [12.42 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak in support of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill 2013 and thank the Attorney General, Mr Greg Smith, for introducing the bill to the House. The object of the bill is to improve the administration of the sentencing regime under which Corrective Services in New South Wales operates. This is important to my electorate because we still have a jail in Grafton. It currently operates as a remand centre but can easily be made to accommodate more inmates from Corrective Services. At present the jail has 60-odd remand inmates, which can be increased to approximately 220 inmates without significant building works. The facility is only about 23 years old. We know there are crooks in the community that the judiciary needs to lock up, and Grafton jail will welcome them if it is provided with more staff.

Mr John Williams: Mandatory sentencing will fix that up.

Mr CHRISTOPHER GULAPTIS: Yes, the member for Murray-Darling is correct. Possibly mandatory sentencing will increase the number of inmates in New South Wales, and Grafton will welcome them. The bill authorises the Commissioner of Corrective Services to receive the monies earned by inmates on the external works release program and to make deductions from that remuneration to contribute towards the cost of the program and the inmates' imprisonment. This makes sense as these inmates have been incarcerated for crimes they have committed in our community. This is not a work-for-the-dole program. This is not work 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26777

experience. These people have committed crimes and they have to pay for their crimes and one way for them to do so is to pay for their incarceration. The bill also provides for the State Parole Authority to deal with offenders who have had their parole revoked in the same way as it deals with offenders who have had their parole refused. Not to do this would be a clear injustice.

The bill also will improve the efficiency of our parole system by enabling the secretary of the State Parole Authority to sign commitment warrants and act as a non-judicial member of the authority in urgent circumstances. The bill also provides for the accommodation of certain classes of offenders in Corrective Services NSW residential facilities and for protection from civil liability claims for those offenders housed in residential facilities who perform community service work. This is reasonable given that these inmates are working under supervision within the community and incidents can happen for which they are clearly not to blame. This is important if we are to continue with rehabilitation programs to help stop inmates from reoffending. If we want to rehabilitate inmates so that they do not reoffend, clearly we need to work on rehabilitation programs. We must provide them not only with the necessary safety in the workplace but also with protection against any potential litigation.

Finally, the bill improves the capacity of Corrective Services NSW to ensure the good order and security of the correctional system by making amendments to the Act in relation to segregated custody directions, the recording of conversations over cell call alarm systems, and by giving directions to private operators of correctional centres to drug and alcohol test employees. The bill also amends the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 to enable biometric identification systems to be used in any correctional centre. This amendment recognises that biometrics have now been in use successfully for approximately 15 years.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! Members on the backbench will come to order. Those members who wish to have conversations will do so outside the Chamber.

Mr CHRISTOPHER GULAPTIS: This technology is currently available and needs to be utilised by Corrective Services to improve safety for inmates and staff. For Corrective Services NSW, the biometric identification system ensures that each person who enters a correctional centre for the purposes of conducting a visit or carrying out duties or activities requiring access to the centre is the same person who leaves the correctional centre after conducting that visit or carrying out those duties or activities. Clearly this safety issue needs to be implemented as soon as possible. This legislation is important to ensure the efficient operations of Corrective Services in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MARK SPEAKMAN (Cronulla—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.49 p.m.]: I support the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill 2013. The bill will amend the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 and the Fines Act 1996. I now turn, to the extent that time permits, to deal with each of the amendments. The first set of amendments in schedule 1 [1] and [2] deals with external release work programs. Corrective Services NSW administers external work release programs under which eligible inmates can work in paid employment in the community during their sentences in accordance with a local leave permit issued under the principal Act. These work programs have been administered by Corrective Services NSW since the 1960s and they are an important part of assisting inmates with their rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

Under new section 7A to be inserted into the principal Act, the remuneration that is earned by an inmate as a participant in such a program will be paid by the employer to the commissioner on behalf of the inmate. From that remuneration, the commissioner can deduct an amount to contribute to the cost of administering the program, expenses related to the inmate's participation in the program, such as travel fares, and the costs of the inmate's imprisonment during the period in which such remuneration is earned. The second set of amendments deals with the basis on which the commissioner can make segregated custody directions. Schedule 1 item [2] will modify the basis on which the Commissioner of Corrective Services can direct that an inmate be held in segregated custody, so that the commissioner will now be able to make a segregated custody direction if he or she is of the view that the direction is needed to secure the safety of others, or the security of a correctional centre, or the good order and discipline within a correctional centre.

At the moment under the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 the commissioner can only direct that an inmate be held in segregated custody if the commissioner is of the opinion that the association of the inmate with other inmates constitutes, or is likely to constitute, a threat to the personal safety of any other person, or the security of a correctional centre, or good order and discipline within a correctional centre. The 26778 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

amendments will broaden the scope for the commissioner to make these segregated custody directions and that is consistent with the purpose of such a direction being to ensure personal safety, security, good order and discipline within a correctional centre, not only where the problem is association with other inmates but where, for example, an inmate might be engaging in conduct that is a threat to the personal safety of another person, such as a staff member, or the security of, or the good order and discipline within, a correctional centre without the involvement of any other inmate.

A third area of amendments concerns the recording of conversations made over cell call alarm systems. Section 7 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 makes it an offence, with some exceptions, for a person to knowingly install, use or cause to be used, or to maintain a listening device to overhear, record, monitor or listen to a private conversation to which the person is not a party, or to record a private conversation to which the person is a party. The amendment under this bill will provide for an exemption from that section to allow conversations made through cell call alarm systems in correctional centres to be recorded. That makes a lot of sense because at the moment the requirement for consent to record is problematic in circumstances where the alarm system is used for an emergency purpose. This amendment will resolve that issue. Cell call alarm conversations are already recorded in correctional centres in Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory, so this follows what happens in those jurisdictions.

A fourth area of amendment relates to civil liability protection in respect of certain community service work. That will be dealt with by schedule 1 [5] and [6], which will extend the general provisions of the principal Act dealing with the carrying out of community service work by offenders so that those general provisions apply also in relation to community service work performed by offenders who reside in residential facilities, pursuant to a condition to which such residency is subject. A fifth area of amendment is in schedule 1 [8] dealing with parole orders in exceptional extenuating circumstances. The amendment will impose a statutory condition on parole orders made on the grounds that the offender is dying, or because of exceptional extenuating circumstances that require the offender to be subject to supervision for the whole period that the parole order is in force. Related to that, schedule 1 [12] will enable the Parole Authority to revoke a parole order made on the grounds that the offender is dying, or because of exceptional extenuating circumstances, if satisfied that those grounds or circumstances no longer exist.

Schedule 1 [9] will deal with amendments concerning consideration of parole so as to avoid manifest injustice. Item [9] will make the time at which the Parole Authority may consider parole to avoid manifest injustice for an offender whose parole has been revoked the same as it is already for an offender whose parole has been refused, being at any time after the date on which the offender first becomes eligible for release on parole. Amendments in schedule 1 [13] and [14] will make warrants issued by the State Parole Authority that commit offenders to correctional centres effective on their signing by the secretary of the Parole Authority rather than a judicial member of the Parole Authority, but, as soon as practicable after the signing of a warrant by the secretary, it is to be countersigned by a judicial member of the Parole Authority.

Schedule 1 [15] and [16] will deal with amendments concerning the security of certain information. At the moment the principal Act allows a judicial member of the Parole Authority or of the Serious Offenders Review Council to prohibit the disclosure under the principal Act of a report or a document if the judicial member considers that the disclosure can adversely affect the security, discipline or good order of a correctional centre, endanger a person, jeopardise the conduct of any lawful investigation, prejudice the public interest, adversely affect the supervision of any offender who has been released on parole or disclose the contents of any offender's medical, psychiatric or psychological report. What will be the amendments? Items [15] and [16] in schedule 1 will enable a traditional member of the Parole Authority or of the Serious Offenders Review Council to prohibit the disclosure under the principal Act of any information relating to the content of a report or document, the disclosure of which is so prohibited, but only if the judicial member considers that non-disclosure of the information is needed in the public interest and that the public interest outweighs any right to procedural fairness that may be denied by non-disclosure of the information.

The next amendment I will deal with is in schedule 1 [20], which will extend the classes of offenders who can be accommodated in residential facilities so as to include offenders who are subject to an extended or interim supervision order, a home detention order or an intensive correction order, or offenders in community custody who are subject to a community supervision order. Schedule 1 [21] deals with alcohol and drug testing of staff at privately managed correctional centres. This will require operators of privately managed correctional centres, whether management companies or sub-management companies, to prepare and implement a program approved by the commissioner for testing their correctional centre staff for alcohol and prohibited drugs, and to ensure that staff are not under the influence of alcohol or prohibited drugs when on duty or when present at their place of work or about to go on duty. 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26779

The bill will enable the commissioner to direct a private operator to require staff to undergo such testing in accordance with the operator's approved testing program or in accordance with the testing regime provided for in the Act for correctional officers and other persons employed by Corrective Services NSW. At the moment, Corrective Services NSW does not have the legislative capacity to give a direction to a private management company to conduct drug and alcohol testing. There may be circumstances or staff performance-related issues which necessitate Corrective Services NSW staff conducting that testing. The amendments will give the commissioner the statutory power to direct management companies at correctional centres to conduct drug and alcohol testing of staff, and also for Corrective Services NSW to be able to conduct drug and alcohol testing at privately managed correctional centres if the commissioner considers it appropriate to do so. [Extension of time agreed to.]

I have dealt with the amendments in schedule 1 to the bill, amendments to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999. I turn now to schedules 2 and 3. Schedule 2 will amend the Fines Act 1996, which provides for the enforcement of victims support levies that are payable by inmates by means of attachment of the inmate's prison earnings, namely, payments made to inmates by the commissioner under the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 for work done and other purposes. Schedule 2 will amend the Fines Act by extending the definition of "prison earnings" to include remuneration earned by inmates as participants in external work release programs. Schedule 3 will amend the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008. That regulation enables the commissioner to authorise the operation of a biometric identification system only in correctional centres in which high security, extreme high security or extreme high-risk restricted inmates are accommodated or in which inmates are received before they are classified.

The schedule removes these restrictions to allow the commissioner to authorise the operation of a biometric identification system in any correctional centre. This amendment recognises that biometrics have now been in use successfully for about 15 years and, by way of an example, at least one mobile telephone manufacturer is using biometric technology to allow users to unlock their phones. There are existing safeguards in the regulation, including penalties for breaches of privacy to ensure that appropriate privacy practices are adhered to. I support the bill that amends three pieces of legislation—the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, the Fines Act 1996 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008. This will improve the administration of sentences in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GARRY EDWARDS (Swansea) [1.01 p.m.]: I support the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill 2013. The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 is the principal Act that governs the administration of sentences in New South Wales and is the Act under which Corrective Services NSW operates. The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill 2013 amends the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 amongst other things to require money earned by inmates in external work release programs to be paid directly to the commissioner on behalf of the inmates, and to expressly authorise the commissioner to deduct a contribution towards the cost of the program and the inmate's imprisonment. It will reframe the basis on which the commissioner may make a segregated custody direction and allow conversations made over inmate cell call alarm systems in correctional centres to be recorded. It will protect offenders from civil liability claims in relation to community service work performed while in residential facilities and provide for drug and alcohol testing of correctional staff at privately managed correctional centres.

The bill also amends the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 to enable biometric identification systems to be used in any correctional centre. At the moment they are used only in maximum security correctional centres and have been used for quite a number of years. The bill also amends the Fines Act 1996 to authorise the commissioner to deduct victims support levies from remuneration earned by offenders on external work release programs. In my humble opinion if that were the only provision contained in the bill, the bill would be worthy to stand. While members will be aware of the current Law Reform Commission review of parole in New South Wales, the bill proposes a number of amendments that will strengthen existing parole processes and improve the operational efficiency of the State Parole Authority.

The proposed amendments will provide supervision of parole orders made on the basis of exceptional extenuating circumstances and allow those orders to be revoked, align the manifest injustice provisions for an offender whose parole has been revoked with those of an offender who has been refused parole, allow the Secretary of the State Parole Authority to sign commitment warrants, enable a judicial officer of the State Parole Authority or Serious Offenders Review Council to prohibit the disclosure of information about the content of a report and enable the Secretary of the State Parole Authority to act as a non-judicial member of the authority in urgent circumstances. I believe this bill will be welcomed and roundly applauded by the community and I commend the Attorney General, the Hon. Greg Smith, for his hard work, foresight, initiative and courage in driving this ground-breaking legislation. I commend the bill to the House. 26780 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

Mr KEVIN CONOLLY (Riverstone) [1.05 p.m.]: I make a brief contribution to debate on the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill 2013. I would not presume to be able to explain the bill in the detail and intricacy expressed by my colleagues and I will not go over the same ground. However, I make the general observation that we sentence people to jail terms for a number of reasons, including to benefit the community. It is a form of punishment, a deterrent and it protects the community. Imprisonment has all these functions and, to ensure that they are achieved, prison authorities must have the capacity to properly run and control Corrective Services facilities so that they can deliver on the outcomes. One outcome I failed to mention was the rehabilitation of prisoners where possible. As my colleagues noted, we want as many people as possible to return to useful, productive roles in society.

I focus on four aspects of this bill, which seeks to amend several Acts, that strengthen the management of prisons to ensure good order and so that management can properly carry out its functions. The bill will amend the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act to reframe the basis on which the commissioner may make segregated custody directions. The bill strengthens the hand of the commissioner to enable segregated custody not only in certain very extreme, defined circumstances but also when the commissioner forms the view that it is necessary to do so for the safety of any person, the safety of staff or the good order and functioning of the Corrective Services facility. That is a step forward and the Attorney General—who has just entered the Chamber—is to be commended for making that common-sense amendment through this bill.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! Opposition members will contain their enthusiasm and come to order.

Mr KEVIN CONOLLY: The second of the four aspects I wish to highlight is that the bill provides for the recording of conversations made over inmate cell call alarm systems in correctional centres. Obviously an anomaly has been detected in legislation not permitting the recording of such conversations or that circumstance not being envisaged. It is sensible that prison authorities be given that power. This will ensure that they understand and can later prove certain calls were made and, if necessary, hold people accountable for them. Thirdly, the bill provides for the testing of staff employed at correctional centres managed by private contractors for alcohol and prohibited drugs. One of those facilities, Parklea Prison, is just around the corner from my electorate office.

Mr Ryan Park: Allegedly you've never been.

Mr KEVIN CONOLLY: I have visited twice, once in the company of the Attorney General—

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! I call the member for Keira to order for the first time.

Mr KEVIN CONOLLY: Thank you, Mr Acting-Speaker, for that defence from attack by the other side. That facility is an example of exactly where this legislative power will enable prison authorities to be directed to carry out testing for alcohol and drugs amongst the staff, should the need arise. This again ensures the community's confidence in Corrective Services management having the capacity to ensure good order to protect the community as required.

Fourthly, the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 is amended to enable the commissioner to authorise the operation of biometric identification in any correctional centre. This is another common-sense measure keeping up with available technology to ensure that the commissioner is properly equipped to carry out his functions to maintain well-run and secure prisons to protect the community and assure that imprisonment goals are being met. I commend the Attorney General for these sensible steps; they strengthen the role of Corrective Services authorities and ensure that prisons are well managed. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping—Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [1.10 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members representing the electorates of Tweed, Granville, Liverpool, Davidson, Myall Lakes, Tamworth, Clarence, Cronulla, Swansea and Riverstone for their contributions to the debate. The member for Liverpool asked about consultation with the Inspector of Custodial Services or the Ombudsman. The Inspector of Custodial Services had not taken up office when this bill was being drafted. I understand that considerable correspondence and discussion advised the Ombudsman of the proposed legislative amendments relating to the work release program. The member for Davidson suggested that the program be extended to include those on 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26781

home detention and intensive corrections orders. We are always open to improvements. The work release program applies only to inmates in full-time custody in correctional centres. Offenders on community-based orders, such as home detention and intensive corrections orders, usually reside in their own homes. They pay for their own living expenses because they are supporting their families.

Offenders on home detention or intensive corrections orders are encouraged to maintain existing employment or to gain new employment while fulfilling their order and are permitted to retain their wages. Offenders on intensive corrections orders not employed do community service work as part of fulfilling their order. The external work release program enables carefully selected minimum-security inmates to work in the community while being electronically monitored. Corrective Services has an obligation to ensure community safety; that is why the program is restricted to minimum-security inmates. Another member suggested expanding the home detention scheme. The New South Wales Law Reform Commission undertook a comprehensive review of all sentencing in New South Wales, including community-based sentences covering home detention. The Government is considering the report, which was released in July 2013.

Deducting money from an inmate's works release wages to contribute to the cost of incarceration is not unusual in correctional jurisdictions. South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory already have provisions in their corrections legislation expressly authorising the deduction of money from the wages of inmates participating in a work release program to cover the costs associated with running the program and other costs, such as board and lodging. This change to that aspect is made to harmonise our provisions with those of other States. This bill makes a series of miscellaneous amendments to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 to improve the administration of sentences in New South Wales. The bill also makes a minor consequential amendment to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 and the Fines Act 1996. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Motion by Mr Greg Smith agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Gareth Ward): Order! It being before 1.15 p.m., community recognition statements will now be proceeded with.

COMMUNITY RECOGNITION STATEMENTS ______

JOHN HOLT, MEDAL OF THE ORDER OF AUSTRALIA

Mr MARK SPEAKMAN (Cronulla—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.15 p.m.]: I congratulate John Holt of Cronulla as a recipient of a Medal of the Order of Australia in the 2014 Australia Day Awards for services to sport, particularly through surf lifesaving, ironman and triathlon competitions and administration. John has been a member of the Cronulla Surf Life Saving Club since 1967 when he was 16, a coach and mentor for many young lifesavers, and a member of the club's management committee for 14 years. He was the club's first junior ironman champion. Between 1969 and 1979 he competed in 123 surf ironman races, winning 95. He won two Ironman World Championships, two Australian Ironman Championships and five State Ironman titles. He was the foundation president of the Cronulla Triathlon Club from 1985 to 1987 and later acted as secretary of Triathlon NSW. John began his involvement in triathlons in 1983 at age 32 and competed until 1987. He has managed more than 60 triathlon events. In 2004 Surf Life Saving Australia inducted John into the Surf Life Saving Hall of Fame. I congratulate John on receiving his Medal of the Order of Australia. 26782 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

LAKEMBA ELECTORATE CITIZENSHIP AWARDS

Mr ROBERT FUROLO (Lakemba) [1.16 p.m.]: It was my great pleasure as the member for Lakemba to sponsor and present citizenship awards late last year to students from local schools across my electorate. On behalf of the school communities and the broader Lakemba electorate community, I acknowledge and congratulate the following recipients of my citizenship award: Margaret Pousini of St Therese Primary School; Hussein EI Arja of Wiley Park Public School; Zoe Hassiotis of Belmore South Public School; Kwaku Owusu of Belmore Boys High School; Lukas Giakoumis of McCaliums Hill Public School; Edward Ha of Hampden Park Public School; and Zeinab Ali of Kingsgrove North High School. All these students have shown leadership and great community spirit and are a credit to their families and schools. Once again I congratulate all of them.

LINDFIELD UNITING CHURCH CENTENARY

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [1.17 p.m.]: Lindfield Uniting Church in Tryon Road is celebrating its centenary in 2014 having relocated from the Pacific Highway, formerly known as Tryon Place, in 1914. The original church was built in 1896, so its congregations have been meeting for 118 years. The church organ dates back to 1820, with 400 of the original pipes still being played today. The early history of Lindfield is very much connected with the history of this church. I thank Mr Geoffrey Stacy for informing me about this important local history and for authoring a related book, A Cloud of Witnesses.

JESMOND MICHELE'S PATISSERIE

Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend) [1.17 p.m.]: The spirit of giving has continued well into the new year as shown by the great generosity of Jesmond's Michele's Patisserie and its owner Mr Wing Chan. This community-minded business owner told me he had 10 sizeable gingerbread houses that he wanted distributed to deserving families in the Wallsend community. I put him in touch with Phil Skinner at Wallsend Baptist Church, who knows many families who would love this surprise gift. This simple act of giving is a wonderful example of what makes the small business community in my electorate great. I sincerely thank Mr Chan for his generous act and wish him and his business the best of luck in 2014.

NATIONAL SERVICEMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Mr BRYAN DOYLE (Campbelltown) [1.18 p.m.]: I congratulate the National Servicemen's Association on holding the seventy-fifth memorial service at the historic military precinct, which is the home of the mighty 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th divisions that served our country with such distinction. It also is the home of national servicemen who played their role in defending our great nation. I acknowledge the attendance of Premier Barry O'Farrell at the service. I was honoured to represent Minister Victor Dominello. With honour and gratitude I laid a wreath at the memorial. I commend the National Servicemen's Association for its work.

PARLIAMENTARY BOWLING CLUB

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda) [1.19 p.m.]: I ask the House to acknowledge the valuable contribution made by our New South Wales Parliamentary Bowling Club in fostering goodwill and friendly relations with the parliaments of the other Australian States. From 5 to 9 January, our club hosted the fifty-fourth Interstate Parliamentary Bowling Carnival in North Sydney, attracting teams of parliamentarians from Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia. Led by the Hon. Richard Amery as president and managed by Cheryl Samuels with Sabina Swierczek, the New South Wales team included former members of Parliament Marie Andrews, Phillip Costa, Richard Face, John Mills and George Thompson as well as me. Letters of congratulations and thanks from our interstate parliamentary colleagues attest, the fifty-fourth carnival was an outstanding success. Whilst the home team did not win, we left our record on home soil intact. We can be justly proud of the manner in which the New South Wales Parliamentary Bowling Club, under the outstanding leadership of the Hon. Richard Amery, continues to represent us in this place. I take this opportunity to remind the House that membership of the club is open to all members on both sides.

NIDA EADE 100TH BIRTHDAY

Mr ANDREW GEE (Orange) [1.20 p.m.]: Today I draw the attention of the House to Mrs Nida Eade of Wellington, who today celebrates her 100th birthday. Mrs Eade grew up near Euchareena with her four brothers and three sisters where her father searched for gold on the banks of the Macquarie River. Mrs Eade, who was named after an American movie star her parents liked, married her husband of 45 years, George, 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26783

shortly before he went off to World War II with her two brothers. Mr and Mrs Eade had three children, Jean, Richard and Philip. After a fire in 1975 destroyed the family farm they moved to Lake Macquarie until Mrs Eade returned to Wellington in 1990. Mrs Eade believes the secret to her longevity comes back to good genes, with most of her relatives living into their eighties and nineties. I suggest that good country living also has assisted her in this regard. I take this opportunity to wish Mrs Eade a very happy 100th birthday.

TRIBUTE TO BILL WAY

Mr CLAYTON BARR (Cessnock) [1.21 p.m.]: Recently I had a chance to celebrate the amazing contribution to the community made by Mr Bill Way of Kurri Kurri. Bill has done an enormous amount of work over the past 30 years through Kurri Kurri Tidy Towns, Towns with Heart, Lions Club, Men's Shed and his church. If there is a walk, a plaque or a statue that is less than 30 years old in Kurri Kurri there is every chance that Bill was involved in its installation. Bill received a NSW Government Community Service Award at a surprise morning tea at the Log of Knowledge Park, Pelaw Main. Many of the volunteers who served with Bill in those various groups were on hand to celebrate the special occasion with him, as well as family who were invited to the morning tea. I recognise the support of Cessnock City Council in making the morning tea possible. Congratulations Bill, you little champion.

HELEN ROSE, BAULKHAM HILLS WOMAN OF THE YEAR

Mr DAVID ELLIOTT (Baulkham Hills) [1.21 p.m.]: On 14 February, Valentine's Day, I had the privilege of presenting the appropriately named Helen Rose with the Woman of the Year Award for Baulkham Hills. Whilst many women in my community work extremely hard and many are exemplary role models, Helen has been a standout. Helen has served as president of the Crestwood Lions Club on at least four occasions. She has served on the committee of the Bella Vista Farm and on the committee of the Lions Nurses Scholarship Foundation. The Woman of the Year Award is presented to a woman who has demonstrated excellence in her career, field or passion or had significant achievement in a traditionally male-dominated field. I also recognise all women who have the tough job of putting up with their men every day. I congratulate Helen on a remarkable achievement in the Lions Club. This well-deserved award recognises the work this wonderful woman has done in the community.

TRIBUTE TO CHARLOTTE DAWSON

Mr ALEX GREENWICH (Sydney) [1.22 p.m.]: Today I celebrate the life of Charlotte Dawson, who tragically passed away on 23 February this year. I was fortunate to have known Charlotte, who was a passionate supporter of many social justice organisations and reforms and a champion of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community. Charlotte was an ambassador for Community Brave, an organisation that combats bullying and homophobia, and also a strong supporter of Australian marriage equality. The New Zealand born Sydney resident was caring, compassionate and always willing to help those in need. She bravely shared her battle with depression and the impact it has on people's lives. On behalf of the Sydney electorate I thank Charlotte for her meaningful, long-lasting and positive contribution to our city.

FARMLINK PROJECT

Mr ADAM MARSHALL (Northern Tablelands) [1.23 p.m.]: I commend Meg Perceval who has developed an innovative and world-first community education program in wellbeing and suicide prevention. This FarmLink Project—suspect, connect, ask, refer, follow-up, or SCARF as it is known—is being delivered across the Northern Tablelands electorate in concert with Local Land Services Northern Tablelands, to farming communities in our region that are struggling to cope with the stresses of a severe drought. With rural Australians experiencing a consistently higher suicide rate than our urban counterparts, Ms Perceval's project is tailored for a rural audience. Its content includes how to foster health and wellbeing with a focus on mental health and suicide prevention. I congratulate Ms Perceval on her innovative and very well-received SCARF program and also thank her for her enormous personal commitment to helping improve the health and wellbeing of her rural community, in particular, in the area of mental health and wellbeing.

RETIREMENT OF SCHOOL PRINCIPAL JOHN RICE

Mr NICK LALICH (Cabramatta) [1.24 p.m.]: Late last year the Cabramatta Public School community said thank you and goodbye to Mr John Rice, who served as the school's principal for 14 years. Before his retirement I had the good fortune of being able to present him with a certificate of thanks on behalf of the people 26784 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

in my electorate of Cabramatta. Our community has been very fortunate in having him shape the minds of hundreds, if not thousands, of young people over those years. As principal, Mr Rice certainly gave more than was required of him. He regularly performed at the Christmas carols, played guitar in the teachers' band, helped in the musical productions and spent many weekends at working bees to improve the school grounds. In total, Mr Rice taught in the education system for 37 years. I thank Mr Rice for his great dedication and hard work for the students and parents at Cabramatta Public School and the wider community and wish him well in his retirement.

RICHMOND RACE CLUB CENTENARY

Mr BART BASSETT (Londonderry) [1.25 p.m.]: I congratulate Richmond Race Club on its 100-year anniversary. I was delighted to attend the club's 100 years of racing celebration on Saturday 30 November last year, along with Penrith Councillor Bernard Bratusa, who represented Mayor Ross Fowler. The club is in the town of Londonderry between Richmond and Penrith. Apart from the grimmest years of the Great Depression, from 1931 to 1935, when it did not function, the club has continually staged racing events. I was especially honoured to present the trophy for the race named after me on the night—the Bart Bassett Trophy Race.

WESTERN SYDNEY CHINESE ASSOCIATIONS BUSHFIRE APPEAL

Mr GUY ZANGARI (Fairfield) [1.25 p.m.]: On Sunday 24 November 2013 I attended a fundraiser hosted by the Chinese associations in Western Sydney to help raise money for the NSW Bush Fire Appeal. Several hundred homes had been lost or damaged because of the bushfires and the impact on the affected communities was devastating. Thankfully, the Chinese associations in Western Sydney put their hands in their pockets and dug deep. I congratulate and thank Mr James Chan, Mr Pho Quang Hang, Mr Michael Chan, Mr Hung Ly and the organising committee for hosting such a successful fundraiser. I commend the Chinese associations of Western Sydney and the donors of the evening for donating much-needed relief funding to those in dire need.

LUDDENHAM BICENTENARY

Mrs TANYA DAVIES (Mulgoa) [1.26 p.m.]: I inform the House of Luddenham's bicentenary. From 30 November 2013 to 1 December 2013 the village of Luddenham celebrated its 200th birthday. The village of Luddenham is located on part of the Luddenham estate granted to John Blaxland, who arrived in the colony in 1807. Dolly Cuthell, at 93, is Luddenham's longest living resident. Dolly was not only born in Luddenham but also lived her whole life in Luddenham. Dolly played an important role in the celebrations by unveiling the bicentennial monument, a plaque and a time capsule at the progress hall. Other festivities included an old-time dance, birthday cake, vintage car show, antique trucks display, olden day games such as three-legged, sack and egg-and-spoon races, a talent quest, market stalls, rides, amusements, a memorabilia pavilion, family reunions and historical displays. Thank you to the small but effective committee comprising Wayne Willmington, Lenka Nikestich, Ann Willmington, Jeanette Grinham, Janelle Grills, Kylie and John Willmington, Garry Rodgers, Kel Cuthell and John Riordan.

BALGOWNIE PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr RYAN PARK (Keira) [1.27 p.m.]: At the end of the 2013 school year I was pleased to be able to award Balgownie Public School with funding through the Eco Schools Program. This will enable the school to carry out weed removal and enhance its biodiversity by replacing weeds with native species that will become a wonderful asset in future years for this great school. This environmental education initiative at Balgownie is important as this project will see students, parents, teachers and the broader community working together to enhance the school environment and to make it more sustainable. This project also forms part of the important 125th anniversary celebrations that are to take place in 2014. I congratulate principal Aloma Stewart, staff, students and parents of Balgownie Public School on the initiative they have shown to improve their school environment.

WARREN ROSSER, MEDAL OF THE ORDER OF AUSTRALIA

Mr JOHN FLOWERS (Rockdale) [1.28 p.m.]: I congratulate Warren Rosser of Brighton-Le-Sands on receiving the Medal of the Order of Australia 2014 for his service to judo. I acknowledge that Mr Rosser is a former Olympian who represented Australia at the 1998 Olympics in Seoul and the world championships in 1983, 1985 and 1987. Mr Rosser was awarded the Australian Sports Medal in 2000. Mr Rosser has been head 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26785

coach of the Judo Club at the University of New South Wales for the past 12 years and schools judo coordinator in New South Wales since 2007. Due to his dedication, Mr Rosser has elevated the sport to one of the most popular martial arts in south-east Sydney.

LAKE MACQUARIE ELECTORATE ORDER OF AUSTRALIA MEDAL RECIPIENTS

Mr GREG PIPER (Lake Macquarie) [1.29 p.m.]: I congratulate Wangi Wangi sailors Nathan Outteridge and Iain Jensen on receiving a Medal of the Order of Australia for services to sport in the recent Australia Day Honours List. Members will recall the stirring performance of the pair who won gold medals in the men's 49er class at the London Olympics and the magnificent sportsmanship they displayed. I also congratulate Dennis Trigg, who received a Medal of the Order of Australia for more than 50 years of community service as a volunteer for Toronto Rotary, Lake Macquarie YMCA and Camp Quality, among others. All three are worthy recipients of this most distinguished award.

ALBURY ELECTORATE AUSTRALIA DAY HONOURS RECIPIENTS

Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [1.30 p.m.]: The Australia Day Honours List this year included several noteworthy recipients in the Albury electorate. Chris Chant, St John Ambulance superintendent for southern New South Wales, was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for his exceptional volunteer service. Chris joined St John Ambulance in 1986 and is also a volunteer for the State Emergency Service. John Ross, a former Great Hume Shire Council mayor, was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for his years of community service and voluntary work. Doug Evans of Mulwala received a Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to the community through local government and community groups. Congratulations also go to Dr Terry Hillman, retired freshwater ecologist and long-time board member of the Murray Conservatorium, who was appointed as a Member of the Order of Australia. An Australian Fire Service Medal was awarded to Sean McArdle of Thurgoona for his professionalism, leadership and commitment to the Rural Fire Service over 24 years.

HEBERSHAM PUBLIC SCHOOL PRESENTATION DAY

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [1.31 p.m.]: On 10 December 2013 I attended the Hebersham Public School academic presentation assembly where I had the pleasure to see many students awarded for their efforts throughout the year. The Anthony Pittman Memorial Award went to Emily Burkey, and the Pride Citizenship Award was won by Briana Ruapuna. Special mention goes to Shalese Tautai who was dux of the school. On the day we heard the sad news that the principal, Sue Connell, was to retire. I once again acknowledge the community's gratitude for the work that Sue Connell has done for Hebersham Public School and I wish her all the best in her retirement and future endeavours.

TERRA LALIRRA, THE HAPPY WALK

Mrs LESLIE WILLIAMS (Port Macquarie) [1.31 p.m.]: I am pleased to have the opportunity to congratulate Terra Lalirra of Bonny Hills, who has been walking for causes since 2009. After suffering depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in 2009, walking became a part of Terra's recovery and it inspired her to help others. Her previous walks include a 1,250 kilometre journey around Tasmania. In March she will embark on her longest walk to date: 8,250 kilometres from Perth to Melbourne. Terra will zigzag through many remote towns, where mental health services are stretched to their limits. Apart from raising much-needed funds, she will spend her time talking to people about mental health and the services that are offered by Lifeline. Congratulations to Terra Lalirra. We wish her well on her momentous fundraising journey.

KATIE EBZERY AND JENNI SCREEN, AUSTRALIAN BASKETBALL CHAMPIONS

Ms SONIA HORNERY (Wallsend) [1.32 p.m.]: We recognise the achievements of Novocastrians Katie Ebzery and Jenni Screen, who took part in an Opals training camp in January that saw them play alongside some of Australia's best basketballers. Katie represented Australia with the Emerging Opals in the 2011 World University Games and the 2012 Fédération Internationale de Basketball three-on-three world championships. Jenni is a dual Olympic medallist and was a member of the Australasian team that won Gold at the 2006 Fédération Internationale de Basketball world championships. Both women are an inspiration to Novocastrians and women across Australia. Congratulations to both Katie and Jenni on their outstanding sporting achievements and we wish them all the best in the future. 26786 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

DANNY AND JILL YOUNG, ESPRESSO BOTERO

Mr CHRISTOPHER GULAPTIS (Clarence) [1.32 p.m.]: I offer my congratulations to Danny and Jill Young on the wonderful success of their business Espresso Botero, which is based in Maclean. Danny and Jill have taken the Australian coffee world by storm and are expanding their business and creating new jobs in the local area. When the expansion is finished, they will employ approximately 25 locals. This is a good news story of a local couple who have maximised their entrepreneurial skills and who will expand into the international market in the near future. They have used as many recycled goods in their expansion as possible. For example, the red bricks of the building were made by convicts who left their mark on them and other bricks came from a very old home on Harwood Island. Many aspects of the original building, formerly a mechanics workshop, have been kept, including the original hoist which sits directly above the roasting machines. I wish Danny and Jill every success in the future. I personally recommend the Espresso Botero brand of coffee.

AUSTRALIAN WOMEN'S CRICKET TEAM

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda) [1.33 p.m.]: I ask the House to recognise the outstanding achievements of the Australian women's cricket team, the Southern Stars. On 2 February I attended the T20 International at Sydney Olympic Park, the final match in the Women's Ashes series between Australia and England. It was an exciting match: a four-wicket haul by Rene Farrell; Elyse Villani carrying her bat through the innings, a classic catch by stand-in captain Meg Lanning, and first-class fielding, including a direct hit on the stumps, saw our Australian women victorious in the nineteenth over. Our women's team displayed skills and talents that every Saturday afternoon cricketer can only ever dream about. After the match I had the privilege of speaking with several of our women players, and they were just as impressive off the field as they were out in the middle. While England may have retained the Ashes series trophy, the Australian women's cricket team won four of the seven matches, including two of the three T20s. I encourage all cricket fans to watch our fabulous women's cricket team in action. I am sure the House will join me in wishing the Australian women's cricket team all the very best in the upcoming T20 World Cup.

NSW SERVICE FOR THE TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION OF TORTURE AND TRAUMA SURVIVORS

Mr ANDREW ROHAN (Smithfield) [1.34 p.m.]: On 6 December 2013 I was honoured to represent the Premier in celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of the NSW Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors. The function was attended by Her Excellency Marie Bashir, Governor of New South Wales and more than 1,000 people, many dressed in their traditional clothing. It was a tapestry of different cultures celebrating and acknowledging the accomplishments of this admirable non-profit organisation. The NSW Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors began in a small house in Fairfield 25 years ago and grew into one of Australia's largest organisations providing services for victims of torture and trauma. My electorate of Smithfield has a large population of refugees from varying backgrounds, and services such as this ensure that those who have undergone harrowing experiences can start afresh and live a healthy and happy life.

Community recognition statements concluded.

[Acting-Speaker (Mr Gareth Ward) left the chair at 1.35 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The SPEAKER: I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Mr Masato Takaoka, Consul-General of Japan in Sydney, guest of the Deputy Premier, Minister for Trade and Investment and Minister for Regional Infrastructure and Services. Welcome to Parliament and to Sydney. I also acknowledge the Hon. Tim Sheridan, Minister for Finance and member of the Norfolk Islands Legislative Assembly, guest of the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Planning and member for Port Stephens. I also acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Jeremy Kinross, a former member for Gordon.

TARONGA WILD! RHINOS ART EVENT

The SPEAKER: As members will have noticed, there is a rhino herd on the run across Sydney and the Central West. A small herd has escaped in Parliament House today thanks to the efforts of the member for 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26787

Dubbo. The herd is part of Taronga Zoo's Rhino Conservation Awareness Campaign. I ask members to lend their support to this worthy cause by being in the Fountain Court at 9.30 a.m. tomorrow to be introduced to Idol, the Parliament's rhino.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Notices of Motions

Government Business Notices of Motions (for Bills) given.

QUESTION TIME

[Question time commenced at 2.23 p.m.]

WALLARAH 2 COAL PROJECT

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: I direct my question to the Premier. Why has the Premier allowed the Wallarah 2 mine to be considered when it was refused planning approval before the election and the Premier gave a no ifs, no buts guarantee that this project would not go ahead under his Government?

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: If I recall correctly, the theme—if that is not too laughable a term—of yesterday's question time was ministerial standards. What has the O'Farrell Government done since coming to power? We have stopped doing what Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald were doing, and we are directly interfering in the process.

The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: What the Leader of the Opposition is asking today directly contravenes the moral high ground he was trying to take yesterday. That moral high ground was pulled out from under him because—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: —no ifs, no buts, the person who helped deliver the Leader of the Opposition to his job was Eddie Obeid.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: What we have done since coming to power is very clear. The first issue is that we scraped part 3A of the Planning Act because—

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time. If the Leader of the Opposition continues to interject he will be placed on two calls to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: —as the Independent Commission Against Corruption revealed in August 2009, it posed corruption risks. Given recent activities under investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption and given legislation that was introduced as late as yesterday—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Shellharbour will come to order. I call the member for Canterbury to order for the first time.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: —they were not just risks but realities that the Independent Commission Against Corruption has investigated.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Canterbury to order for the second time.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: The second issue is, as the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has reportedly said, these matters are independently decided on merit by the Planning Assessment Commission. I am delighted that since we have been in office the Planning Assessment Commission has made decisions for and against the mining industry not because the Government dictated it, not because the Government gave a mining lease to a mate, not because a member of the Government— 26788 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the second time.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: —had undisclosed interests in the coal tenement or some other thing, but on the basis of merit. That is the way a good planning system should operate. Whether it is a decision of the Planning Assessment Commission in relation to coal seam gas by Apex Energy in the southern catchment area, a decision which upheld the view that we should protect our water resources, or whether it is a decision in relation to Cullen Bullen, where there has been a review of environmental concerns, it is made on the basis of merit assessments, but it is made at arm's length from government.

Dr Andrew McDonald: Why have a government? Why not just go home?

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Macquarie Fields will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I am delighted by the interjection of the member for Macquarie Fields because it shows, as question time yesterday showed, those opposite have learnt nothing. The question was: Why is the Government doing this independently? Why would the Government not make the decision as Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald made corrupt decisions? Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald ripped taxpayers off to the tune of $100 million—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Keira will come to order. The member for Shellharbour will come to order. The member for Cessnock will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: —which those opposite continue to endorse. But that is no surprise given that the major proponent of the Leader of the Opposition prior to his election to the position was Eddie Obeid. Eddie Obeid did not resign from the Parliament until he had secured John Robertson's election as Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Michael Daley: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129, relevance. Eddie Obeid is no longer in Parliament; the Premier is.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier is being relevant to the question asked. There is no point of order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Thankfully, Eddie Obeid is no longer in Parliament; regrettably, he is not yet in jail. However, his avatar walks these corridors. In the upper House it is writ large in the man who replaced him: Walt Secord. More importantly, in this place it is writ large in the Leader of the Opposition, whose efforts to gain that position relied on the support of Eddie Obeid.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Cessnock will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: We believe in independent merit-based planning decisions not tainted by corruption. We believe in independent merit-based planning decisions that take into account the science and environmental issues and that do, at times, seek to balance the economic interests of New South Wales. And that is a system I far prefer to the system which operated before we were elected to office.

SCHOOL FUNDING AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr CHARLES CASUSCELLI: I address my question to the Premier. What new schools and major school upgrades will the Government deliver in 2014?

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I thank the member for Strathfield for his question. This morning the member for Strathfield, the Minister for Education and I were delighted to be at Albert Road, Strathfield, significantly, to name a new public school. Public education forms part of the foundations upon which this State was formed. As the guest speaker at the event said, perhaps the greatest Premier of this State was a bloke called Henry Parkes. He put in place the Public Instruction Act—

Ms Linda Burney: He used to be the member for Canterbury.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: In those days the member for Canterbury had stature and a future. 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26789

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Canterbury will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: But I will not be distracted by the smallest planet. I was corrected: It is no longer a planet.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order. There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Henry Parkes introduced the Public Instruction Act, which required young people to go to school in this State and upon which our success has been built for the future. Last year the Minister for Education announced that we had purchased a former independent school for a good price—the Treasurer was happy with the price—and that it would become a public school in the Strathfield area because of the increasing demand due to population growth. We are a government committed to delivering education and other resources in those areas where growth is occurring. That is why the Minister for Education is working with the member for Sydney in relation to schooling in the inner city.

This was a great opportunity to open a new school. This year 85 students started at that school from kindergarten to year 6, the school has six teachers and seven classrooms are operational. The school will ultimately take about 800 students. It is a public school that has the best school hall I have ever seen—it can hold 1,500 people—and that is one of the benefits of the great deal done by the Minister for Education. The school is named after perhaps the greatest living exemplar of the benefits of public education in this State. The school has been named in honour of Her Excellency Professor Marie Bashir. Marie Bashir was at the school today and she was absolutely delighted at the Government's decision to name the school after her. It was not a hard decision to make.

Marie Bashir started her education at Narrandera Public School in the south-west of New South Wales—an area represented by great members in this place. She applied herself and she did so well that she ended up at Sydney Girls High School, where her academic career continued to accelerate. She went to the Sydney Conservatorium of Music and studied music. Today she was delighted to be welcomed to the school by the combined symphonium from Strathfield Boys High School and Strathfield Girls High School, who played music by her favourite composer, Bach. The Conservatorium of Music did not end her academic career. She went on to study medicine and psychiatry, and she practised both, not just in the broad community but in the multicultural community and particularly in the Aboriginal community. For the past 12 years she has been Governor of this State.

It was terrific to see the Governor speaking to students at a public school that represents modern Australia. The member for Strathfield and the Minister for Education will attest that there was more cultural diversity at the school than one would normally see anywhere in this State, and it was matched by the VIP guests from the Department of Education and other agencies. We are delighted to be delivering schools such as that—schools named after people who have demonstrated the great worth of public education— because that is a terrific example for the students. At this time in this State, in this country, students can achieve whatever they want. Wherever they have come from, whatever their name is, whatever their ethnic heritage, whatever their religion, whatever their mother language, this is the State, this is the country of opportunity.

Since we came to office we have committed $2.4 billion to school infrastructure and maintenance, including funding for 15 new or relocated schools and for major upgrades at another 30 schools. I praise the Minister for Education, in particular. He is undoubtedly the best education Minister since Virginia Chadwick. [Extension of time granted.]

As well as Marie Bashir Public School, two other schools opened on day one of term one this year: Oran Park Public School, which, surprisingly, is located in Oran Park, and George Bass school, which, also surprisingly, is located at Bass Hill. In addition, I was out in the north-west earlier this month where we are building a number of schools in a precinct. The member for Riverstone and I were there to turn the first sod for new schools at Spring Farm, The Ponds education precinct.

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that he is on two calls to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: We are building schools as populations grow—something that those opposite did not do. I am delighted that even on the north shore of Sydney we have committed to new schools 26790 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

because of population growth—ignored by former Ministers such as the member for Marrickville. We have also made a renewed commitment to maintenance—$67 million worth of maintenance has been carried out across 700 schools during the Christmas period.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Miranda will come to order.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: While students were on holidays the Department of Education's contractors were not, because we understand the importance of public education. That is why we were the first government in the country to sign up to the Gonski agreement. This is a Liberal-Nationals Government that puts the public education system, the independent education system and the Catholic education system to the fore because we understand it is necessary for the success of this State.

WALLARAH 2 COAL PROJECT

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. Will the Minister suspend consideration of the Wallarah 2 mine—

Mr Andrew Stoner: Why do you hate mining?

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: —given the Premier's friend and Liberal fundraiser Nick di Girolamo was a lobbyist for the applicant and he is now facing corruption allegations at the Independent Commission Against Corruption along with three Liberal members of Parliament, including the former Minister for Resources and Energy?

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order. There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: First, the Opposition clearly does hate mining. Secondly, and far worse, the Opposition hates due process and merit-based decision-making.

The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will come to order.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: There is a rump of the former great New South Wales Labor Party in this House because over 16 years it failed to ensure that it had an independent merit-based decision-making process.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Maroubra to order for the first time.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: I remind the Opposition, I remind the House and I remind the people who may be listening to this that this Government has changed a system that Labor left in a putrescent mess, which allowed Eddie Obeid, Ian Macdonald and former Minister Kelly to run a rotten, rank, appalling system that was based on whatever suited their particular political needs. If someone made a donation to the Labor Party they got their decision. The former Government was prepared to see Eddie Obeid walk away with $100 million. The Labor Party was dragged kicking and screaming to finally make an admission.

The Leader of the Opposition can sit there with a smile on his face but the reality is that he did not do the job he should have done either. He should have made sure that this process was brought to its knees long before the Independent Commission Against Corruption got involved. The Independent Commission Against Corruption had to get involved, the public had to get involved, Fairfax had to get involved before, finally, the Labor Party came to the table. This Government is supportive of mining, it is supportive of accessing the resources under the ground that belong to taxpayers, but it is not supportive of the Opposition, which is a supporter of Eddie Obeid.

Mr John Robertson: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 129, relevance. The Minister has been asked a question about three members of Parliament appearing before the Independent Commission Against Commission, about Nick Di Girolamo being under investigation—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition does not need to repeat the question. I have heard the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Minister is being relevant to the question asked. There is no point of order. 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26791

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: This Government is determined to ensure that the public of New South Wales has confidence in a system that is merit based. Not one person anywhere on the Labor benches in this House, and unfortunately in the upper House too, knows the first thing about planning. Section 79 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requires—

The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will come to order.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Opposition members can laugh, but I can list the people who have told me that, and they have referred to the Leader of the Opposition too.

Mr John Robertson: You're frightening me now.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Fear is a lot deeper than that.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The bottom line is that the social, economic and environmental issues that are required to be taken into account in a merit-based assessment will be taken into account in every application in New South Wales. That is the way it is and the way it has been for three years now. A merit-based process is being undertaken regarding Wallarah. The unfortunate circumstances that unfolded since—

Mr John Robertson: Which one—the "no ifs, no buts" on the shirts?

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition to order for the third time.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: No, Eddie Obeid, the $100 million, as well as some deals around you are the circumstances that have made this Government very focused on ensuring that we have a merit-based, objective, open and transparent system.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order.

Mr Michael Daley: Point of order—

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The member is not normally this wide awake. I am interested to hear what he has to say.

Mr Michael Daley: My point of order is under Standing Order 129. There is a stench hanging over this project.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Maroubra will resume his seat. There is no point of order. I ruled previously that the Minister was being relevant to the question asked, and he remains relevant. The member may not like the answer but it is relevant.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: The circumstances that have arisen in the past few years have all been around Labor corruption exposed.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Maroubra to order for the second time. Opposition members will cease interjecting.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: It is about Eddie Obeid, Ian Macdonald and Tony Kelly. We are ensuring that there will never be any more of that in this State. The system now in place is a merit-based system. We may have individual views and we can put those submissions to the Planning Assessment Commission but at the end of the day there is an objective, independent body in which the community can have faith. The community will have faith in it because we guarantee the system will work. Unfortunately, the Labor system was the rotten Obeid system.

RURAL AND REGIONAL ROADS

Mr PAUL TOOLE: My question is addressed to the Deputy Premier. How is the Government making regional road corridors safer and making it easier to get regional produce from paddock to plate and paddock to port? 26792 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

Mr ANDREW STONER: What a good question from the member for Bathurst.

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind Opposition members who are on three calls to order that if they are removed from the Chamber they will be excluded for the remainder of the day. This year I will not invoke Standing Order 249 (1), as I did last year. I ruled on this matter yesterday and I repeat my warning today.

Mr ANDREW STONER: Late last year a Deloitte Access Economics report identified a number of so-called supersectors of the national economy that are primed for growth. I am happy to say that New South Wales is well positioned in most of those sectors, including agribusiness. New South Wales exports around $5 billion worth of agriculture and food each and every year. We employ more than 175,000 people in agriculture and the food sector generally, whether they are on the farm, in logistics or in factories. As the member for Bathurst knows, farmers need to get their produce not only from paddock to plate but also to port quickly and efficiently to meet the demand in booming new markets on our doorstep. If we do not get our produce to export markets, including Asia, efficiently and cost effectively someone else will.

I acknowledge in the gallery Masato Takaoka, the new Consul General of our number one export trading partner, Japan, and his assistant Eiko Konishi. We were delighted to reopen our trade and investment office in Japan, which was closed in 2005 by Bob Carr. This side of the House is serious about trade and investment in New South Wales. The need to improve our transport productivity to take advantage of export opportunities is why we are getting on with the job of fixing our regional road and highway network. Last week I visited Bilpin with the member for Bathurst, the member for Hawkesbury, the member for Orange and the bloke I call Dunc—road users around the State are now calling him Slam Dunc because he is getting on with the job.

Slam Dunc and I were happy to turn the first sod on the $48 million Bells Line of Road corridor improvement program. The funding was delivered through our Restart NSW program and Roads and Maritime Service. The project includes the construction of seven new overtaking lanes between Kurrajong Heights and Mount Tomah, shoulder widening works to improve stopping safety and a number of other safety measures that will create greater road transport productivity. This road was once regarded by the NRMA as the most dangerous road per kilometre in Australia. Improving the vital road connection over the Great Dividing Range will make the road safer and make it easier for primary producers and manufacturers in the Central West and Sydney to move their goods and products to market.

The Central West produces some of our nation's best stone fruit. How good are the cherries from around Orange? That is not to mention the cool variety grapes for the magnificent wine from the Central West. The region also produces sheep and wool, beef cattle and apples and pears, to name but a few items. It is important to get this first-class produce from paddock to plate and to port.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Toongabbie will come to order.

Mr ANDREW STONER: Slam Dunc's other program is Bridges for the Bush. We are replacing 19 old timber bridges with high-productivity new bridges to help us move our great produce to export markets and big markets in the cities. We are not only improving our roads. We have also committed $277 million to improve our State's grain rail lines between 2012-13 and 2016-17. The Minister for Transport will not mind me revealing that since March 2011 we have replaced 226,000 old timber sleepers with modern long-life steel sleepers. We have also resurfaced 972 kilometres of track, constructed 50 new low-maintenance bridges and culverts, upgraded 41 level crossings, laid 87,000 tonnes of ballast and completed the re-railing of 57 kilometres of track from Armatree to Coonamble with heavy rail. After 16 long years of infrastructure, particularly transport infrastructure, being neglected in regional New South Wales— [Extension of time granted.]

The SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry that members of the Opposition are not interested in rural and regional issues but they should listen to the Minister in silence. I am interested in the answer.

Mr ANDREW STONER: That is probably why noted political commentator Antony Green remarked after the March 2011 election that the Labor Party failed to win one country seat in New South Wales.

The SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members will cease interjecting.

Mr ANDREW STONER: I am glad the member for Bathurst sought an extension of time because it enables me to talk about another possible road project that will be good for the New South Wales economy, in 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26793

particular the regional economy. I am, of course, referring to the Golden Highway, which goes from the Western Plains and Central West area around Dubbo down to the Hunter. It is a critical route. This morning I was happy to launch a study produced by the Orana and Hunter Regional Development Australia organisations. It shows the economic value of the Golden Highway not only through moving the golden wheat for which it was named, as the member for Upper Hunter tells me, but also moving our other "gold", including mineral resources and fantastic food produce.

The Golden Highway is a significant corridor. The study outlines its importance to the State economy and provides a base case for possible State and Federal funding to upgrade yet another transport route in regional New South Wales. We are fair dinkum about taking up opportunities in trade and investment, including in the food sector. That is why after 16 years of neglect we are getting on with the job of rebuilding regional New South Wales.

WALLARAH 2 COAL PROJECT AND MR NICK DI GIROLAMO

Mr PAUL LYNCH: My question is directed to the Premier. What contact did the Premier or his office have with Liberal fundraiser and lobbyist Nick Di Girolamo regarding the Wallarah 2 mine proposal?

Mr Michael Daley: You shouldn't need notes on this, Barry.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I do need notes because, unlike you, we do not make it up as we go.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Cessnock to order for the first time. I call the member for Keira to order for the second time. I call the member for Macquarie Fields to order for the first time. I call the member for Maroubra to order for the third time. If the member for Maroubra continues to interject he will be removed from the Chamber.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: It is true that I cannot remember the last time I spoke to Nick Di Girolamo. It is also true that I first met him when he was president of the Italian Chamber of Commerce in New South Wales. I met him as a businessman involved in a contract led by a former Government relating to a development on the north-west fringes of Sydney. For a time he was president of the Balmain Tigers Rugby League Club. As has been revealed previously, there was a dispute involving Mr Di Girolamo's company, Australian Water Holdings, then called Rouse Hill Infrastructure Corporation, and Sydney Water around a contract that commenced on 24 May 1990. The work involved project management services for water infrastructure works in what was then the North West Growth Centre. For a number of years before we came to office Australian Water Holdings had been in dispute with Sydney Water about the terms of the contract between the two parties, Australian Water Holdings and Sydney Water.

Dr Andrew McDonald: Point of order—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will resume his seat. What is the member's point of order?

Dr Andrew McDonald: It is under Standing Order 129. The question was about the Wallarah 2 coalmine, not about the history of Mr Di Girolamo.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier is being relevant to the question asked. There is no point of order. The member for Macquarie Fields will resume his seat.

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: In February 2012 Sydney Water and Australian Water Holdings entered a new commercial agreement for the delivery of project management services for package 2 works for water infrastructure in the North West Growth Centre. That was a decision of Sydney Water and its board. The new agreement clarified a number of issues. In particular, rather than the contract having no time limitation, it put in place a 25-year time limit on the contract and added a number of other requirements—for example, requiring prices to be market competitive and an ability to terminate for poor performance. That agreement is on Sydney Water's website.

As disclosed in the Sydney Morning Herald on 24 January 2013 and in the Australian Financial Review on 27 February 2013, the former Minister for Finance and Services and I met with Mr Di Girolamo once in 2011 to discuss the matter relating to Australian Water Holdings. The Australian Financial Review article also stated 26794 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

that there had been two meetings with the Treasurer and Mr Di Girolamo. The second meeting also had Mr Costa, then chairman of Australian Water Holdings, in attendance. As previously reported, I had never met with Mr Sinodinos in his capacity as chair of Australian Water Holdings.

Mr Richard Amery: Point of order—

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: To the best of my knowledge I have not had a meeting with Mr Di Girolamo about the mine.

The SPEAKER: Order! Is the member for Mount Druitt taking a point of order?

Mr Richard Amery: It appears that the Premier has concluded his answer.

INNER WEST PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Mr JOHN SIDOTI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport. How is the Government improving transport options for inner west commuters?

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: I thank the member for Drummoyne—otherwise known as "the package"—for his question and his interest in all things public transport. He, along with many other members of the House, cares a lot about light rail. Members opposite failed in every way when it came to public transport, and light rail was no exception. As usual, they talked at length about it but they did nothing. It pains me to have to embarrass the Leader of the Opposition—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister does not require assistance from Government members.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: On 22 December 2010 the then Minister for Transport said, "This is a fantastic boost to public transport services for local residents and will help better connect urban centres to the inner west." He was speaking about the Inner West Light Rail Extension. But did his Government do anything about that project? No. They issued many press releases and spoke at length about it. When we came to office we delivered where they failed. This morning I was pleased to be at Dulwich Grove announcing that the Inner West Light Rail Extension is complete and, subject to further testing, will be open to customers within the next month. It is interesting that in December the shadow Minister in the other place tweeted, "Dulwich Grove light rail station almost ready. Just a little cleaning up and landscaping left to do." The member who was Parliamentary Secretary for Transport when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Transport was thanking us for something that Labor failed to deliver.

Ms Linda Burney: That's not true.

Ms Carmel Tebbutt: That's misleading.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: I will return to the members interjecting shortly.

Ms Carmel Tebbutt: Please do.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: I reiterate that while the Government has been diligently getting on with finishing the project, Labor's incompetence in relation to the light rail extension had no bounds. When we came to Government we found that the cost of the extension was $63 million more than members opposite said it was. We also found that the project had no detailed designs or geotechnical work. And guess what! They had not even planned to buy any rolling stock. They spoke about a light rail extension but they did nothing about it and they had not even planned to acquire, or thought about acquiring, rolling stock. Indeed, this is what they did after 16 years in relation to the light rail extension. I have a press release co-signed by no fewer than five members opposite: the member for Marrickville, the former Deputy Premier; Virginia Judge, the former member for Strathfield; Verity Firth, the former member for Balmain; the member for Canterbury—we know where she is—and the former Minister for Planning Tony Kelly.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Canterbury will come to order. 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26795

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: The heading of the press release states, "Inner west MPs give light rail extension the thumbs up". That is excellent, but when did they issue the press release? It was released on 18 February 2011, about a month before the last State election. They had 16 years to think about light rail and public transport in the inner west and they issued a press release a month before the last election. When we came to office we were committed to building this project and we have done so. Not only did members opposite fail to deliver the light rail project, when they introduced MyZone ticketing back in 2010 they excluded light rail.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Canterbury to order for the third time.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: They claimed to care about the battlers yet they did not allow pensioners to use their excursion tickets on light rail. We did that, and we did that within 100 days of coming to office. The Government has not only built the light rail project; in the early days of Government we extended the MyZone ticketing to families and pensioners, and ensured that it was accessible. [Extension of time granted.]

Because we made light rail accessible to the whole community, consequently patronage has increased by about 54 per cent on that line. So patronage increased by more than 50 per cent when we extended the ticketing to all parts of the community. When we came to office we realised that the Labor Government had not only done nothing on this project, it had failed to order rolling stock and had not extended the ticketing system to light rail. When Labor signed its electronic ticketing contract in its dying days of government, light rail was excluded. As an aside, we have got on with delivering the Opal card. By this Friday members opposite will have the Opal card at their local stations, but that is another story. I stress that when we say we will build a project, we will build it. When we say we are providing new transport services, we will deliver.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Macquarie Fields will come to order. I remind him that this is not a debate.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: That is in stark contrast to members opposite. Members will be interested to know that not only is the light rail extension providing an extra boost for customers in the inner west, there are nine brand-new light rail stops that will be using state-of-the-art technology. Each of these stops is undergoing our finishing touches and will feature a range of safety and accessibility features. I am also pleased to inform the House that for the past week we have been testing vehicles on the new light rail extension and the testing has been going extremely well. We have more testing to do but I am hopeful and confident that within a month the light rail extension will be open to the public. It has been barely three years since the O'Farrell Government was elected and already it is opening new transport infrastructure—something that the former Labor Government could not do in 16 years. Labor members are all very good at putting their names on press releases, but they do not deliver. [Time expired.]

[Business interrupted.]

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The SPEAKER: I extend a very warm welcome to the Hon. Ian Armstrong, who is the former member for Lachlan and a former Deputy Premier. As always, it is lovely to see him.

QUESTION TIME

[Business resumed.]

WALLARAH 2 COAL PROJECT AND MR NICK DI GIROLAMO

Mr JOHN ROBERTSON: My question is directed to the Premier. Given his previous answer to a question asked by the member for Liverpool, has he or his office had any contact or discussion in any form with Nick Di Girolamo about the Wallarah 2 project?

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: I understand, because I checked after that last answer, that I was approached on two occasions to meet with Kores. On both occasions—on 15 November 2012 and on 8 March 2013—the meetings did not proceed. That is the situation to the best of my knowledge. The second half of the question relates to my staff, and I am happy to check that for the Leader of the Opposition.

Ms Linda Burney: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 129. 26796 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier's answer is directly relevant to the question asked.

Ms Linda Burney: That was not the question; it was him or his office.

The SPEAKER: Order! The answer is relevant to the question asked. I remind Opposition members not to use Standing Order 129 to advance an argument. Several members are on three calls to order. All Opposition members who have been called to order are placed on three calls to order. I warn members that further interruptions will result in their removal from the Chamber.

STATE ECONOMY

Mr CHRIS PATTERSON: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, and Minister for Industrial Relations. What is the importance of maintaining the triple-A credit rating and other measures for the New South Wales economy?

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order. The Treasurer does not require their assistance.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: I thank the member for Camden for his question. He is interested in a strong financial position for this State, and he is probably the best member that Camden has ever had.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members who interject will be removed from the Chamber.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: I acknowledge that there has been a recess, but the good news for the people of New South Wales is that the O'Farrell Government did not halt its resolve to maintain responsible budget and economic management.

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will cease their conversations.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: During the recess I had the opportunity to meet with rating agencies Moody's and Standard and Poor's. I am happy to inform the House that those agencies are pleased with the progress the O'Farrell Government has made. That is good news for this State. New South Wales is one of only two States to retain a triple-A rating. Opposition members may think it is easy to hang on to a triple-A rating, but one has only to consider the example of Western Australia, which has lost its triple-A credit rating, to know that is not true. We know that the rating agencies support the strategies that the New South Wales Government is undertaking, but we also know that if Labor members got the chance to occupy the Treasury bench, the State's triple-A credit rating would be gone in a jiffy.

Mr Troy Grant: Goneski!

Mr MIKE BAIRD: It would be goneski—no doubt about it. Labor has opposed every measure we have undertaken to reduce expenditure. This Government has reduced Labor's debt and at the same time will boost infrastructure development by 40 per cent over the next four years. That is the action of a responsible government. We are making the right decisions for this State. The Leader of the Opposition must answer some hard questions. He will have to explain to rating agencies how he proposes to balance the books. He is running a $4 billion deficit as I speak and he does not propose to build anything. He is not building anywhere and he will not be able to provide services, so he will have to explain to rating agencies as well as to the people of New South Wales how he will balance the books. The good news is that the O'Farrell Government is balancing the books and at the same time is maintaining the State's triple-A credit rating.

During the recess I met with some key global infrastructure players who are looking throughout the world for infrastructure investment opportunities. They said very clearly that they are looking to New South Wales, and more broadly Australia, to be undoubtedly the infrastructure capital of the world in the next five years. That is good news for the people of this State. Infrastructure investors are looking for opportunities to invest in infrastructure, such as the largest roads project in the nation's history that is being undertaken by the Minister for Roads and Ports or the largest rail transportation project being undertaken by the Minister for Transport. Those key global infrastructure players are seeking opportunities to play a role. Endorsements come thick and fast, but they do not come from members opposite. It is great to have a new Federal Treasurer making a difference on the world stage for this great country. Labor members may have missed what he said, but last week the Federal Treasurer stated, "I want to praise the New South Wales Government." 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26797

Mr Nathan Rees: No!

Mr Ryan Park: That would have been unbiased.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: That is what he said. Labor members might have missed it. He also stated:

The sale of ports, with the proceeds going into new road infrastructure, is a benchmark for the rest of Australia and arguably many countries around the world, and I will be using that as a clear example with G20 finance ministers this weekend.

The New South Wales Government has received a big tick from the Federal Treasurer, Joe Hockey, and a big tick from the G20 finance Ministers. Indeed, the only people on the planet who do not like the New South Wales Government's plan are Labor members. Even the Victorian Opposition leader, Daniel Andrews, and Paul Howes support it. Everywhere we look, leaders are in favour of the New South Wales Government's infrastructure plan—except members of the New South Wales Labor Opposition. That is why the State's Opposition has to say how it will deliver infrastructure and balance the books. The Opposition has no clue. The State's economy continues to improve in a manner that has not been seen in New South Wales for a long time. The State's unemployment rate is the second lowest in the country. Obviously this Government remains concerned about developments in job creation and we are taking action, but at 5.8 per cent the State's unemployment rate is the second lowest in the nation.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: During the summer recess members may have noticed that the member for Maroubra tried to secure a promotion out of middle management to senior management level, and what his Labor colleagues said about that. I will come back to that point later. The other good news is that business confidence has increased across the State. According to the National Australia Bank survey, New South Wales is the second strongest of all the States and in retail trade it is currently the strongest. While the O'Farrell Government continues to get on with the job and to face challenges, the good news for New South Wales relates to job numbers, confidence ratings, retail figures and the views of rating agencies. While much more work remains to be done, the New South Wales Government is taking every possible action to move the State's economy forward. Our efforts have received big ticks from external stakeholders, which is good news for the State, good news for the economy, and good news for households throughout New South Wales.

LIGHT RAIL SCHOOL STUDENT SUBSIDY

Mr JAMIE PARKER: Madam Speaker—

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order. The member for Balmain will be heard in silence.

Mr JAMIE PARKER: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. Considering the light rail extension will open soon, will the Government commit to extending the School Student Transport Scheme to assist school students to travel to and from school on light rail?

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: I thank the member for Balmain for his question. I acknowledge his support for what the Government is doing in relation to public transport throughout his community. I note that he is a strong advocate for public transport and, unlike his predecessor—who I understand wants to make a comeback—he is delivering for his community because the O'Farrell Government is diligent about getting on with the job. At the outset, I state in response to the member's direct and appropriate question that I have already asked Transport for NSW to examine the feasibility of the School Student Transport Scheme subsidy applying to light rail. I look forward to receiving that advice. I confirm that I had already asked for that to be examined. I will keep the House and the community updated in relation to that issue.

The member for Balmain will be aware more than most of the commitment that the New South Wales Government made to extending light rail from Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill. I am pleased to say that this morning I was again at Dulwich Grove. Unlike members of the former Labor Government, who wasted time talking about projects and about light rail extensions, the O'Farrell Government actually undertakes projects. We get on without any fuss and build the things that we say we will build. I am very pleased that the extension of light rail will occur. It is worth noting that the former member for Balmain, Ms Verity Firth, has spoken about her intention to return to this House, so it is appropriate to refer to her record in relation to light rail. Her record amounted to a press release bearing her name that was issued approximately a month before the most recent State election. We know that the community of Sydney's inner western suburbs is excited. 26798 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

Mr John Robertson: Point of order: I will spare the member for Balmain the long walk to the dispatch box to take a point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order! Does the member's point of order relate to relevance?

Mr John Robertson: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129, relevance. The question was specifically about school travel and had nothing to do with the former member for Balmain.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Transport was being relevant to the question asked but has strayed momentarily. I am sure that she will return to the leave of the question.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: I think the member's question also related to the accessibility of light rail. This issue is about not only who has access to public transport but also our commitment to deliver—which we have done—versus Labor's press release after press release and failed projects. We know Ms Firth was not good at delivering light rail but she did make a commitment in relation to the CBD to Rozelle metro.

Ms Carmel Tebbutt: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 129, relevance. The Minister may have strayed earlier in her answer but she is now completely off the path and should be brought back to the leave of the question.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will return to the leave of the question from the member for Balmain, which was about student accessibility to transport.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: I uphold that, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Order! Thank you.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: As I said, those opposite left behind a transport mess that I am pleased to be cleaning up. More importantly, we are very pleased to be providing extra services to the inner west. I will comment also on accessibility to the network. The member for Balmain asked who can access light rail. I reiterate that the former Government introduced a brand-new, albeit clumsy, paper ticketing system called MyZone but refused to include light rail. When we came to government we extended MyZone to light rail and, importantly, we gave pensioners access to light rail, which resulted in a huge increase in patronage. I am also pleased to say that we have extended patronage of light rail to other groups in the community. For example, for the first time tertiary students, all New South Wales school students, ex members of the defence force and all pensioners—not just age pensioners—will be eligible for half-price concessions on light rail.

The Government is extending accessibility to light rail. Again, I stress that the former Government cared so much about light rail that it failed to include it in the electronic ticketing system contract. We had to vary the contract to make sure the Opal system is extended to light rail. Labor's record was completely hopeless in relation to light rail. When it came to the inner west, those opposite issued press releases but we are delivering. I say to all members: Look at what we are doing.

WESTERN SYDNEY INFRASTRUCTURE

Mrs TANYA DAVIES: My question is addressed to the Minister for Fair Trading, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Western Sydney. Will the Minister outline what the Government is doing to benefit the people of Greater Western Sydney?

Mr STUART AYRES: The member for Mulgoa is doing an outstanding job representing the people of Mulgoa, a growth area of Sydney where both housing and jobs growth is critical. The Coalition came to office with a comprehensive plan to make New South Wales number one again and to recognise the importance of the people of Western Sydney in achieving this goal.

The SPEAKER: Order! I remind Opposition members that several of them are on three calls to order.

Mr STUART AYRES: Whereas Labor lectured the people of Western Sydney, this Government believes in them. We are not lecturing to them; we are believing in the people of Western Sydney. We are listening to what they have to say; we recognise that they are aspirational and, critically, deserve their fair share of government resources. That is one of the reasons that right across Western Sydney this Government is 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26799

renovating infrastructure, rebuilding the Western Sydney economy and delivering better services. We believe in providing opportunities for the people of Western Sydney and not taking them for granted, as Labor did for so many years.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Fairfield will come to order.

Mr STUART AYRES: The 2013-14 State budget is delivering on our priority to renovate infrastructure across Western Sydney, with more than $1.8 billion allocated to infrastructure projects in the region.

Mr Guy Zangari: Where?

Mr STUART AYRES: I will tell you where. Let us start with the North West Rail Link.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Fairfield will cease interjecting.

Mr STUART AYRES: The Minister for Transport is doing a fantastic job delivering the North West Rail Link. This year the tunnel-boring machines will be in the ground. Labor promised the North West Rail Link but it was never delivered.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr STUART AYRES: The South West Rail Link is ahead of schedule and will be delivered in 2015—once again, promised by Labor but never delivered. Minister Gay in the Legislative Council allocated $1.8 billion to fund the largest road project in Australia's history, WestConnex. It is going to leverage Federal Government funds as well as private investment. It is great to work with a Federal Government that recognises the importance of infrastructure in New South Wales.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Cabramatta to order for the first time.

Mr STUART AYRES: WestConnex is not just an important road infrastructure project; it will deliver almost 10,000 jobs in a vital area and make sure that Western Sydney is connected to important economic drivers such as the city, the airport and Port Botany. We have a $246 million Pinch Point Program to relieve congestion on our roads. Only this week we started work on a $2 million project at Emu Plains to improve the safety of the M4 exit and reduce congestion. The Government has a $1 billion roads program for growth areas across Western Sydney. We have seen that in the electorate of Mulgoa with the Erskine Park Link Road and also Old Wallgrove Road which is in the electorate of Smithfield.

The road investment promised by those opposite is being delivered by this Government, and it is delivering jobs and housing growth across Western Sydney. Penrith City Council has told us that since the announcement by this Government it has have been inundated with new development applications for those areas opened up by jobs growth. The Government is also delivering upgrades on Schofields Road, Camden Valley Way and Narellan Road. Western Sydney got left behind under Labor. Under this Government it is getting action. We are rebuilding the economy with our Jobs Action Plan—I know those opposite do not like the data but it speaks for itself. We have created more than 8,800 new jobs in Western Sydney since the introduction of the Jobs Action Plan.

Under our metropolitan plan, which the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure is working on, we are planning 313,000 additional new jobs. Fifty per cent of all jobs created in this city will be located in Western Sydney. The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in the O'Farrell Government recognises the importance of Western Sydney and of managing growth both in housing and in jobs across Western Sydney. We are improving service delivery, with massive investments in health—something Labor failed to do over a significant period. Major investments in health include: $324 million for Blacktown Mt Druitt Hospital; $139 million for Campbelltown Hospital, part of Macarthur stage 1; and $138 million for Nepean Hospital, including a new car park that the community asked for and needs desperately. The Minister for Health has allocated $4.8 million to upgrade Westmead Hospital's emergency department. Does Labor want the Westmead Hospital emergency department to be upgraded? Not only is the Government investing in services that are needed now but also it is investing in critical research, particularly at the new Westmead Millennium Institute.

Under the leadership of the Minister for Education, Western Sydney is seeing massive funding increases under the needs-based funding model. There has never been a greater example of Western Sydney getting its fair 26800 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

share than under the needs-based funding model implemented by the Minister for Education. Under the O'Farrell Government, and while I am the Minister Assisting the Premier on Western Sydney, Western Sydney will be heard, listened to and respected, and we will continue to deliver for the people of Western Sydney.

WALLARAH 2 COAL PROJECT AND MR NICK DI GIROLAMO

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: Earlier in question time I was asked about meetings involving Nick Di Girolamo and Wallarah 2. I advise the House that records do not show any of my staff meeting with Mr Di Girolamo about Wallarah 2. I did not meet with Mr Di Girolamo about Wallarah 2. Records do show that on 28 February during his visit to Sydney I dropped in for five minutes to a meeting between the President of Kores, Mr Kim Shin-jong, and the Minister for Resources and Energy. I am advised that amongst the nine people present was Mr Di Girolamo. But I stress the fact that I dropped in to say hello to the president and to apologise for the fact that I had not been able to see him previously.

Question time concluded at 3.18 p.m.

PETITIONS

The Clerk announced that the following petitions signed by fewer than 500 persons were lodged for presentation:

Gymea College of TAFE

Petition opposing cuts to courses and increased fees for students at Gymea College of TAFE, received from Mr Barry Collier.

Sydney Electorate Public High School

Petition requesting the establishment of a public high school in the Sydney electorate, received from Mr Alex Greenwich.

Sutherland Shire Fire Stations

Petition opposing closures of fire stations in the Sutherland Shire, received from Mr Barry Collier.

Oxford Street Traffic Arrangements

Petition requesting the removal of the clearway and introduction of a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit in Oxford Street, received from Mr Alex Greenwich.

Coal Seam Gas

Petition requesting legislation be enacted to halt and exclude coal seam gas or coal exploration and extraction in the Southern Highlands and a moratorium be placed on any such activity in the interim, received from Ms Pru Goward.

Mid North Coast Water Catchments

Petition opposing mining for toxic minerals in water catchment areas of the Mid North Coast, received from Mr Andrew Fraser.

Sutherland Shire to Kogarah Railway Station

Petition requesting the restoration of direct rail services from the Sutherland Shire to Kogarah railway station, received from Mr Barry Collier.

Como and Jannali Railway Stations

Petition requesting the restoration of train services from Como and Jannali railway stations, received from Mr Barry Collier. 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26801

Walsh Bay Precinct Public Transport

Petition requesting improved bus services for the Walsh Bay precinct, and ferry services for the new wharf at pier 2/3, received from Mr Alex Greenwich.

Pyrmont and Ultimo Bus Services

Petition requesting the improvement and expansion of bus services to Pyrmont and Ultimo, received from Mr Alex Greenwich.

Pet Shops

Petition opposing the sale of animals in pet shops, received from Mr Alex Greenwich.

Pig-dog Hunting Ban

Petition requesting the banning of pig-dog hunting in New South Wales, received from Mr Alex Greenwich.

Inner-city Social Housing

Petition requesting the retention and proper maintenance of inner-city public housing stock, received from Mr Alex Greenwich.

CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO BE ACCORDED PRIORITY

Drought Assistance

Mr ADAM MARSHALL (Northern Tablelands) [3.22 p.m.]: My motion should be accorded priority because the drought that is affecting a large part of New South Wales is the most confronting issue in regional and rural New South Wales, if not the entire State, at the moment. The impact that this drought is having on farmers, their families and communities throughout rural New South Wales does not need to be overstated. Most people on the land in western and north-western New South Wales, including those in my electorate of Northern Tablelands, have not had decent rainfall for close to 12 months.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr ADAM MARSHALL: The prolonged and debilitating dry conditions, which continue to worsen in rural New South Wales, have seen feed completely disappear and stock prices fall through the floor, which makes it hard to move stock. Cattle and sheep have had to be destroyed and water storages have dried up. Indeed, the town water supply in some rural communities is threatened by the massive dry. As we heard from Minister Humphries yesterday during question time, conditions are terrible not only in an economic sense but also in terms of the mental wellbeing of those on the land. It is an extremely serious issue that members need to bear in mind. Given the extent and impact of this natural disaster, this motion deserves priority; it needs to be debated in the House today. It is a priority because the steak that we will perhaps sit down to tonight and the milk we put in our tea or coffee is a product of the hard work of people in rural and regional New South Wales—

Mr Kevin Anderson: And veggies.

Mr ADAM MARSHALL: Yes, even veggies. The member for Tamworth is correct. Rural and regional New South Wales is the food basket of this State. People in rural and regional New South Wales are doing it tough—incredibly tough—and I think the least we can do today is acknowledge that and accord this motion priority.

Wallarah 2 Coal Project

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra) [3.24 p.m.]: In 2011 many people on the Central Coast voted for the Liberal Party on the basis of a promise. That promise is now absolutely trashed. It was clear and unambiguous. It was a promise made not by a Liberal Party underling but by the Premier himself—a Premier who today in this House confirmed that he did attend a meeting about Wallarah 2 with Kores, the Minister and its lobbyist, Nick Di Girolamo. That is in Hansard. That is what everyone in this Chamber now knows after hot pliers were applied to the eyeballs of the Premier three times to extract something from him that he should have 26802 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

known. He needed his staff to tell him who he met with, when one of those people is a major donor to the Liberal Party, about a promise about Wallarah 2 that those opposite are going to break. That is, frankly, extraordinary. Before the election the Premier promised that there would be no Wallarah 2. We know that some people claim that actions speak louder than words in politics. Well the Premier attended his words with actions. We all know what the actions were: "Water Not Coal—no ifs and no buts".

Mr Kevin Anderson: Point of order: The member for Maroubra is using a prop.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! No points of order may be taken during the speeches to establish priority, except in circumstances—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: That is not correct. I will seek a direction after this debate so as not to delay the member for Maroubra, but that is not correct.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: It is a touchy subject, is it not? I have three minutes to establish priority on a motion about "no Wallarah 2" and points of order are coming left, right and centre. You know when you have the Premier pinned on a subject. The Treasurer is smiling like a Cheshire cat because the Premier is up to his eyeballs in "no Wallarah 2". It was a clear and unambiguous promise. I used a prop, but the prop shows that the Premier did not have his hands crossed behind his back; they were there for the world to see. There was no trickery, no ambiguity: No Wallarah 2. That is what the Liberal Party promised the people of the Central Coast and that is the promise it is breaking. It is not good enough for the Minister to say it was at arm's length. If it was at arm's length then Chris Hartcher, the Premier, Nick Di Girolamo and the president of Kores would not have been in a big meeting together. [Time expired.]

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I remind members that points of order are not entertained during debate to establish which motion should be accorded priority, except in circumstances of overt or serious disorder. However, the prop should not have been used.

Mr Michael Daley: I withdraw the prop.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! About 10 Opposition members are on three calls to order. I remind them of the Speaker's ruling that any member who is removed from the House will be excluded for the remainder of the day.

Question—That the motion of the member for Northern Tablelands be accorded priority—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 64

Mr Anderson Mr Gee Mr Piccoli Mr Aplin Ms Gibbons Mr Provest Mr Baird Ms Goward Mr Roberts Mr Barilaro Mr Grant Mr Rohan Mr Bassett Mr Gulaptis Mrs Sage Mr Baumann Mr Hartcher Mr Sidoti Ms Berejiklian Mr Hazzard Mrs Skinner Mr Bromhead Ms Hodgkinson Mr Smith Mr Brookes Mr Holstein Mr Souris Mr Casuscelli Mr Humphries Mr Speakman Mr Conolly Mr Issa Mr Spence Mr Constance Mr Kean Mr Stokes Mr Cornwell Dr Lee Mr Toole Mr Coure Mr Maguire Ms Upton Mrs Davies Mr Marshall Mr Ward Mr Dominello Mr Notley-Smith Mr Webber Mr Doyle Mr O'Dea Mr R. C. Williams Mr Edwards Mr O'Farrell Mrs Williams Mr Elliott Mr Page Mr Evans Ms Parker Tellers, Mr Flowers Mr Patterson Mr Rowell Mr Fraser Mr Perrottet Mr J. D. Williams 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26803

Noes, 24

Mr Barr Ms Hornery Mr Robertson Ms Burney Mr Lynch Ms Tebbutt Ms Burton Dr McDonald Ms Watson Mr Collier Ms Mihailuk Mr Zangari Mr Daley Mr Park Mr Furolo Mr Parker Mr Greenwich Mrs Perry Tellers, Ms Hay Mr Piper Mr Amery Mr Hoenig Mr Rees Mr Lalich

Question resolved in the affirmative.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst—Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW) [3.37 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to provide for the following routine of business for the remainder of this sitting after the conclusion of the motion accorded priority:

(1) Government business;

(2) private members' statements;

(3) matter of public importance; and

(4) the House to adjourn without motion moved at the conclusion of the matter of public importance.

This evening Government business will continue until its conclusion, members will have the opportunity to make private members' statements and the House will discuss the matter of public importance. However, because of building work being undertaken in the dining room the House will not adjourn for dinner. If business proceeds the way I anticipate, Government business will conclude at a reasonable hour at which time the House will then deal with private members' statements and the matter of public importance, perhaps eliminating the need for members to access the limited resources of the Parliament.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

DROUGHT ASSISTANCE

Motion Accorded Priority

Mr ADAM MARSHALL (Northern Tablelands) [3.38 p.m.]: I move:

That this House supports the response of the Commonwealth and State governments to current drought conditions across parts of New South Wales.

The New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government recognises the difficulties facing primary producers in drought-affected areas in New South Wales. The Minister for Primary Industries and the Deputy Premier have visited drought-affected areas across New South Wales. In December they toured the north-west and earlier this month they toured much of the northern and central parts of the State. During those visits they have seen the extensive measures undertaken by primary producers to prepare for drought, despite them having little opportunity to do so since the end of the millennium drought. Sadly, even the best preparations are simply not enough in this dire situation.

In November the New South Wales Government implemented a $7.6 million package of temporary emergency assistance measures in the Bourke, Brewarrina and Walgett local government areas. Earlier this month, after visiting the Tamworth area, the Minister announced, in company with my colleague the member for 26804 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

Tamworth and me, an expansion of that package to $14.6 million to assist an additional 20 local government areas in the far western and unincorporated areas of this State. We all know that the New South Wales Government no longer declares regions to be in drought; this is in line with the former Labor Commonwealth Government's decision to move away from the exceptional circumstances model. Rather, the New South Wales Government has established an independent and expert committee called the Regional Assistance Advisory Committee [RAAC] to look monthly at the State's objective rainfall, pasture growth and soil moisture information.

Local Land Services monitors on-ground seasonal conditions and provides this information to the Regional Assistance Advisory Committee to consider alongside the objective data, and this informs the advice and recommendations the committee provides to the New South Wales Government. I acknowledge the appointment earlier this year of Tim Johnston as the Drought Coordinator for Local Land Services across New South Wales. Tim visited the Northern Tablelands and Tamworth electorates, and provided some expert advice to the Regional Assistance Advisory Committee, which, in turn, provided it to the Minister. This new process is based on a foundation of independence and evidence-based decision-making that the Government will continue to refine.

As I explained earlier, the drought currently impacting on much of New South Wales is the worst that primary producers in many regions have experienced. I do not make that statement lightly. Jim Swailes, Scott Henderson, Stuart Blake, Fred Mulligan and Sam White, all of whom are incredibly capable and world-class farmers in their own right in my part of the world, say this is the worst drought they have seen and they were not able to prepare for it. One has to take seriously such a message from people of that calibre. The New South Wales Government recognises that while primary producers need to make sound management decisions and undertake extensive measures to manage seasonal conditions, it is impossible to completely drought-proof a property, regardless of how well prepared for drought they might be, particularly from a drought currently that is impacting so heavily on many parts of this State.

Whilst some 24 regions now are eligible for emergency assistance, producers in other regions can rest assured that Local Land Services and the Regional Assistance Advisory Committee will continue to monitor seasonal conditions closely, and keep the Minister and the Government advised. In addition to the package Minister Hodgkinson announced earlier this year of $20,000 per producer in transport assistance and reimbursement, $30,000 in emergency water infrastructure grants and the waiving of various fees, this morning we were pleased to hear the Commonwealth Government announce its $320 million drought support package. I commend the work of agriculture Minister, Barnaby Joyce, who has been a tireless advocate for the plight of farmers experiencing the current drought. I acknowledge that the Commonwealth package complementing the New South Wales package will go a significant way to easing some of the troubles and burdens afflicting our farmers, their families and businesses in regional and rural New South Wales.

Mr CLAYTON BARR (Cessnock) [3.43 p.m.]: I welcome the motion accorded priority moved by the member for Northern Tablelands.

Mr Adam Marshall: You voted against it.

Mr CLAYTON BARR: We voted against it because we believed our motion was more important.

Mr Kevin Anderson: So you don't believe in supporting farmers?

Mr CLAYTON BARR: Primarily, we do not like politicising the State's drought situation, yet here we are having this conversation. I commend the Minister for Mental Health for his response to a question yesterday about the mental health needs of our farmers. While our farmers go through this difficult period we want them to be safe, have food and shelter, not lose their businesses and, ultimately, be able to rebound once the rains come. With those important issues in mind, I indicate that I appreciated Minister Humphries's answer but I was a little perplexed: The Minister for Mental Health seems to be acutely aware of, in touch with and relevant to issues in the Upper Hunter and New England areas, yet the Minister for Health is allowing cuts to community health services in the same region.

Mr Kevin Anderson: Point of order: The member is attacking the Minister for Health on an issue that is not related to drought.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! There is no point of order. The debate is wide ranging in nature. 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26805

Mr CLAYTON BARR: I appreciate that the member for Tamworth has just recognised that mental health issues are not part of drought relief and support. However, I continue making my point: Community health services have just lost the ability to provide psychologists and social workers to people in regional communities, extending into the Northern Tablelands, the Hunter and New England health areas. People no longer will be able to access mental health services without a referral from a general practitioner. This Government is all about cost-cutting measures. As I said, in this Chamber the Minister for Mental Health seems to be acutely aware of the issue and what is required, yet the Minister for Health seems to be doing the opposite.

I acknowledge today's announcement of Federal Government funding. New South Wales farmers have expressed some concern that restructuring loans and debts is not necessarily a solution, but it is some measure of support. I note also that since 2008 we have been working towards drought-proofing our properties and rural farms but, as the member for Northern Tablelands noted, some conditions just cannot be drought-proofed. Certainly, current conditions appear to fall into that category. I advocate and lobby for farmers in the Cessnock electorate, particularly those in the Upper Hunter. I have written to the Minister for Primary Industries on a number of occasions bringing to her attention the plight farmers face and their urgent need for drought relief. She made funding available for a number of local government areas and, of course, expanded that relief more recently to include another 20 local government areas. However, an arbitrary line seems to be drawn across the northern half of the State where relief is available. The southern part of the State and the Upper Hunter have been cut completely from any current relief support.

Another issue linked to these severe drought conditions is available fodder subsidies. Much has been made about getting stock to saleyards, which farmers have been doing progressively over the past few months, if not the past year or longer. The point has been reached now where farmers are selling their breeding stock, which is incredibly unfortunate. Breeding stock will allow farmers to rebound when the rains come, so it is extremely important that fodder is available. Farmers in the Liverpool Plains look over their fences into Tamworth farms and, interestingly, as a result of those arbitrary lines drawn around local government areas they do not have the same access to support. I wish the very best for all those in Tamworth and other supported areas, but farmers in other areas are not receiving any support. I call on the member for Murrumbidgee, the member for Dubbo, the member for Orange, the member for Upper Hunter and the member for Bathurst to join me in asking Minister Hodgkinson to expand drought relief support.

Mr KEVIN ANDERSON (Tamworth) [3.48 p.m.]: I support the motion accorded priority moved by the member for Northern Tablelands. I will update the House on the reasons why the New South Wales Government established an independent and expert committee, the Regional Assistance Advisory Committee, which will examine the State's objective rainfall, pasture growth and soil moisture information monthly and provide seasonal condition reports. When drought hits, quite often it is far too late for a farmer to move into drought-preparedness mode. When an area is drought declared, exceptional circumstances kick in.

We need to move into a thought process and a culture of drought preparedness for the future, which is something that Minister for Primary Industries Katrina Hodgkinson is very focused on. It would enable us to not only deal with the current drought conditions and the emergency funding package that has been implemented but also to start to think about what happens in the next drought. When the Minister for Primary Industries visited the Tamworth electorate we spoke to a number of farmers and looked at a number of properties. One of the properties we visited was the Davidson property at Somerton. We talked to Belinda and Andrew Davidson about the drought-preparedness measures they had put in place. They found that because of their preparations over the past two to five years they were better equipped to handle the drought.

Drought preparedness is something that the Parliament must think about. It also should look at supporting landholders and farmers who are currently experiencing difficult situations and the younger generation who are thinking about getting into the agricultural industry. They need to know they will be supported and that the industry is a viable one. The Government must ensure, through tertiary education and promoting agriculture in schools, that there is a pathway to this industry that the younger generation wants to work in. Whether it is in the Tamworth electorate, with cattle or crops, further out west where the vegetation is a little sparser, or the Riverina, the whole State must be considered.

I am pleased to note that the member for Wagga Wagga, Darryl Maguire, who has a good handle on regional and rural New South Wales, has been appointed to assist the Premier and to update Government on what is happening in regional and rural New South Wales. I have invited him to visit the Tamworth electorate to see what is happening in that area. The emergency drought funding currently available includes transport 26806 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

assistance reimbursement, emergency water infrastructure grants, rural support worker programs, and western land lease payments. Wild Dog Destruction Board rates and Local Land Services rates have been waived from 1 July 2014.

The Federal member for New England and the Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce, who resides in Tamworth, is a colleague of ours and a friend of agriculture. The Hon. Barnaby Joyce has convinced the Federal Coalition Government to fund an agricultural support package. It was pleasing to see that package fast-tracked and rolled out today. The $14.6 million package of emergency drought support measures for the State has now been backed up at a Federal level. This is a Government caring for landholders and farmers and I know that those landholders and farmers have faith that it will take care of them.

Mr RICHARD AMERY (Mount Druitt) [3.51 p.m.]: I join with the member for Cessnock in supporting the motion moved by the member for Northern Tablelands. The motion called for support from the Federal and State governments to assist drought-affected farmers. Whatever that assistance and whether the debate is about the sum provided or its timeliness does not matter: Parliament should support any assistance provided by both levels of Government and the non-government agencies such as the Salvation Army or St Vincent de Paul that weigh in heavily to assist farmers during this difficult time. Whilst the Opposition supports the motion—any assistance is welcome—that does not mean more could not be done. Natural disasters such as droughts, floods and bushfires are a good opportunity for Government agencies and so-called experts in the field to road test any changes in policy that have occurred in recent times, whether under Coalition, Labor, Federal or State governments.

Drought declarations have been done away with and replaced with local government boundaries to identify whether an area is affected by drought. As the member for Cessnock has pointed out, there has been criticism of drought declarations in the past because people on one side of a road, river or region receive assistance when someone a short distance away does not. That situation still applies when you use local government boundaries as a way to decide which area receives drought assistance. When the Minister for Primary Industries is dealing with the Federal Government through ministerial council meetings an assessment should be made as to whether local government boundaries are working any more efficiently than did the drought declaration process.

My experience with the drought declaration process is that it is not about boundaries, rivers, roads or regions but about the number of people who go into a region to assess pastures, water supply and the stress that is placed on farmers affected by drought when a decision is made to declare an area as drought affected to trigger the Federal and State assistance the subject of this debate. Time is limited in these debates. All members, not just the Liberal Party and the Nationals members, appreciate the stress that farmers are experiencing and wish them well in difficult times. I join with the member for Tamworth in recognising the appointment of the member for Wagga Wagga to the important role of assisting the Premier with advice on drought-affected areas. A review of drought declaration areas or local government boundaries is something I hope the member gives substantial attention to.

Mr ADAM MARSHALL (Northern Tablelands) [3.54 p.m.], in reply: I thank my colleagues on this side of the House who have contributed to debate on this important issue. I note the contributions from the member for Cessnock, the member for Tamworth and the member for Mount Druitt. Whilst I am disappointed there were not more members opposite who contributed to this important debate—or at least listened to it—I am heartened by the sincerity with which the member for Mount Druitt and the member for Cessnock made their contributions. I will touch on a couple of issues raised in the debate. The member for Cessnock was right to raise the mental health and wellbeing of farmers, which I referred to earlier.

Yesterday in response to a question from me the Minister for Mental Health spoke extensively about the important work of the Rural Financial Counselling Service and the Rural Adversity Mental Health Program that are being put in place. Teams of dedicated professionals are travelling through drought-affected areas talking to farmers and medical professionals to ensure that those who need support receive it. It is one thing to announce packages from all levels of government to help with the economic stress of drought but it is those unseen consequences and impacts that are more telling and detrimental, particularly in our smaller regional communities.

The member for Mount Druitt spoke of the importance of non-government bodies such as the Salvation Army, which supplies critical support through its rural chaplaincy program. Another organisation that supports farmers in need is beyondblue. The hardworking member for Tamworth has been very active meeting with 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26807

farmers in the Tamworth and Gunnedah regions to bring this issue and the plight of his community to the attention of this House, the Regional Assistance Advisory Committee and ultimately the Minister for Primary Industries. As was stated earlier in the debate, there is no doubt that for some parts of the State these are the worst dry conditions that many farmers have seen in a lifetime. All levels of Government have shifted the emphasis to drought preparation, but for this drought no level of preparation would have seen these farmers through. When dams are dry, sheep and cattle prices have fallen through the floor and people have not had decent rain for 12 months—I do not mean 10-12 millimetres, I mean many centimetres of rain—governments must assist.

In those circumstances it is right and proper that governments step in to support the people who feed us. If it was not for the hard work of farmers, we—particularly those people who live in metropolitan areas—would not get to enjoy steak, milk, veggies and fruit. The farmers are in our thoughts. We hope the assistance packages at State and Federal levels help to ease the strain that they are experiencing at the moment. I commend the motion to the House.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

CRIMES AMENDMENT (INTOXICATION) BILL 2014

Bill introduced on motion by Mr Barry O'Farrell, read a first time and printed.

Second Reading

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Premier, and Minister for Western Sydney) [4.00 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

On 21 January 2014 I outlined a comprehensive plan to make our streets safer. Many of those measures are already in place, including the new offence of assault causing death—the so-called one-punch law—which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years and a mandatory minimum penalty of eight years. This bill creates additional aggravated personal violence offences with higher maximum penalties and, for the most serious of those offences, mandatory minimum sentences. These offences apply where the offender commits a serious assault whilst intoxicated in public. Maximum penalties are increased by two years compared to the equivalent non-aggravated offence. Mandatory minimum jail sentences will be imposed on adult offenders who commit the most serious of those aggravated offences. The decision to introduce mandatory sentencing has not been made lightly. The Government responded to community concern and it believes it is necessary to introduce these measures to combat the recent spate of serious drug- and alcohol-fuelled attacks on our streets. We are determined to send a strong message to those who engage in drug- and alcohol-fuelled violence: If you get drunk or take drugs and seriously assault someone in public, you will go to jail.

The mandatory minimum sentences are the minimum non-parole period, which is the minimum time that the offender will spend in jail. This means that all offenders found guilty of these offences will receive a prison sentence and the least serious offender will receive the mandatory minimum sentence. The more serious offenders will receive a sentence that is above the mandatory minimum sentence, which will be determined by the judges. Consistent with the provisions of the Act, the requirement to impose a mandatory minimum sentence for the murder of police officers will not apply to a child under 18 years of age at the time of the offence, or to a person with a significant cognitive impairment at the time of the offence.

Under the new laws, a person will be taken to be intoxicated if the person's speech, balance, coordination or behaviour is noticeably affected as the result of the consumption of alcohol or the taking of narcotic drugs. Narcotic drugs, for the purpose of the definition of "intoxication", include all prohibited drugs under the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act. This definition is based on a similar definition of intoxication that is used in the Liquor Act and with which police and owners and patrons of licensed premises are familiar. The evidence of intoxication can include observations of witnesses, including police, evidence of prior consumption of alcohol or drugs, and matters captured on closed-circuit television cameras. That provision is consistent with the current provisions of the Crimes Act.

Under the bill, a person will be presumed to be intoxicated if they have had the prescribed concentration of alcohol in their blood within six hours of the offence. The prescribed concentration of alcohol 26808 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

is 0.15 grams, which is equivalent to high-range drink-driving. The presumption of intoxication has the effect of shifting the onus of proof from the prosecution to the accused once a high-range test result has been obtained. To prove they were not intoxicated at the time of the assault, the accused will have to prove that the concentration of alcohol in their blood at the time of the alleged offence was less than the prescribed concentration of alcohol. The accused will also have to prove they did not consume alcohol after the alleged offence in order to alter the presence or concentration of alcohol in his or her blood. This ensures that a person cannot escape conviction for the aggravated offence by deliberately taking alcohol between the time of the offence and the time of arrest for the purposes of wilfully changing the test results. Police who arrest a person suspected of committing an aggravated offence will be able to conduct drug and alcohol testing within 12 hours of the offence. This time frame ensures that police have the opportunity to test an offender who may have initially fled the scene. The results of the test will be admissible along with other evidence of the intoxication of the accused. The new aggravated offences will only apply where the offender was intoxicated in public.

The bill contains a broad definition of "a public place", which includes in, or in the vicinity of, any premises or land that is open to the public. Licensed premises, restricted premises, such as brothels, and premises or land used by criminal gangs, such as the headquarters of outlaw motorcycle gangs, are expressly covered by the definition. The bill applies these definitions of public intoxication to the offence of intoxicated one-punch assaults, which was introduced and passed by the Government earlier this year. The bill also clarifies the scope of that offence to make it clear that it not only covers situations where a person hits another with their fist or an object, but will also apply where force is used by the accused to cause the victim's body to hit the ground or other thing. As with the one-punch laws, the offence is not intended to cover guns or other projectiles, which are covered by other offences under the law.

I am aware that concerns have been raised by women's services about the potential impact of mandatory sentencing in relation to domestic and sexual assaults, in particular, the concern that victims and witnesses may become more reluctant to provide evidence where mandatory sentencing applies. The bill does not impose mandatory sentences for sexual assault. It applies to serious personal violence offences that occur in public while the offender is intoxicated. Mandatory sentences for sexual assault will be considered once the Government has received the report from the parliamentary inquiry examining sentences for child sexual assault offences. The Government also announced yesterday, through the Minister for Women, the formation of a violent domestic crimes task force to examine support for reporters and witnesses of domestic violence, links between alcohol and domestic violence, and sentencing options for perpetrators. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Paul Lynch and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

BAIL (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2013

Second Reading

Debated resumed from 20 November 2013.

Mr PAUL LYNCH (Liverpool) [4.06 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in debate on the Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. The Opposition does not oppose the bill. The objects of the bill are to make it clear that a bail authority can decide who is an acceptable person to provide security for the grant of bail, in the same way as the bail authority can decide who is an acceptable person to give a character acknowledgement, and to expand the regulation-making powers conferred by the Act. There are other minor amendments that are expressed to be in terms of statutory law revision. In addition, there are inevitably amendments to a range of other legislation. The amendments are to the new Bail Act that dates from last year. It is, of course, proposed by the Government that the 2013 legislation will come into force in May this year. The amendments provided in this bill are presented by the Government as minor amendments. On the face of it, they are precisely that. Essentially they are the bits that got left out of the bill in 2013. People have worked out what should have been included and that is where the bill has come from. They do not deal with any of the substantive issues missing from the bill to which I drew attention in the second reading debate last year.

Apart from minor drafting issues, the bill is extended to all circumstances where bail must be determined and not just for the more obvious cases where someone has been charged with a criminal offence. The amendments include provisions relating to acceptable persons who provide security pursuant to a bail condition, the information provided to a bail condition, the information provided in a bail acknowledgment, the 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26809

ability of a prosecutor to oppose a release application by an accused person and the hearings of applications for the variation of bail. Provisions were inserted so that the regulations can make provision for the forms to be used under the Act. As I have indicated, the Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.10 p.m.]: It is with pleasure that I make a brief contribution to debate on the Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. As we know from the Attorney General's second reading speech, prior to 2011 the Government made a commitment to review legislation dealing with bail in New South Wales. The Attorney General asked the Law Reform Commission to undertake a wide-ranging review and its report was tabled in both Houses of Parliament on 13 June 2012. The report made a number of recommendations about significantly overhauling the bail legislation, including the drafting of a new plain English version. Events that have occurred in New South Wales involving alleged offenders being on bail and reoffending have created some community concern. Mr Deputy-Speaker, both you and I have had representations from our constituents about this issue, so it is pleasing to see the O'Farrell-Stoner Government taking positive action in this regard.

This bill makes consequential amendments to the Bail Act 2013, which will commence in May this year. While preparing for its commencement some minor drafting issues have been identified and this bill makes amendments to clarify those issues. The Bail Act is referred to in up to 30 other pieces of legislation and this bill is necessary to update them to facilitate a smooth transition to the new legislation. Many of the Acts that require amendment deal with aspects of the criminal justice system, for example, the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and the Criminal (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. This bill also amends a number of legislative provisions that are not strictly associated with criminal proceedings.

For example, it remakes provisions that facilitate the making of a bail decision for people brought before the court by an authorised officer under the Local Government Act 1993, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Water Management Act 2000. All are minor amendments, but they will facilitate a smoother transition. The cornerstones of this Government's commitment to the State include reducing red tape and introducing plain English legislation. Red tape chews up money and reducing it will allow that money to be better spent elsewhere. Importantly, the reforms in the bill will ensure that the courts retain existing powers to determine bail in a variety of proceedings under the new bail regime. It also incorporates a simple unacceptable risk test as the bail decision-making tool for police and the courts.

Mr John Williams: Who let this bloke in?

Mr GEOFF PROVEST: I am sure the member for Murray-Darling is very interested in this issue because of his desire to uphold law and justice in the west. I always enjoy his contributions to debates and I look forward to hearing his speech on this bill. I am sure that, as always, it will be very entertaining. In applying the unacceptable risk test to proceedings, courts will be required first to assess whether an accused person presents an unacceptable risk to the community or the criminal justice system. In particular, the court will need to consider whether there is an unacceptable risk that the accused, if released, will fail to appear in court when required, commit a serious offence, endanger the safety of the community, or interfere with a witness or evidence. They are all significant tests that should be applied.

The mandatory factors set out in section 17 of the Act must also be considered, such as the seriousness of the alleged offence and the accused's background and circumstances. These factors reflect both the need to consider the protection of the community and the rights of the accused persons. That is very important. While I uphold at all times our right to protect the community and the rights of the community as a whole, I also believe that our system must protect the rights of the accused person. However, I change my mind significantly after someone is legally convicted in a properly constituted court of law. If the bail authority is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk, it can either grant or refuse bail.

Mr John Williams: Here we go!

Mr GEOFF PROVEST: I note the interjection from the member for Murray-Darling. I appreciate his support and his desire to make the justice system more efficient, and I am looking forward to his contribution to this debate. The bail authority may determine whether the unacceptable risk identified can be sufficiently mitigated by the imposition of bail conditions. This is an example of the Government making legislation clear and transparent. We are all working very hard for the wider community. I note that the Opposition does not oppose this bill. It contains common-sense amendments and I look forward to the commencement of the Bail Act in May this year. I commend the bill to the House. 26810 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

Mr STEPHEN BROMHEAD (Myall Lakes) [4.15 p.m.]: I support the Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. The bill makes minor amendments to the Bail Act 2013 and miscellaneous amendments to other legislation to reflect the passage of that Act and the repeal of the Bail Act 1978. The objects of the bill are to amend the Bail Act for various purposes, including to clarify that a bail authority can decide who is an acceptable person to provide security for the grant of bail in the same way that the bail authority can decide who is an acceptable person to give character acknowledgement. The bill also extends the regulation-making powers conferred by the Act.

The Bail Act 2013 was passed by Parliament on 22 May 2013 and was assented to on 27 May 2013. The Government intends the new Act to commence operation 12 months after its passage by Parliament, in May 2014. The process of implementing the new legislation and preparing for is commencement is underway. As a result of that process some minor drafting issues have been identified, including the need to update references in other legislation, and this bill does that. As I said, the bill makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to other legislation to reflect the passage of the Bail Act 2013. These amendments are largely technical and include replacing references to provisions of the Bail Act 1978 in a number of Acts with references to relevant provisions of the new Act. The bill makes amendments to reflect the change from the presumption-based model for determining bail in the Bail Act 1978 to the unacceptable risk model in the Bail Act 2013. It provides that in proceedings that do not relate to an offence, such as bench warrant proceedings under section 312 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, the person who is the subject of the proceedings is to be treated as an accused person under the Bail Act 2013, ensuring that the unacceptable risk test will apply to them. These amendments generally replace equivalent provisions deeming a person an accused person under the Bail Act 1978.

The bill also amends the Bail Act 2013 to clarify in section 26 that a person other than the accused person who is to provide security under the bail condition must be an acceptable person and that the determination as to the acceptability is to be made by the bail authority imposing the bail condition or the officer or court to whom the bail acknowledgement is given. This is consistent with provisions of the Bail Act 1978. The bill also clarifies in section 50 of the Act that a prosecutor may oppose a release application by an accused person without having to make a detention application. It clarifies in section 64 that an authorised justice may hear a variation application for an offence if a bail decision has previously been made by a court and the condition subject to application is one that can be reviewed by an authorised justice. The bill ensures that in section 88 the regulations can make provision for the return of bail money and security and that in section 98 the regulations can make provision for the forms to be used under the Bail Act.

I now turn to some of the details of the bill. Schedule 1 [1] and [2] make it clear that a bail authority, or an officer or court to whom the bail acknowledgement is given, has power to decide which person or persons, or class or description of persons, is an acceptable person to enter into a bail security agreement. A bail security agreement is an agreement under which a person agrees to forfeit a specified amount of money if a person granted bail fails to appear before a court in accordance with his or her bail acknowledgement. The amendments ensure that the power of a bail authority to decide who is an acceptable person to provide bail security mirrors the powers of a bail authority to decide who is an acceptable person to give a character acknowledgement. This is consistent with the current practice under the Bail Act 1978.

Schedule 1 [4] makes it clear that it is not necessary for a prosecutor to make a detention application to a court in order to oppose a release application made by an accused person. Schedule 1 [5] amends a provision that lists the powers of the Local Court and authorised justices to hear bail applications, to make it clear that an authorised justice has power to hear a variation application in relation to bail conditions imposed by a court if the bail conditions are reviewable by a justice, as contemplated by section 52 of the Bail Act 2013. Schedule 1 [6] permits a court to put in place a process that ensures that consideration is given to the return of bail money if an accused person is convicted or acquitted of an offence. This replaces a requirement that the court itself give consideration to the return of bail money when an accused person is convicted or acquitted of an offence. Accordingly, the amendment will permit a court to deal with the matter by referring it to a registrar or other court officer for consideration.

The amendments continue the existing practice of permitting a bail decision to be made in respect of certain persons who are taken into custody and are not charged with an offence—for example, a witness who fails to appear in proceedings before a court or a coroner, or a person who fails to provide a name and address to an enforcement officer. In such a case, the Bail Act 2013 will apply to the person in custody as if the person were accused of an offence. The amendments also make it clear who is permitted to make a bail decision in such cases and otherwise modify the operation of the Bail Act 2013 to accommodate a non-offence situation. 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26811

The Evidence Act 1995 states that the Evidence Act 1995 applies to proceedings relating to bail. An amendment to that Act makes it clear that the application of that Act is subject to certain provisions of the Bail Act 2013, which require bail decisions to be made having regard to any credible or trustworthy evidence or information, and for decisions to be made on the balance of probabilities. An amendment to the Intoxicated Persons (Sobering Up Centres Trial) Act 2013 makes it clear that a police officer is not required to make a bail decision in respect of an intoxicated person while the person is detained under that Act. As I said earlier, the bill contains a number of other amendments to the Bail Act 2013. They were made after review and in readiness for the Act which is expected to commence in May this year. The police and the legal fraternity have welcomed the overall changes outlined in this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ANDREW GEE (Orange) [4.22 p.m.]: I speak in support of the Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. The bill is designed to support the Bail Act 2013, which was passed by this Parliament in May last year and is expected to commence operation in May this year. As the Attorney General noted, the Bail Act 2013 will make a significant change to the implementation of bail in New South Wales. The new Act incorporates a new unacceptable risk test as the primary bail decision-making tool for police and the courts. The changes to the new Act will also make a number of consequential amendments to other Acts. The Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 will amend those other Acts to apply the new Bail Act's unacceptable risk test as well.

In applying the unacceptable risk test, courts will be required to assess whether an accused person presents an unacceptable risk to the community or the criminal justice system. In particular, they will need to consider whether there is an unacceptable risk that the accused, if released, will fail to appear in court if required, commit a serious offence, endanger the safety of the community or interfere with witnesses or evidence. The new mandatory factors set out in section 17 of the new Act will also need to be considered, including the seriousness of the alleged offence and the accused's background and circumstances. Those factors reflect the need to consider the protection of the community whilst balancing the rights of the accused person. A feature of the new Act is that if a bail authority is satisfied that there is no unacceptable risk then it can release the person without bail, dispense with bail or grant unconditional bail.

The Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 supports the Bail Act 2013. The Attorney General has eloquently set out many of the features of this legislation, as did the member for Myall Lakes. Schedule 1 [1] and [2] will amend section 26 of the Act to clarify that a person other than the accused, who is required by a bail authority to provide security pursuant to a bail condition, must be an acceptable person. Pursuant to section 26 (4) of the Act, the determination of whether or not a person is an acceptable person will be made by the bail authority imposing the bail condition or, if the bail authority does not make this decision, the officer or court to whom the bail acknowledgement is given. The bill contains a number of other interesting features. Schedule 1 [4] will amend section 50 of the Act to insert a provision which makes it clear that a prosecutor may oppose a release application by an accused person without having to make a detention application. This provision will not alter the intended operation of the detention or release applications under the Act. It has been included simply to remove any doubt about whether a detention application is required in order to oppose a release application so that this issue does not create unnecessary confusion when the new Act commences.

Schedule 1 [8] will insert a provision in proposed section 98 stipulating that the regulations can make provision for the forms to be used under the Act. The Attorney General has noted that the regulations to support the new Act are presently being settled, and they will need to make some provision for the forms required by the Act. Schedule 2.2 [2] includes amendments pertaining to sections 109U and 109V of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998. Those sections provide for the making of a bail decision in relation to a person brought before the Children's Court pursuant to a warrant issued under that Act. As those proceedings do not relate to offences, proposed section 109U stipulates that the Bail Act 2013 is to apply to the person as if they were accused of an offence and the proceedings before the court are proceedings for that offence.

A number of other ramifications will flow from this bill. For example, the bill remakes provisions that facilitate the making of a bail decision for people brought before the court by an authorised officer under the Local Government Act 1993, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Water Management Act 2000. The Attorney General has done an excellent job. As other members have commented, the Bail Act 2013 was introduced after consultation with the legal profession, and it certainly has the full support of the legal practitioners to whom I speak. I commend the Attorney General for introducing the Bail Act 2013 and I commend the Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 to the House.

Mr GLENN BROOKES (East Hills) [4.29 p.m.]: I am pleased to speak in support of the Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 which aims to make a number of minor amendments to the Bail Act 26812 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

2013 and to make minor amendments to other Acts that are affected by the bill. It will allow passage of the Bail Act 2013 and the repeal of the Bail Act 1978. Having passed the new bail legislation in this Parliament on 22 May 2013 some minor drafting issues have been identified and this bill will make amendments to the Act to clarify those issues. We need to amend the many pieces of legislation that require a clear determination of "bail" under the Bail Act so that when this bill commences in May this year there are no hiccups, or very few.

It is also worth noting that not all the legislation associated with bail is criminal-related. As I have not come from a legal background I will not elaborate on the detail of this bill and I will not point out every section of every Act that needs amending. I will state, however, as I have stated on many occasions in this House, that I am proud of the effort of the O'Farrell Government to simplify legislation across the board. I am proud of the fact that people from very humble beginnings can read legislation that is set out in layman's terms and can understand what can often be complex legal jargon.

Both the Attorney General and the Premier often said that they would try their best to get it right and that if the bulk of the legislation is right but needs some minor tweaking they will make those amendments as needed. It is evident that this is a good bit of legislation and the bulk of it is spot-on. The minor amendments outlined by the Attorney General, who introduced this bill, are indeed minor. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JOHN SIDOTI (Drummoyne) [4.32 p.m.]: I also speak in debate on the Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 which has as its main purpose to make some minor amendments to the Bail Act 2013 as a result of a review undertaken by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. The process of implementing the Act is still in progress and, as a result, a number of minor changes need to be introduced as this bill addresses those issues. These changes include clarifying that a bail authority can decide who is an acceptable person to provide security in the granting of bail. This is similar to the way the bail authority can determine who is an acceptable person to provide a character reference.

Determination of bail is usually the result of a criminal matter; however, sometimes it can result from a warrant being issued for a witness in proceedings before the Coroner's Court or where a person is apprehended for failing to provide details to an authorised officer under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. All relevant pieces of legislation will need to be updated and this bill makes the necessary amendments to ensure that that occurs. Schedule 1 [1] and [2] make it clear that a bail authority or an officer or court to whom a bail acknowledgement is given has the power to decide which person is acceptable to enter into bail security. A bail security agreement is an agreement under which a person agrees to forfeit a specified amount of money should a person who has been granted bail fail to appear before a court in accordance with his or her bail acknowledgement.

Schedule 1 [4] will amend section 50 of the Act by inserting a provision which makes it clear that a prosecutor may oppose a release application by an accused person without having to make detention applicable. Schedule 1 [5] will amend provisions that list the Local Court and authorised justices who can hear bail applications. Schedule 1 [6] replaces the requirement that the court itself give consideration to the return of bail money when an accused person is either convicted or acquitted of an offence. This amendment will allow the court to deal with the matter by referring it to a registrar or other court officer for consideration. Schedule 2 amends the Acts specified as a consequence of the enactment of the Bail Act 2013 and the repeal of the Bail Act 1978. Those Acts include sections 109U and 109V of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.

The bill makes further provisions that facilitate the making of a bail decision for people brought before the court by an authorised officer under the Local Government Act 1993, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Water Management Act 2000. Item [4] of schedule 2.4 contains amendments to the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. It will preserve the power of the Children's Court to adjourn sentence proceedings for up to 12 months from the date of finding a guilty verdict where a person is on bail or has had his or her bail dispensed with under the new Bail Act. An adjournment may be granted so that the court can obtain an assessment of the person's capacity for rehabilitation. The bill is a further step in the Government's overhaul of the State's bail laws. I commend the Attorney General and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr KEVIN ANDERSON (Tamworth) [4.35 p.m.]: I support the Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. Some minor amendments have been made since the bill was introduced in late April and early May 2013. This is a substantial step in helping communities address law and order issues. The issue of bail has been raised with me regularly, which has highlighted the need for changes to the application of bail. The new Bail 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26813

Act will include what will be called an unacceptable risk test, which can be the primary tool for decision-making by police bail sergeants or courts when determining whether an alleged offender should be granted bail and on what conditions.

When I spoke to the police about their thoughts on the new Bail Act they said that when a decision as to bail is made, consideration must be given as to whether the accused could endanger or interfere with a victim, evidence or the community, or whether the accused may commit another serious offence or fail to appear in court. This new legislation will put the community, victims and witnesses first. For far too long that has not happened and this legislation will give them an opportunity finally to be at the forefront when a perpetrator is handed a sentence by a magistrate or the judicial system.

If there is an unacceptable risk bail may be withheld. Police and courts can also impose strict bail conditions which police will be able to enforce when they go to check on the bona fides of a particular offender. Previously police could go to a residence to check whether the person was at home as part of his or her bail conditions but they were not required to sight the person. That meant that anyone could answer the door to the police and say that the offender was there. The police did not have the power to check that the person was complying with his or her bail conditions. Under the new legislation police will be able to knock on a door, identify the offender and check to establish whether his or her bail conditions are being adhered to. That is giving the police the powers to do their job and that is what they have been calling for—the resources and the powers to undertake what they do best.

We keep calling for measures to drive down crime and to make our streets safe again. We must ensure that we resource our police with the tools they need to do their jobs. It must be done in conjunction with community support, which we are seeing more and more particularly in the Tamworth electorate. For example, police are attending breakfast meetings with chambers of commerce and other service organisations to talk about safety, personal property protection and so on. These new bail conditions will allow police to do what they do best. The previous Bail Act was amended 85 times in 35 years, including 57 times in the past 16 years. That goes to show that we are living in a changing environment. The world is no longer as it was 10, 15 or 20 years ago. People now do things that were once unthinkable. Some people have no respect for the law or for their parents and there are now generations of people who have never been employed. We are living in a different environment and we must amend our rules and regulations, legislation and Acts to keep pace with what is happening in our communities.

We frown and are bewildered when we see 12- or 13-year-olds out on the street late at night. The other evening I was driving home after attending a showgirl competition in Barraba, which is an hour north of Tamworth. It was a fantastic event. At about 10.45 p.m. as I was driving in suburban Tamworth I saw three young ladies walking down the street. I shook my head and wondered what these people were doing. Where were their parents or carers? Where was someone to support them? Changes to laws and regulations are about personal safety. The discussion about whether we are living in a nanny state is an argument for another day. We must ensure that our rules and regulations suit the environment in which we find ourselves. The new bail laws contained in this bill are a classic example of that.

I commend the Attorney General for his work on this bill. We are never going to please everyone. Some people are saying that these laws are too soft while others are saying that they are too hard. Receiving both of those comments obviously means we are in the middle and we have got the balance right. I know the police have welcomed these changes. In April or early May last year I spoke to officers from the Oxley Local Area Command and canvassed their views on these changes to the Bail Act. They welcomed them because the changes will allow them to do their jobs. I am sure magistrates in Tamworth, Armidale, Gunnedah and across New South Wales who are inundated with petty theft, driving offences, break and enters and so on will also welcome these new conditions. They will be able to make appropriate judgements on bail, given the circumstances with which they are presented at the time the offender is before them.

The community has an expectation that justice will be delivered. When someone commits an offence whilst on bail a cry comes up from the community. If that person has a string of offences as long as one's arm, what was he or she doing out on bail? I receive calls about such matters from members of my community. The police have also commented that it would be great if the Bail Act could be reviewed. We are doing that now. Part of the bill provides that, before making a bail decision, a bail authority is required to consider whether there is an unacceptable risk that the accused will fail to appear for any proceedings, commit another serious offence, or endanger the safety of victims, individuals or the community. A person's background, circumstances and community ties will also be considered. The final consideration is whether the person might interfere with a witness or evidence. Police will continue to have the power to impose conditions of bail on an accused. 26814 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

These new bail laws will allow those applying bail to put the consideration of community members and victims first when determining whether an accused should be granted bail. Those that have been arrested and are fronting the judicial system have done the wrong thing. They must face up to their actions and be prepared to accept whatever the magistrate decides is the appropriate penalty. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DOMINIC PERROTTET (Castle Hill) [4.44 p.m.]: I support the Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013, which has as its objects:

(a) to amend the Bail Act 2013:

(i) to make it clear that a bail authority can decide who is an acceptable person to provide security for the grant of bail (in the same way as the bail authority can decide who is an acceptable person to give a character acknowledgment), and

(ii) to expand the regulation-making powers conferred by the Act, and

(iii) to make other minor changes of a statute law revision nature,

(b) to make amendments to other legislation as a consequence of the enactment of that Act and the repeal of the Bail Act 1978.

This bill comes about as a result of the passing of the Bail Bill 2013. Before the last election the Government committed to conduct a review of bail in New South Wales. In accordance with that commitment the Government provided the Law Reform Commission with wide-ranging terms of reference for the review so that it could take a fundamental look at our bail laws. As the member for Tamworth said, since its introduction the Bail Act 1978 was amended more than 80 times. The Law Reform Commission made a number of recommendations proposing a significant overhaul of bail laws, including the drafting of a new plain English bail Act.

As I said, the Bail Act 2013 was assented to in May last year and will come into operation in May this year. A major amendment contained in the 2013 Act is a move away from the complex scheme of offence-based presumptions wherein certain offences created presumptions in favour of bail, other offences created presumptions against bail and for other offences no presumptions applied. That scheme will be replaced with the unacceptable risk test, which is a much less complex system. The unacceptable risk test is a simple test that will be used as the bail decision-making tool for police and the courts.

A number of other pieces of legislation provide for the making of a bail decision. The Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 will amend these other Acts to apply the Bail Act 2013 unacceptable risk test to them as well. Under the new scheme, courts will have to consider whether there is an unacceptable risk that the accused, if released, will fail to appear in court when required, commit a serious offence, endanger the safety of the community, or interfere with witnesses or evidence. The mandatory factors set out in section 17 of the new Bail Act must also be considered. These factors include the seriousness of the alleged offence and the accused's background and circumstances. These factors reflect the need to consider both the protection of the community and the rights of the accused person.

If a bail authority is satisfied that there is no unacceptable risk it can release the person without bail, dispense with bail or grant unconditional bail. If, however, the bail authority is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk it can either grant or refuse bail. In deciding between these alternatives the bail authority must determine whether or not the unacceptable risk or risks identified can be sufficiently mitigated by the imposition of bail conditions. If bail conditions can significantly mitigate the risk conditional bail will be granted. However, if conditions cannot sufficiently mitigate the risk bail will be refused. This is a much simpler scheme and it will give greater certainty. It was followed up by the great work of the Attorney General in response to the commitment the then Opposition made prior to coming to office.

As I said, the bill amends other legislation—indeed, up to 30 Acts—as a result of the enactment of the Bail Act 2013. This bill will update those Acts to facilitate a smooth transition to the new bail legislation when it comes into effect in May this year. I will briefly highlight some of the Acts that will be amended. The bill contains amendments to the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 and the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to preserve the power of courts to adjourn sentence proceedings and impose bail on persons for the purpose of assessing their capacity and prospects of rehabilitation and allowing them to demonstrate that rehabilitation has taken place. The bill also amends a number of legislative provisions that are not strictly 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26815

associated with criminal proceedings. For example, the bill remakes provisions that facilitate the making of a bail decision for people brought before the court by an authorised officer under the Local Government Act 1993, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Water Management Act 2000.

The bill also remakes provisions in the Coroners Act 2009, the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and the Local Court Act 2007 so that proceedings following execution of a warrant are deemed to be proceedings for an offence and bail can be determined. The reforms in the bill will ensure that courts retain their existing powers to determine bail in a variety of proceedings under the new bail regime. I note that the amendments contained in the bill have been settled in close consultation with the courts and the police to ensure a smooth transition to the new Act upon its commencement. In conclusion, I commend the great work of the Attorney General, not only in bringing the bill to the House but also his work relating to the amendments to bail in New South Wales. He has introduced to the State a much simpler, less complex system. I commend the work of the Attorney General, and I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JOHN FLOWERS (Rockdale) [4.51 p.m.]: I make a contribution to debate on the Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. The objects of the bill are to amend the Bail Act 2013 for various purposes. This includes clarifying that a bail authority can decide who is an acceptable person to provide security for the grant of bail, in the same way as the bail authority can decide who is an acceptable person to give a character acknowledgement. The bill also expands the regulation-making powers conferred by the Act. Lastly, the bill makes other minor changes of a statute law revision nature.

The Government's new Bail Act 2013 was passed by Parliament on 22 May 2013 and received assent on 27 May 2013. The Government intends the new Act to commence operation 12 months after its passage by Parliament, in May 2014. The process of implementing the new legislation and preparing for its commencement is currently underway. As a result of that activity, some minor drafting issues with the new legislation have been identified, including the need to update references in other legislation, and this bill addresses those issues. Prior to the 2011 election the Government made a commitment to review the New South Wales bail laws. In June 2011 the Attorney General asked the New South Wales Law Reform Commission to undertake that review.

The Government provided the Law Reform Commission with wide-ranging terms of reference for the review so that it could take a fundamental look at the bail laws. The commission's report on the review was tabled in both Houses of Parliament on 13 June 2012. The commission made a number of recommendations proposing a significant overhaul of the bail laws, including the drafting of a new plain English Bail Act. References to the Bail Act are contained in up to 30 other Acts. This bill is needed to update those other Acts to facilitate a smooth transition to the new bail legislation. Many of the Acts that require amendment relate to aspects of the criminal justice system, such as the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001.

For example, the bill contains amendments to the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 and the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to preserve the powers of courts to adjourn sentence proceedings and impose bail on persons for the purpose of assessing their capacity and prospects of rehabilitation and allowing them to demonstrate that rehabilitation has taken place. The bill also amends a number of legislative provisions that are not strictly associated with criminal proceedings. For example, the bill remakes provisions that facilitate the making of a bail decision for people brought before the court by an authorised officer under the Local Government Act 1993, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Water Management Act 2000. It also remakes provisions in the Coroners Act 2009, the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and the Local Court Act 2007 so that proceedings following execution of a warrant are deemed to be proceedings for an offence and bail can be determined.

The Bail Act 2013 incorporates a simple unacceptable risk test as the bail decision-making tool for police and the courts. A number of other Acts provide for the making of a bail decision. The Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 will amend these other Acts to apply the new Bail Act's unacceptable risk test to them as well. In applying the unacceptable risk test to these proceedings, courts will be required, first, to assess whether an accused person presents an unacceptable risk to the community or the criminal justice system. In particular, they will need to consider whether there is an unacceptable risk that the accused, if released, will fail to appear in court when required, commit a serious offence, endanger the safety of the community or interfere with witnesses or evidence.

The mandatory factors set out in section 17 of the new Bail Act must also be considered, such as the seriousness of the alleged offence and the accused's background and circumstances. These factors reflect the 26816 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

need to consider both the protection of the community and the rights of the accused person. If a bail authority is satisfied that there is no unacceptable risk, it can either release the person without bail, dispense with bail or grant unconditional bail. However, if the bail authority is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk it can either grant or refuse bail. In deciding between these alternatives the bail authority must determine whether the unacceptable risk or risks identified can be sufficiently mitigated by the imposition of bail conditions. If bail conditions can sufficiently mitigate the risk, conditional bail will be granted. However, if conditions cannot sufficiently mitigate the risk, bail will be refused. I commend the bill to the House.

Mrs LESLIE WILLIAMS (Port Macquarie) [4.59 p.m.]: I am pleased to express my support for the Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. I note the presence in the House of the Attorney General. I congratulate him on this bill and legislation that preceded it which will improve our criminal justice system. The lead-up to this bill preceded the 2011 election. The Government made a commitment to review New South Wales bail laws. Not surprisingly, the Government adhered to its commitment, as it normally does, and is getting on with the job of delivering on that commitment.

Mr Ryan Park: Sixty per cent of the time.

Mrs LESLIE WILLIAMS: I anticipated an interjection from an Opposition member. I thank the member for Keira.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I remind the member for Keira that he is on three calls to order.

Mrs LESLIE WILLIAMS: The Attorney General requested the Law Reform Commission to undertake a review of the Bail Act. The commission's report was tabled in both Houses in June 2012. A number of the review's recommendations signalled a need to make some major changes to the Act. The recommendations were reflected in the Bail Act 2013, which was passed by Parliament last year. As highlighted by members who preceded me in this debate, one of the key aspects of the Bail Act 2013 is the "unacceptable risk" test, which is used by the police and the courts as a decision-making tool when considering applications for bail. The key to the test is an assessment of an accused person as someone who poses an unacceptable risk to the community or to the criminal justice system. When assessing risk, consideration must be given to whether the applicant, if granted bail, would appear in court when required, whether the applicant is likely to commit an offence when on bail, whether the applicant would interfere with witnesses or evidence and, importantly, whether the applicant would endanger the safety of the community.

Other factors to consider in relation to an application for bail are the seriousness of the offence as well as the background of the accused and particular circumstances of his or her case. I believe the community expects that nothing less than those factors will be given weight when applications for bail are considered. The community wants to be assured that the safety of every person in the community will be at the forefront of decision-making relating to granting or refusing bail. As I stated earlier, I commend the Attorney General for his work on major changes that will be incorporated into the Bail Act 2013. As mentioned earlier, significant changes to major legislation often result in minor amendments related to drafting issues. The Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 seeks to address some minor anomalies. The Bail Act is referred to in many other pieces of legislation. This bill is necessary to update all related Acts and to ensure that there is a smooth transition to the implementation of the new bail legislation.

The bill will amend the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 and the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The amendments relating to those Acts preserve the powers of the court for the purpose of adjourning sentencing procedures and imposing bail on a person so that their capacity and their prospects of rehabilitation can be assessed. Other amendments included in the bill relate to minor changes to the Local Government Act 1993, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Water Management Act 2000. Those amendments relate to facilitating decision-making on bail applications submitted by people who are brought before the court by an authorised officer. Other amendments in the bill relating to the Coroners Act 2009, the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and the Local Court Act 2007 concern proceedings following execution of a warrant. As I stated previously, the Government has demonstrated through the introduction of this bill and the Bail Act 2013 that it is serious about listening to the community, meeting community expectations and delivering common sense changes that have been welcomed by all stakeholders, including people involved in the criminal justice system and, importantly, members of local communities. I am pleased to join with other members to commend this bill to the House. 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26817

Mrs ROZA SAGE (Blue Mountains) [5.05 p.m.]: I am very pleased to take this opportunity to support the Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. Recently we have heard through frequent media reports about perpetrators or accused people who have committed terrible crimes and have been let off. Prior to the 2011 State election, the Government committed to reviewing New South Wales bail laws. This bill is the culmination of the Government's responses to community expectation that perpetrators of terrible crimes will be remanded in custody rather than being granted bail. In June 2011 the Attorney General requested the New South Wales Law Reform Commission to undertake a review of bail legislation. The Government provided the Law Reform Commission with very wide-ranging terms of reference for the review so that the commission could examine fundamental issues relating to New South Wales bail laws. No stone would be left unturned.

The commission's report on the review was tabled in both Houses of Parliament on 13 June 2012. The commission made a number of recommendations proposing quite a significant overhaul of bail laws, including the drafting of a new plain English bail Act. Acts often are couched in terms that are difficult for non-legal persons, such as me, to understand. The Government's new Bail Act 2013 was passed by Parliament in May last year and is expected to commence operation in May 2014. The new Act will implement the Government's risk management model for bail decisions by way of an unacceptable risk test. I have heard from police officers that too often accused persons, whom they considered posed a risk of reoffending or not appearing in court, have been granted bail.

The process of implementing the new legislation and preparing for its commencement already has begun and some minor drafting issues have been deemed to warrant amendment. This bill will amend the Act to clarify those issues so that the purpose of the new legislation will be crystal clear. The bill also makes a number of consequential amendments to other Acts. Those amendments are necessary to reflect the passing of the new Bail Act. The amendments in the bill have been settled in close consultation with the courts and the police. Extensive consultation has been undertaken to ensure that there will be a smooth transition to implementation of the new legislation upon commencement of the Act.

Many of the Acts that require amendment relate to aspects of the criminal justice system, such as the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. For example, the bill contains amendments to the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 and the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to preserve the power of courts to adjourn sentence proceedings and to impose bail on a person for the purpose of assessing their capacity and prospects of rehabilitation and allowing them to demonstrate that rehabilitation has taken place. That is important in many aspects of law, and hopefully rehabilitation can be achieved by offenders coming to see the error of their ways.

The bill also amends a number of legislative provisions that are not strictly associated with criminal proceedings. For example, the bill remakes provisions that facilitate the making of a bail decision for people brought before the court by an authorised officer under the Local Government Act 1993, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Water Management Act 2000. The bill also remakes provisions in the Coroners Act 2009, the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and the Local Court Act 2007 so that proceedings following execution of a warrant are deemed to be proceedings for an offence and bail can be determined. The reforms contained in the bill will ensure that courts retain their existing powers to determine bail in a variety of proceedings under the new bail regime.

The Government's Bail Act 2013 incorporates a simple unacceptable risk test as a bail decision-making tool for police and courts, something that is extremely welcome in the law enforcement fraternity. A number of other pieces of legislation provide for the making of a bail decision. The Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 will amend these other Acts to apply the new Bail Act's unacceptable risk test to them as well. In applying the unacceptable risk test to these proceedings, courts will be required to first assess whether an accused person presents an unacceptable risk to the community or the criminal justice system. People in the community have said they do not want people who are a risk to be let loose in the community wreaking havoc. They want to be confident in the justice system that those people who present a risk will be kept locked up and not allowed to run amok in the community.

In particular, they will need to consider whether there is an unacceptable risk that the accused, if released, will fail to appear in court when required; commit a serious offence; endanger the safety of the community; or, importantly, interfere with witnesses or evidence. The mandatory factors set out in section 17 of the new Bail Act must also be considered, such as the seriousness of the alleged offence and the accused's background and circumstances. The fact of serious alleged offenders being allowed in the community has been brought to the fore in the media in the past few months. Those factors reflect the need to consider both the protection of the community and the rights of the accused person. 26818 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

If a bail authority is satisfied that there is no unacceptable risk, then it can release the person without bail, dispense with bail or grant unconditional bail. If, however, the bail authority is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk, then it can either grant or refuse bail. In deciding between those alternatives, the bail authority must determine whether the unacceptable risk or risks identified can be sufficiently mitigated by the imposition of bail conditions. If bail conditions can sufficiently mitigate the risk then conditional bail will be granted. Common sense will prevail amongst the judiciary in relation to bail. However, if conditions cannot sufficiently mitigate the risk, bail will be refused. I am sure that this bill will give certainty to the community about how justice is dispensed in our courts and the community will have confidence in what will happen when serious offenders are granted bail. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr GARRY EDWARDS (Swansea) [5.14 p.m.]: I congratulate the newly appointed Government Whip and Deputy Government Whip on the way in which matters have flowed through the House in the past 30-odd hours in a seamless manner. I support the Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. Prior to the 2011 election, the Government made a commitment to review the bail laws in New South Wales. In June 2011 the Attorney General asked the New South Wales Law Reform Commission to undertake this review. The Government provided the Law Reform Commission with wide-ranging terms of reference for the review so that it could take a fundamental look at New South Wales bail laws.

The commission's report on the review was tabled in both Houses of Parliament on 13 June 2012. The commission made a number of recommendations proposing a significant overhaul of bail laws, including the drafting of a new plain English bail Act. The Government's new Bail Act 2013 was passed by Parliament in May last year and is expected to commence operation in May of this year. The new Act implements the Government's risk management model for bail decisions by way of an unacceptable risk test. The process of implementing the new legislation and preparing for its commencement is underway. As a result of that activity some minor drafting issues with the new legislation have been identified and this bill will make amendments to the Act to clarify those issues.

The bill also makes a number of consequential amendments to other Acts, which are needed to reflect the passage of the new Bail Act. The amendments contained in the bill have been settled in close consultation with courts and police so as to ensure a smooth transition to the new Act upon its commencement. The Bail Act is referred to in up to 30 other pieces of legislation. This bill is needed to update those other Acts to facilitate a smooth transition to the new bail legislation. Many of the Acts which require amendment relate to aspects of the criminal justice system, such as the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. For example, the bill contains amendments to the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 and the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to preserve the powers of courts to adjourn sentence proceedings and impose bail on a person for the purpose of assessing their capacity and prospects of rehabilitation and allowing them to demonstrate that rehabilitation has taken place.

The bill also amends a number of legislative provisions that are not strictly associated with criminal proceedings. For example, the bill remakes provisions that facilitate the making of a bail decision for people brought before the court by an authorised officer under the Local Government Act 1993, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Water Management Act 2000. The bill also remakes provisions in the Coroners Act 2009, the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and the Local Court Act 2007 so that proceedings following execution of a warrant are deemed to be proceedings for an offence and bail can be determined. The reforms contained in the bill will ensure that courts retain their existing powers to determine bail in a variety of proceedings under the new bail regime. The Government's Bail Act 2013 incorporates a simple unacceptable risk test as the bail decision-making tool for police and the courts.

A number of other pieces of legislation provide for the making of a bail decision. The Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 will amend these other Acts to apply the new Bail Act's unacceptable risk test to them as well. In applying the unacceptable risk test to these proceedings, courts will be required to first assess whether an accused person presents an unacceptable risk to the community or the criminal justice system. In particular, they will need to consider whether there is an unacceptable risk that the accused, if released, will fail to appear in court when required, commit a serious offence, endanger the safety of the community, or interfere with witnesses or evidence.

The mandatory factors set out in section 17 of the new Bail Act must also be considered, such as the seriousness of the alleged offence and the accused's background and circumstances. These factors reflect the need to consider the protection of the community and the need to consider the rights of the accused person. If a bail authority is satisfied that there is no unacceptable risk, it can release the person without bail, dispense with 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26819

bail or grant unconditional bail. If, however, the bail authority is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk it can either grant or refuse bail. In deciding between these alternatives, the bail authority must determine whether or not the unacceptable risk or risks identified can be sufficiently mitigated by the imposition of bail conditions. If bail conditions can sufficiently mitigate the risk, conditional bail will be granted. However, if conditions cannot sufficiently mitigate the risk, bail will be refused. For the second time today, I congratulate the Attorney General on his foresight, his initiative and his extremely hard work in bringing this bill before the House, and in so saying I commend the bill to the House.

Mr ANDREW CORNWELL (Charlestown) [5.21 p.m.]: I support the Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 and make a few brief observations. The bill amends the Bail Act 2013 for various purposes, including clarifying that a bail authority can decide who is an acceptable person to provide security for the grant of bail, in the same way as the bail authority can decide who is an acceptable person to give a character acknowledgement. The bill also expands the regulation-making powers conferred by the Act. Finally, the bill makes other minor changes of a statute law revision nature.

By way of background, the Government's new Bail Act was passed by Parliament on 22 May 2013 and received assent on 27 May 2013. The Government intends for the new Act to commence operation 12 months after its passage by Parliament, at some time in May 2014. The process of implementing the new legislation and preparing for its commencement is currently underway. As a result of that activity, some minor drafting issues with the new legislation have been identified, including the need to update references in other legislation, and this bill addresses those issues. I will outline some of the provisions that do this. Clause 1 sets out the name of the proposed Act. Clause 2 provides for the commencement of the proposed Act on a day or days to be appointed by proclamation.

Schedule 1 [1] and [2] make it clear that a bail authority, or an officer or court to whom a bail acknowledgement is given, has power to decide which person or persons, or class or description of persons, is an acceptable person to enter into a bail security agreement. A bail security agreement is an agreement under which a person agrees to forfeit a specified amount of money if a person granted bail fails to appear before a court in accordance with his or her bail acknowledgement. The amendments ensure that the power of a bail authority to decide who is an acceptable person to provide bail security mirrors the power to decide who is an acceptable person to give a character acknowledgement. This is consistent with current practice under the Bail Act 1978.

Schedule 1 [3] corrects a reference to an offence. Schedule 1 [4] makes it clear that it is not necessary for a prosecutor to make a detention application to a court, that is, an application for the refusal or revocation of bail in respect of a person, in order to oppose a release application, that is, an application for the grant of bail, made by the accused person. Schedule 1 [5] amends a provision that lists the powers of the Local Court and authorised justices to hear bail applications, to make it clear that an authorised justice has power to hear a variation application in relation to bail conditions imposed by a court if the bail conditions are reviewable by a justice, as contemplated by section 52 of the Bail Act 2013.

Schedule 1 [6] permits a court to put in place a process that ensures that consideration is given to the return of bail money if an accused person is convicted or acquitted of an offence. This replaces a requirement that the court itself give consideration to the return of bail money when an accused person is convicted or acquitted of an offence. Accordingly, the amendment will permit a court to deal with the matter by referring it to a registrar or other court officer for consideration. Schedule 1 [7] permits the regulations to make further provision for the return of bail money and bail security. Schedule 1 [8] permits the regulations to make provision for the forms to be used for the purposes of the Bail Act 2013.

Schedule 2 amends the Acts specified in that schedule as a consequence of the enactment of the Bail Act 2013 and the repeal of the Bail Act 1978. The amendments continue the existing practice of permitting a bail decision to be made in respect of certain persons who are taken into State custody and are not charged with an offence—for example, a witness who fails to appear in proceedings before a court or a coroner, or a person who fails to provide a name and address to an enforcement officer. In such a case, the Bail Act 2013 will apply to the person in custody as if the person were accused of an offence. The amendments also make it clear who is permitted to make a bail decision in such cases and otherwise modify the operation of the Bail Act 2013 to accommodate a non-offence situation, as contemplated by clause 2 of schedule 1 to the Act.

The Evidence Act 1995 states that that Act applies to proceedings relating to bail. An amendment to that Act makes it clear that the application of that Act is subject to certain provisions of the Bail Act that require 26820 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

bail decisions to be made having regard to any credible or trustworthy evidence or information, and for decisions to be made on the balance of probabilities. An amendment to the Intoxicated Persons (Sobering Up Centres Trial) Act 2013 makes it clear that a police officer is not required to make a bail decision in respect of an intoxicated person while the person is detained under that Act. The other amendments in schedule 2 update references to the Bail Act 1978 and to specific provisions of, or terminology used in, that Act to reflect the appropriate provisions and terminology of the Bail Act 2013. The bill does make some amendments to the previous Act and it highlights the importance of bail as a tool in the justice system.

It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the role that the hardworking police of New South Wales have to play in this. A bail check is a very effective policing tool and it is something that certainly the Lake Macquarie Local Area Command has found difficult to do because for many years it has been underresourced. I commend the police Minister for providing additional resources since March 2011 to the Lake Macquarie area command. We have received in excess of an additional 30 officers, and this has made a big difference. Prior to that the numbers were such that policing was very reactive; proactive policing was much more difficult.

It also would be remiss of me not to acknowledge our fabulous local area commander, Brett Greentree, and to pay tribute to the outgoing area commander, Craig Rae, who has taken up a post at Port Stephens Local Area Command. Both men have done a wonderful job for the people of Lake Macquarie and I have the highest regard for them. Having such strong leadership of our local police makes a tremendous difference and I know that every officer within the commands, no matter their rank, holds both men in the highest regard. They run fantastic teams and I congratulate both of them.

It would be remiss of me also not to acknowledge the changes to mandatory sentencing. As I said in my contribution to the take-note debate on 30 January 2014, we introduced that legislation with a heavy heart. It is a sad day and a sad indictment on our community that such strong action is necessary to bring about cultural change. Nevertheless, it is the right thing to do. I wholeheartedly support the legislation but I, and I think most other members in this place, will do so with a heavy heart because it is a sad indictment on our community. I take great pleasure in supporting these amendments to the Bail Act. I commend the Attorney General, who is in the Chamber, not only for his role in developing the Bail Act and what is long-overdue reform but also for his enormous contribution to law and justice in New South Wales. Those changes will be a lasting legacy for the people of New South Wales and will ensure that we can live in a safer community for many decades to come. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr RON HOENIG (Heffron) [5.31 p.m.]: I make a brief contribution to debate on the Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. I commend the Attorney General for the thorough way in which he has approached amendment of the Bail Act, using recommendations from the Law Reform Commission to correct any drafting errors or making other changes to ensure that when the Act comes into operation it works efficiently. The need to amend existing legislation highlights the complexities involved and the importance of Parliament getting the legislation right. It is not easy to do—in fact, it is quite difficult. The law has evolved over hundreds of years, largely through trial and error. When the Legislature interferes it is often a knee-jerk reaction in response to some media criticism, and when that occurs the legislation may not be right.

I may hold a different philosophical position from the Attorney General on legislation enacted last year and I may have proceeded down a different path. It is one thing for the Government and the Opposition to be philosophically opposed; it is another for the Government to rush through legislation to give effect to a political objective and thereby intrude upon a system of justice that has been developed over a long period. One must compare the careful approach taken by the Government of the day and the Attorney General to the bail legislation with the legislation introduced when Parliament was recalled on 30 January 2014. That is a clear example of what can happen when a political objective gets in the way of proper law reform, irrespective of one's philosophical position. Indeed, it highlights a point I made in my inaugural speech when I said that this House should be cautious in seeking to intrude upon the criminal justice system. It should be done only after consultation with the Law Reform Commission, the judiciary, the Bar Association, the Law Society and various other stakeholder groups otherwise that intrusion can cause injustice that may have an impact on individuals.

Justice should be available to all people in a democracy, not just to the overwhelming majority. It is the democratic right of this Parliament to legislate but we should be cautious when proceeding down that path. The purpose of bail is to ensure the attendance before the court of accused persons who have been charged. There are other consequential provisions where bail applies, but that is its principal purpose. Fundamental to our Westminster system of democracy is a presumption in favour of innocence. However, other considerations are necessary to ensure that justice is done. For example, while a case is proceeding it is a fundamental principle 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26821

that the Executive ensures witnesses are not threatened or intimidated; that they and the community are protected. It is vital for us all to understand the presumption of innocence and the purpose of bail. Until someone is convicted of a criminal offence that person's liberty should not be removed, except in exceptional circumstances.

There have been instances over the years where bail has been refused—although it is rare these days— in cases of intimidation or for other reasons. On other occasions people have been granted bail when it should have been refused because evidence to support the refusal of bail was not put before the court. On some occasions the government of the day was criticised over failures of the Bail Act, prompting Parliament to make changes contrary to the fundamental premise of bail—that is, ensuring an accused's attendance at court. The Bail Act introduced in 1978 was a good piece of legislation in that it provided for various presumptions. There was a presumption in favour of bail if people were charged with an offence that did not carry the penalty of imprisonment and for a variety of other offences, but there was a presumption against bail for very serious offences or if somebody did not appear on bail. There were also requirements to establish community ties.

Over the years—and all governments did this, usually in response to popular press or broadcast media campaigns—the Legislature interfered and changed the Bail Act until nobody really knew what was in it. There was interference with the presumption of innocence as the premise of our justice system. I commend the Attorney General's approach in ensuring that the original legislation was carefully considered before its implementation, that the views of the Law Reform Commission were sought, considered and respected, and that the advice received a couple of weeks ago by the Criminal Law Review Division of the Attorney General's Department was not subject to attack. I say to the Government, and particularly to the Attorney General—who, I am sure, probably agrees—that sometimes the Government feels pressured to do something to avoid popular criticism or tries to be popular in response to some criticism. Even though the Government's views may be contrary to mine and philosophically different from those of the Opposition, the Government should examine its legislation, seek advice and make sure as best it can that the legislation is right. For that reason, the Opposition does not oppose this bill.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping—Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [5.40 p.m.], in reply: I thank members representing the electorates of Liverpool, Tweed, Myall Lakes, Orange, East Hills, Drummoyne, Tamworth, Castle Hill, Rockdale, Port Macquarie, Blue Mountains, Swansea, Charlestown and Heffron for their contributions to debate on the Bail (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. I shall address some issues that have been raised during the debate or which flow from the amendments. First, I thank the member for Heffron for praising the careful work on the Bail Act. I assure him that it was not without pain. He contrasted that with the urgency of, let us say, the alcohol-related legislation that passed through Parliament recently and other legislation introduced today. He conceded that sometimes urgent situations arise requiring such action. I had no doubt about addressing the urgent matter of young people getting killed or being seriously injured because the public were frazzled and frustrated to despair. The previous Government rushed the introduction of criminal organisations law in April 2008. We were given 20 minutes to prepare a response to that legislation. It was passed by Parliament the same day, but then required amending a couple of months later. The matter was urgent yet its application took 18 months.

We have had to do the same thing in this instance because the High Court ruled that certain provisions were constitutionally invalid. In fact, the High Court said the whole Act was invalid. As a result of further challenges we have had to amend the legislation further. Regarding its application, dare I say, "Watch this space?" I was not in this place at the time of the Cronulla riots when Parliament was reconvened. Special laws were passed by the previous Government, supported by the then Opposition, giving police extraordinary powers to search people without reasonable suspicion if those persons were in a proclaimed area. One of those proclaimed areas covered about half of metropolitan Sydney. I do not know whether the riot law has been used since. These things happen and sometimes an urgent situation arises. Putting into context the amendments in this legislation, section 26 of the Bail Act 2013 in part states:

(1) A bail condition can require security to be provided for compliance with a bail acknowledgment.

(2) For that purpose, a bail condition can include the following requirements:

(a) that the accused person, or one or more other persons, or both, enter into an agreement under which the person agrees to forfeit a specified amount of money if the person granted bail fails to appear before a court in accordance with his or her bail acknowledgment …

The amendment inserts after the words "one or more other" and before "persons" the word "acceptable". Bail security must be provided by an acceptable person. A straw person, someone with no fixed abode, an 26822 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

undischarged bankrupt or a person with no money whatsoever and who does not usually live in the country would not be an acceptable person for the purpose of agreeing to forfeit a specified amount of money because one would not expect to get the money from such a person. Years ago when I was involved in cases in the court of estreats well over $100,000 was forfeited to the Crown when a major drug importer fled the country after being given bail. People with assets had put up the money as bail surety but then lost it because they did not make sure the accused person appeared to answer the charges. The famous case of Bennion and others involved major drug importers. A solicitor was charged with perverting the course of justice because the Crown alleged he had improperly organised for people to put up guarantees as bail sureties while the defendants absconded overseas. A large amount of money was involved in that case also. It is important that the bail surety is an acceptable person. Section 26 (2) (c) states:

… that acceptable security be deposited with the bail authority as security for the payment of the money agreed to be forfeited under such an agreement.

In some cases when the stakes are high—for instance, the profits from drugs are enormous—people put up deeds of houses and sometimes they are forfeited. I know of a case where a drug trafficker had his parents put up the deeds of their family home as security only to lose it and be left homeless when he absconded. These sorts of matters arise in respect of providing bail security. Section 26 (4) states:

(4) A decision as to whether security is acceptable security for the purposes of a security requirement is to be made by:

(a) the bail authority imposing the bail condition, or

(b) the officer or court to whom the bail acknowledgment is given (if no decision has been made under paragraph (a)).

The amendment omits "whether" before "security" and inserts other words so that new section 26 (4) states:

A decision as to which person, or persons or class or description of persons, is an acceptable person and what security is acceptable security …

The amendment makes the requirement clearer and covers classes of persons. A class of persons who are convicted drug offenders cannot put up acceptable security to guarantee the attendance of someone. Therefore, we would declare that we would not accept money from that type of person. The amendment to section 33, Bail acknowledgement to be given on grant of bail, states:

Omit "for the offence for which bail is granted" from section 33 (4) (a).

Insert instead "for that offence".

Section 33 (2) states:

A bail acknowledgment is a written notice that:

(a) requires the accused person to appear before a court, on such day and at such time and place as are from time to time specified in a notice given or sent to the person as prescribed by the regulations, and

(b) requires the accused person to notify the court before which the accused person is required to appear of any change in the person’s residential address.

There is a note to that subsection, which states:

Note. An accused person is not entitled to be released on bail under Part 2 until he or she signs the bail acknowledgment and gives it to the bail authority.

Subsection (3) states:

(3) An accused person who is granted bail is under a duty to comply with the requirements of the bail acknowledgment.

Subsection (4) is amended to state:

(4) The bail acknowledgment must also:

(a) warn the person that committing an offence while on bail could result in a more severe penalty being imposed on conviction for the offence for which bail is granted …

26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26823

The bill removes the words "for the offence for which bail is granted" and inserts the words "for that offence is". That is a sensible amendment. There was some discussion during the second reading debate about the changes to the Bail Act. I agree with the member for Heffron that the original 1978 Act was a very good piece of legislation. It cleared up a lot of common law problems and gaps, and was prompted by the escape or absconding on bail of a man named Phillip Weston. There was an inquiry as to whether full material had been given to the court in the bail application because someone was shot after he absconded—he was a very dangerous man. The Bail Act was introduced with many conditions, but over the years it became bogged down unnecessarily by presumption after presumption.

A sensible decision was made under the old Bail Act—in fact, one would think the new Bail Act applied—by Justice Garling in the case of Scott Orrock, who was alleged to be the leader of an outlaw motorcycle gang. In 2012 Mr Orrock was arrested by police and charged with six offences, one being that he intentionally damaged by means of fire a 2009 Ford Ranger police vehicle. Officers had parked the police vehicle outside Mr Orrock's tattoo parlour and gone in to question him. Certain charges were laid in relation to intimidating police. Mr Orrock was refused bail initially but subsequently granted bail by a magistrate. Justice Garling, in an erudite judgement, ultimately refused bail, saying that the judgement was not a criticism of the magistrate nor an appeal from the magistrate's decision but a review of bail. Justice Garling spoke about the Bail Act in detail. In the judgement NSW Director of Public Prosecutions v Scott Allan Orrock [2012] NSWSC 459 at paragraph 44, Justice Garling set out details of presumptions. He states:

Presumption about Bail

44. The offences with which Mr Orrock is charged, are not offences for which there is a presumption in favour of bail: see s 9 Bail Act. Nor are they offences for which there is a presumption against bail: see ss 8A - 8F (inclusive) Bail Act. In common parlance, there is a "neutral" presumption.

Justice Garling then looked at questions noted in the new Bail Act, such as the risk of the offender answering bail. He refers to section 32 (1) (a) of the Bail Act 2013 and the probability of Mr Orrock answering his bail and appearing in court with respect to the offences. It remains a section in the current Bail Act but does not dominate as much as the presumptions for bail. Section 32 (1) (a) of the Bail Act 2013 speaks of probability. In paragraph 54 Justice Garling states:

Probability of whether Mr Orrock will appear in Court in respect of the offences: s 32 (1) (a) Bail Act

54. This is the first of the criteria which the Court is required to take into consideration in determining whether there should be a grant of bail. However, the Court is not at large as to what it can consider in relation to the probability of whether or not Mr Orrock will appear in Court.

55. As the legislation set out in [19] above demonstrates, the only matters in this review to which the Court is entitled to have regard are:

(a) Mr Orrock's background and community ties as indicated by the history and details of his residence, employment and family situation, together with his prior criminal record; and

(b) The circumstances of the offence, including its nature and seriousness, the strength of the case against Mr Orrock and the severity of the penalty or probable penalty.

Those comments by Justice Garling can still be taken into account. The protection of the community and the concern that Mr Orrock might commit further offences of this sort, including offences of intimidating police that he was charged with, were matters to be taken into account when deciding whether to grant bail. Mr Orrock had a lengthy criminal record. In paragraph 86 Justice Garling considers the protection and welfare of the community—that is, section 32 (1) (c) of the Bail Act. The subsection requires the court to be satisfied that Mr Orrock is likely to commit one or more serious offences. That likelihood, together with the likely consequences, outweighs a person's general right to be at liberty. In the new Act the likelihood of further crime is a more important aspect to consider. Justice Garling's statement is relevant to current considerations as well. We must remember that he is looking at a neutral presumption. In his judgement Justice Garling said:

88. Neither party pointed to any authority as to what the word "likely" in the context of "likely to commit" one or more serious offences, meant. It seems to me that in this context, "likely" means probable. That is to say, something more than a mere possibility and something less than a certainty.

89. It further seems to me that in considering this subsection, a court needs to be satisfied that there has been identified a serious offence of a kind or type which it is likely that the applicant for bail will commit. I do not mean that it is necessary for there to be identified for the Court with precision the identity of an offence, its timing, place and any other particulars relating to it. But there seems to me, having regard to the terms of s 32 (1) (c) (iv) to be a need for there to be identified the nature or type of the serious offence, which it is said the applicant is likely to commit.

26824 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

90. There is no definition of "serious offence" in the Act. Again, some assistance with determining the meaning of that expression is to be found in subsection (2) where, together with the likely consequences of such an offence, the Court must consider whether the person's general right to liberty is outweighed. Clearly, the serious offence is not a trivial one. However, depending on the circumstances, an offence that carried a maximum of 12 months imprisonment, or perhaps, even five years imprisonment, may not fall within the definition. Very much will depend upon the nature of the offence, the identity or identities of any specific victim, or class of persons in which such a victim falls, and since one is considering the broad proposition of protection of the community, what consequences such an offence may have for the community.

I have made it clear that the new Act repeats that reasoning and places greater priority on the danger of not attending, interfering with witnesses and committing further offences than does the old Act, where presumptions are given too much emphasis. This bill makes minor amendments to the Bail Act 2013. It amends various other pieces of the legislation to ensure a smooth transition of the Act when it commences operation. The Government made a commitment to simplify bail laws in New South Wales and the bill represents another step in implementing that commitment. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Motion by Mr Greg Smith agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

The ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Andrew Fraser): Order! Government business having concluded and pursuant to resolution, the House will now proceed with private members' statements.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS ______

JAMM AND SLAMM 2014 WHEELCHAIR BASKETBALL CHALLENGE

Mr BRYAN DOYLE (Campbelltown) [6.00 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to share with the House the Jamm and Slamm 2014 wheelchair basketball challenge, which is run by Macarthur Disability Services [MDS], whose motto is "Defying Boundaries". Macarthur Disability Services raised an amazing $15,000 through the Jamm and Slamm competition for the Macarthur Disability Services school wheelchair basketball program. I am pleased to say that I fielded an all-star team, including Steve Kuper, Daniel Aquilina, Josh Whicker, Jacob Fulop, James Hay, and John Skandalis, the legendary West Tigers 2005 grand final stalwart, who is an all-round good bloke. We lost two games, won one and drew one. We learnt the rules as we went along. Originally I thought it was a bit like wheelchair rugby. Having come from a competitive family, I always went straight for the ball. After a couple of fouls, I found out that I could not grab hold of the other person's wheelchair to move that person out of the way or wrestle the ball from that person.

Overall, it was a great day and the winner was the team from the Macarthur Advertiser, which covered the story on page one. As I have said previously in the House, this is a great paper from Campbelltown, the opal of the south-west and the best of the Macarthur region. Macarthur Disability Services has operated in the Macarthur area for more than 30 years after it was originally developed in response to the 1981 Year of the Disabled. It has provided support and services for people with a disability, the frail, the aged and their families since that time. It has a dynamic workforce that is able to respond quickly to the changing needs of its clients and it is flexible in its service delivery. Its vision clearly reflects its motto of "Defying Boundaries". Its purpose is to actively promote the rights and aspirations of people with a disability and to enrich their lives and roles in the community through the provision of choice, opportunity and innovative service design.

Macarthur Disability Services aims to become an industry leader in the recognition and development of skilled and professional staff, and also to identify and develop programs and services that ensure it continues to 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26825

be flexible, innovative and responsive to its clients in line with evidence-based practice. On 9 March 2014 I will walk with the Macarthur Disability Services Team Defying Boundaries in the upcoming Campbelltown City Challenge Walk at the Australian Botanic Garden, Mount Annan. Macarthur Disability Services is an amazing organisation that does much to service our community. I have been honoured and privileged to serve in its leadership forward program that has existed for the past three years. People with various levels of disability are put through a leadership program so that they can become better advocates for people with a disability and participate to the fullest in the local community.

More than 16 local companies participated in the corporate Jamm and Slamm challenge, which was held at the Minto sports facility. Each team provided between five and 10 participants, who used the wheelchairs of the Macarthur Disability Services schools wheelchair basketball program. Macarthur Disability Services continues to look after the interests and needs of people with a disability. With the onset of the National Disability Insurance Scheme I am sure it will continue to support the needs of the disabled, the frail, the elderly and their families in the years to come. I strongly support the service and commend it to the House.

SHELLHARBOUR PUBLIC SCHOOL SECURITY

LAKE ILLAWARRA MANAGEMENT PLAN

Ms ANNA WATSON (Shellharbour) [6.05 p.m.]: I draw two issues to the attention of the House this evening. First, the Shellharbour Public School Parents and Citizens Association has approached me, seeking the installation of a security fence for its school. I support the wishes of the Shellharbour Public School community to have a security fence installed. As part of my regular school visits program across my electorate, I have met and discussed this issue with the principal. The Shellharbour Public School is one of the oldest public schools in New South Wales. Although its location is bounded by two busy roads, it is a convenient thoroughfare, which makes the school's facilities and grounds susceptible to vandalism and trespassers.

Only two weeks ago a robbery occurred at the school canteen. The Shellharbour Public School Parents and Citizens Association has been proactive in its call for the installation of a security fence. It has gathered a petition signed by more than 1,000 people and more signatures are still being collected. I congratulate them all on this action and the school's community has my strong support. I have made a representation on behalf of the Shellharbour Public School Parents and Citizens Association to the Minister for Education. After consideration of the issues that I have raised with him, I hope his response will lead to the security fence being installed as a matter of urgency.

I have raised the second matter previously, which is the stalemate over the future management of Lake Illawarra. The New South Wales Government established a review into the Lake Illawarra Authority shortly after it was elected in March 2011. The report was released in June last year after I conducted an extensive campaign of asking many questions in this place and embarrassing the Minister through the media. Despite the finding that the Lake Illawarra Authority had done excellent work in restoring water quality and ensuring public access to the Lake Illawarra foreshore, the New South Wales Government chose to abolish the Lake Illawarra Authority. Instead, it said that it would establish an estuary management committee. The committee is yet to be established.

Regardless of the New South Wales Government being involved in consultations with Wollongong and Shellharbour city councils on the establishment of this committee, they have not led to the establishment of the committee. I am privy to a series of emails from councillors on Wollongong City Council who are asking for the details of meetings and also calling for meetings. The only thing we are sure of is that there is absolute confusion about the replacement to the Lake Illawarra Authority. The committee is similar to the Loch Ness Monster: frequently discussed but seldom seen.

The future of Lake Illawarra will become the care of all but the responsibility of no-one, including those opposite. This is a serious issue. This is precisely what happened nearly a quarter of a century ago when we first established an independent statutory authority with its own capital budget to manage Lake Illawarra. The whole of the Lake Illawarra waterway is contained within my electorate. I do not want to see the lake degraded. Nor do I want to see its management subjected to bureaucratic infighting and confusion and the finger-pointing of members opposite. I call on the Deputy Premier to either establish the so-called estuary management committee immediately or re-establish the Lake Illawarra Authority and let it continue to do what it has done extremely well for more than 26 years. 26826 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

BELLS LINE OF ROAD UPGRADE

Mr PAUL TOOLE (Bathurst—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.10 p.m.]: It gives me pleasure to speak about an issue that is very important to the people of my electorate and that I have been pursuing for many years. The upgrade of the Bells Line of Road has been the subject of a great deal of discussion, but nothing has happened. It is pleasing that we now have a government that has been prepared to make a commitment and to put money on the table to ensure that something is done about the road. We all know that regional infrastructure is vital to our communities. A couple of weeks ago, the Deputy Premier, the Minister for Roads, the member for Orange, the member for Hawkesbury, the member for Londonderry and the former Deputy Premier of New South Wales, the Hon. Ian Armstrong, witnessed a historic sod turning ceremony at Bilpin on the Bells Line of Road.

The New South Wales Government has allocated $48 million to upgrade the road. That is a significant investment because it will not only deliver safety improvements but also improve travel times for regular travellers on that section of the road. Many people get impatient when they are stuck behind another vehicle and try to overtake, and unfortunately that has often resulted in fatal crashes. As the Deputy Premier said today during question time, according to the NRMA the Bells Line of Road is one of the most dangerous roads in the State. It is wonderful finally to see something being done to improve it for everyone in the State, and particularly for those living in the Central West. The upgrading of the road is also important because it provides a second access route over the mountains. A significant amount is being spent on the Great Western Highway, but this investment will ensure appropriate access between the metropolitan area and the Central West.

Members who attended the turning of the first sod saw the heavy machinery that will be used to create a one-kilometre eastbound overtaking lane on the Bells Line of Road west of Kurrajong Heights. We endured years of neglect by the Labor Government, which said that there was no need to do anything to the road for 30 years. Thank goodness we have not had to wait for 30 years for something to happen. I know that the communities of Lithgow, Bathurst, Orange, Dubbo, Parkes and Forbes are thrilled that real work has commenced. The Bells Line of Road is a vital transport route for our farmers and assists them in ensuring our food security. It is also vital for transporting produce to metropolitan markets and to our ports for export.

That $48 million will provide seven overtaking lanes between Kurrajong Heights and Mount Tomah, shoulder widening works to improve safety, extended turning lanes where appropriate, the installation of safety barriers appropriate for community needs, minor kerb realignments and straightening, minor adjustments to identified intersections and driveways, additional rest areas and upgrades of existing rest areas, urban landscape designs, local environmental improvements, improved drainage, and improved slope stability at identified locations. This record level of funding is an important demonstration of the Government's commitment to regional and rural roads. It is also in addition to the $435 million being spent on the Great Western Highway. I thank the Minister for Roads and the Deputy Premier because our communities have been calling for this work to be done for a long time. Seeing the heavy machinery on site and turning the first sod is very heartening and marks the commencement of a very valuable project.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.14 p.m.]: I acknowledge the hard work of the member for Hawkesbury, the member for Orange, the member for Londonderry, the member for Bathurst and the member for Dubbo in championing this great project. Of course, I also thank the Deputy Premier and the Minister for Roads and Ports in another place for allocating $48 million to upgrade the Bells Line of Road. The Labor Government talked about upgrading the road for years, but it never delivered. Liberal-Nationals members have worked together to deliver this important road upgrade to improve the connection between our country and city communities and, more importantly, to ensure that food producers in rural and regional New South Wales can get their produce to port for export. This is a good news story because the voters in those electorates saw fit to vote for these hardworking local members who are delivering for their communities.

WILEY PARK GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT ACHIEVEMENTS

Mr ROBERT FUROLO (Lakemba) [6.15 p.m.]: It is with great pleasure and pride that I draw the attention of the House to one of the many great local public schools in my electorate, Wiley Park Girls High School, and the outstanding achievements of current and past students. On 11 December I attended the presentation day at Wiley Park Girls High School where I heard the story of Maha Najjarine, a 2001 graduate of the school. Maha's story is not only a story of personal achievement by an intelligent, compassionate and giving individual, but it is also about more than personal success. It is a story that demonstrates the success of our 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26827

public education system and of a community that is accepting and open and that welcomes people from around the world. It is a story that encapsulates why every day I feel honoured to be able to represent the people of the electorate of Lakemba.

After graduating from Wiley Park Girls High, Maha went on to study a combined law and psychology degree at the University of Western Sydney. While studying, she did volunteer work at the Women's Legal Services NSW, which led to her being appointed as a court advocacy worker for culturally and linguistically diverse clients. On completing her law degree, Maha became a solicitor with the Indigenous Women's Legal Program. Since then, her career has blossomed, as have her achievements, which are too numerous to list. However, one common element runs through Maha's career, that is, service to the community.

Maha has worked tirelessly to help those who are most disadvantaged. Not content to dedicate numerous working hours to help others, Maha continues to dedicate what little free time she has to volunteering. Indeed, she was named the 2012 Sydney Inner West's Highly Commended Volunteer of the Year by the Centre for Volunteering. More recently, her talents and commitment to community service have moved to the world stage. In 2010, she was selected to represent Australia as a delegate at an international summit addressing gender-based violence and how to eradicate it. Last year she participated in an Australia-Indonesia Institute and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade exchange program in Indonesia.

Maha is now the legal education solicitor for the Family Law Division of Legal Aid NSW and lectures at the University of Western Sydney. What struck me about Maha's story is how Wiley Park Girls High School played an important role, both in supporting her academic ambitions and in fostering her compassion and kindness. While she was a talented student with strong family values, there is no doubt that her gifts and the ethics that were instilled by her family were nurtured by the teachers and staff at Wiley Park Girls High School. Today the school continues to support and bring out the best in its students.

During last year's presentation ceremony I had the honour of presenting the Student Citizenship Award to Alicia Fifita. The award recognises students who have shown outstanding leadership skills. Alicia was a year 9 student who worked tirelessly to ensure the success of the school's Bring it On dance group. Both Maha and Alicia are testament to the nurturing environment of Wiley Park Girls High School. I commend the teachers, the students and the school community, particularly Principal Maureen Davis-Catterall, and congratulate them on their success. It is with great pride that I start the new parliamentary year by acknowledging the achievements of one of our wonderful public schools. I congratulate everyone at Wiley Park Girls High School.

MATHOURA STATE FOREST

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [6.20 p.m.]: Tonight I inform the House about the township of Mathoura which sits between Deniliquin and Moama on the Cobb Highway. Settlement started in the area about 130 years ago and was driven primarily by people engaging in logging activities. Four years after the decision by the former Labor Government to convert the forests in the area to national parks, the township of Mathoura is facing a major crisis. The conversion did not have the desired effect. As a resident of Broken Hill I witnessed the decline in the mining industry and I am well versed in how such local decline begins. Last week the local IGA store, a coffee shop and a bed and breakfast facility at Mathoura closed; the community is rightly concerned.

On 25 February the Deniliquin Pastoral Times ran a front-page story on Mathoura. My view, that this change should not have occurred, appears in that article. Labor took this action without any regard to the long-term effects. The Mathoura community has virtually been gutted. Local butcher Chris Roberts is reported as saying that times have never been tougher. Resident John Carroll, who was a sawmiller, now travels to Kyabram where he and his wife run a business. He was forced to leave Mathoura because of this change. Councillor Betty Murphy said that the money spent by loggers was one of the biggest inputs to her business. Resident David Joss said that it roughly parallels with a town called Coolah, where Bob Carr declared a national park and virtually closed the town. Coolah lost 18 businesses and its shire was forced to amalgamate.

My office has been kept very busy since that article was published. For example, Paul Davies from the Pastoral Hotel at Mathoura contacted my office. He said that the closure of the forest has definitely had an impact and his business is hurting. He said changes to fishing laws and boating rules—there are now non-skiing areas—and the disallowing of crayfishing, have added to this hurt. This is the consequence of an ill-considered decision. At the time I spoke with Frank Sartor, the responsible Minister. I asked him to consider the flow-on effects of local sawmills being closed and loggers losing their jobs. That flow-on effect is now being felt and the 26828 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

Labor Party has little sympathy for it. Its members think they did what was in the best interests of the community. In recent times National Resources Commissioner John Williams said that the actions of the former Labor Government were not what he had prescribed. He had suggested that forestry in the area could run in conjunction with the national park; Labor decided to close the whole forest. This conversion did not need to be as extreme as it was. Now the people of Mathoura are feeling the consequences of the decision by the former Labor Government and it is having the predicted effect.

MENAI DISTRICT SPORTS AWARDS

Ms MELANIE GIBBONS (Menai) [6.25 p.m.]: Tonight I acknowledge the hard work and skill of our local sports men and women who were honoured at last year's Menai sport awards. Special mention goes to Club Central Menai and its wonderful team for putting on a wonderful presentation evening as usual. I wanted to make sure that these talented people were heard about in this Chamber. Sarah Birchall of the Illawong Little Athletics Club was junior female rookie of the year. At only six years of age, she competed in four events—the 100-metre sprint, winning silver; 200-metre sprint, winning gold; 500-metre run, winning gold and setting a new zone record; and shot-put, winning bronze. My congratulations also go to the other two finalists Nikita Moore from the Flames Netball Club, and Isabelle Sill from the Barden Ridgebacks Football Club.

In the junior male rookie of the year category, Wil McInnes from Aquinas Holy Family Colts took home the title. For his first year of rugby league, Wil is already the under-7 Red's best asset, having scored 30 tries and kicked five goals. The other two finalists, Nemanja Budnjevic from the Menai Dragons Basketball Club and Rohen Snowball from the Barden Ridgebacks Football Club, were also star performers last year. The junior female sports person of the year went to Samantha Geddes from the Illawong and Districts Senior Athletics Club for her outstanding contribution to the club. My congratulations to the other finalists, who included Estelle Grantham from the Illawong Little Athletics Club, Melody Nelson from the Barden Ridgebacks Football Club, Madeleine Norris from the Menai Dragons Basketball Club and Rachel Paull from the Bangor Football Club.

The junior male sports person of the year went to Luke Hawksworth from the Illawong Menai Cricket Club. Luke has achieved a lot in the under-14s age group, including being named club player of the year. My congratulations also go to Corey Driver from the Illawong Softball Club, Zach Edwards from the Menai Dragons Basketball Club and Bradley Simpson from the Illawong Little Athletics Club. Junior female sporting team of the year went to 11W Menai Hawks Football Club, while the junior male sporting team of the year went to 15A Aquinas Holy Family Colts. What a great effort from both teams in a tough line-up of finalists.

In the senior categories, the senior female rookie of the year went to Monique Avdalis from the Flames Netball Club. Monique had returned to competitive club netball having not played since her school days. Despite breaking her foot during the season, Monique attended the games and was an active member of the club throughout the season. The senior team of the year for the ladies went to D1 Menai Hawks Netball Club. Having aimed for a premiership since 2001, the team finally realised its goal in 2013. Well done. Big congratulations go to Ainsley Cairnduff, Rebecca Johnstone, Donna Kenny, Debbie McMillan, Jade McMillan, Raelene Ramse, Gina Simpson, Jessica Simpson, Narelle Stephen and Gayle Warner on their long-awaited win and this well-deserved acknowledgement. The senior male sporting team category was awarded to AL03 Barden Ridgebacks Football Club. From all accounts it was a tough end to the season, after it had conceded only two games for the entire season.

Each year it is the big awards night of nights that everyone looks forward to. The sporting club person of the year was down to Nicole Camlin from the Menai Hawks Netball Club, Michael Moore from the Menai Hawks Football Club, Leonie Sidhom from the Flames Netball Club and Kim Walmsley from the Aquinas Holy Family Colts Junior Rugby League Football Club. In the end it was Michael Moore, who has dedicated 20 years of service to the Menai Hawks—he has been involved with the club longer than anyone on the present board or executive can remember. The sporting club of the year award was between Aquinas Holy Family Colts Junior Rugby League Football Club, Bangor Barden Ridge Cricket Club, Barden Ridgebacks Football Club and Menai Hawks Football Club. The win went to Bangor Barden Ridge Cricket Club, formerly known as Aquinas Cricket Club, which is now the fifth-largest cricket club in the Sutherland shire junior competition. The club has also been heavily involved in the In2Cricket program with local schools. It conducts regular clinics with Bangor Primary School and Holy Family Primary School at Menai. What a great effort from Bangor Barden Ridge Cricket Club.

The biggest award of the night is the sports star of the year. Each year one of the top four sports stars from the area is given the crowning award. Jarrod Geddes from Illawong and District Senior Athletics Club was 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26829

this year's sports star of the year. Jarrod had most of 2012 off to recover from hamstring surgery but was back with a vengeance in 2013. Not only is Jarrod a star in his athletic achievements, setting personal bests all year and top places across various competitions, but he is also known for his coaching skills. Jarrod has been a great role model to other kids and regularly provides advice to all athletes to help them improve. Special mention also goes to the other finalists: Danny Buchanan of Aquinas Holy Family Colts, and Shane Loveridge and Abbie Taddeo, both from the Illawong and Districts Senior Athletics Club.

ORANGE JOBS GROWTH

Mr ANDREW GEE (Orange) [6.30 p.m.]: Last year the board of Electrolux made the appalling decision to close the last fridge-making factory in Australia, located at Orange. It was a decision that shook our community and we are still coming to grips with it. What makes the decision even more galling is the fact that the factory makes a profit—millions of dollars every year. All of that productive enterprise is now being relocated to Thailand, to the largest fridge-making plant in Asia. Shocking and appalling as the decision was, we in Orange are determined that the plant's closure will not define us as a city.

A very significant amount of work has been going on in Orange in order to get the area through what is clearly going to be a very difficult time. Last week New South Wales State Training Services and the Federal Government visited Electrolux to hold labour market information sessions. More than 500 workers attended the sessions, which provided an overview of the local jobs market and where the best prospects for future employment are. The sessions also covered the issue of retraining and the importance of commencing that process as soon as possible. The sessions were very useful in starting to get Electrolux workers thinking about life after the factory closes. I attended one of the sessions and can confirm that presenters did an excellent job, which, despite the grim circumstances, was very much appreciated by the workers present.

A jobs expo will be held in Orange on 21 March. This expo will be jointly funded by the New South Wales Government, Electrolux, Orange City Council and the Federal Government. The expo will bring together training organisations and prospective employers so that Electrolux workers will be able to talk to them and find out what they need to do to put themselves in the best position to get a job once the factory closes. After the expo, TAFE Western and Electrolux will sit down with each worker to discuss their future training needs so that every worker who wants one will have a retraining path developed for them.

The other key aspect of the transition is encouraging jobs growth and business expansion. I have been pushing hard for a package to encourage business investment and expansion in the area and I continue to seek that assistance. We certainly need to be retraining workers but we also need to have the maximum number of jobs available when they are required as the wind-down commences. A business expansion program would certainly assist Orange and its surrounding areas and I wish to highlight this important issue to the House tonight. The sooner we can get a decision on such a program and implement it the better. Orange has some time before the wind-down commences, but the clock is ticking and there is no time to lose. I am very grateful that the issue is being considered. I acknowledge and put on the record the hard work of NSW Trade and Investment officers. They have done a huge amount of work in the transition to date and everyone in Orange is very grateful for their efforts and hard work.

While the labour market information sessions were very useful they were also quite shocking. The shocking part was hearing the statistics on the decline of manufacturing jobs in Orange. Whenever I am in the factory watching the fridges rolling along the line I get angry that all of this industry, energy and enterprise will soon be gone. The decline of manufacturing is a serious and pressing problem, and whilst we are at the pointy end of it in Orange it is a problem affecting our State and our nation and it is a problem that we need to be coming to grips with. Our prosperity needs to be based on production: what we can make, what we can grow and what we can sell.

The continuous outsourcing of our productive capacity to other countries poses a major threat to our prosperity and we as a country need to be doing something about it now. Other countries with relatively high wages still seem to be able to produce and export and we should be able to do so as well. We need a national manufacturing strategy. We need to start thinking about what our economy is going to look like once the mining has finished and about where our future generations of workers will be finding employment. Dealing with the fallout from the Electrolux closure has been difficult but work on the transition has commenced. I would like to thank all the parties in Orange who are working together to get our city through to the other side of this very turbulent time in our history. 26830 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

IMAGINENATIONS CHURCH, ORCHARD HILLS

Mrs TANYA DAVIES (Mulgoa) [6.35 p.m.]: On 12 March 2013 I spoke in this House about the amazing work carried out by a local church in my electorate. ImagineNations Church in Orchard Hills has been a shining light of generosity and faith and sharing the life-changing message of Jesus Christ both within our local community and across the globe. This past week ImagineNations Church held its annual missions conference where the humanitarian and influential work of the church delivered last year was celebrated and the new vision for the coming year was set.

I am proud to call ImagineNations Church my home church and, together with my family, be a part of the giving program that sees people in our local Western Sydney community and across the globe practically assisted, medically treated, rescued off the streets and educated in schools. The results of the 2013 program include a miraculous amount of $1,046,830 given so generously by families and ordinary people from Western Sydney. It is to be celebrated and applauded that so many people—families, single parents, children, young men and women, pensioners and business owners—from Western Sydney have given to the vision that is making the lives of others better.

Projects undertaken by the church included in India, where 37 churches were planted and 75 children supported in the Gordon Gibbs Children's Home; in Indonesia, where 77 churches were planted; in China where 15 churches were planted; and in Lebanon, where 12 students were supported through the church planting school. In Cambodia we built 12 wells, which make a massive difference to the community's health, education, and finances and in many other ways. In Burundi we built 25 homes for widows. In Somalia, just outside Mogadishu, we supported a school for more than 600 children who are being educated even though they remain internally displaced because of civil war. In Vietnam we paid for 12 operations, which the families could never have had the capacity to afford themselves.

At the Bukavu Hospital in the Democratic Republic of the Congo we have begun to improve the medical services available to local women, including purchasing an X-ray machine this past year in addition to the ultrasound machine purchased the year before. To date, 1,905 people have been treated in this improved hospital. In our local community in Western Sydney, WestCare Community Services has assisted close to 5,000 local people through our emergency relief service, providing them with food packs, assistance with bills and care packs. We also gave away 350 hampers at Christmas time, which were so generously donated by members of our church community. Our Juvenile Justice teams have ministered and helped more than 500 boys and staff throughout the year, and about 100 women have been taught new skills through our do-it-yourself classes in Bolwarra Correctional Centre.

Scripture teaching continues in our local schools and many students are supported and strengthened by the genuine care and love shown by our dedicated team of local counsellors. The vision for 2014 is even greater than what was achieved last year. In addition to continuing the work in India, China, Lebanon, Cambodia, the Congo, Burundi, Indonesia, Vietnam, Somalia and WestCare, the ImagineNations Church will be expanding its work into the following areas: In Brazil four new churches will be planted. In Thailand, devastatingly known globally as the sex tourism capital of the world where many prostitutes are underage children, we will be supporting an organisation called Destiny Rescue, which will construct a home to rehabilitate the girls who have been rescued from the streets of Thailand and which will provide them with the intensive counselling, psychological support, medical care and education that they so desperately need and rightly deserve. Finally, but not least, is the announcement that ImagineNations Church and our vision of helping others across the world will be planting two new churches, in Mexico and Melbourne.

The extraordinary generosity and concern for the welfare of others displayed by the families and individuals from our ImagineNations Church is boundless. Western Sydney, which is so often overlooked and shunned by other more affluent regions of this great State and city, is being a life-changing fountain that is springing up and touching lives all around the world. I thank the leadership of ImagineNations Church, pastors Jack and Carol Hanes, their executive leadership team and the committed church members for their passion and commitment to making this vision to make our world a better place a reality one life at a time.

Private members' statements concluded.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Barilaro): Order! Private members' statements having concluded, and pursuant to the earlier resolution, the House will now consider the matter of public importance. 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26831

TEAL RIBBON DAY

Matter of Public Importance

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [6.40 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to discuss Teal Ribbon Day, which is a vital part of Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. Ovarian cancer is a killer and about 800 women die every year in Australia of ovarian cancer. It is often referred to as a silent killer; however, one of its tragic features is that, in retrospect, symptoms that could have led to an early diagnosis are not suspected of being due to ovarian cancer.

Four days ago the Cancer Institute NSW released a report entitled, "Cancer New South Wales: Incidence Report 2009". It shows that in 2009 there were 395 new cases of ovarian cancer compared with 389 in 2000 and it represents 2.5 per cent of all cancers diagnosed. The age standardised rate of ovarian cancer is 9.8 per 100,000 people, which is not much changed since 2000 although there has been a slight reduction from about 12 cases per 100,000 people in 1973. The initial symptoms of ovarian cancer are vague. They may include vague abdominal pain, pain during intercourse, changes in bowel habit such as constipation or diarrhoea, tiredness and loss of appetite, menstrual pattern changes or postmenopausal bleeding, urinary symptoms such as frequent urination, or abdominal fullness. Only about five to 10 per cent of women with ovarian cancer have a family history of the disease, which makes the vague symptoms difficult to nail down to ovarian cancer.

Typically, other potential illnesses such as bowel and bladder diseases and conditions such as pregnancy are investigated first. Ovarian cancer is often way down the list of potential suspects. Sometimes it is not even thought of and is tragically not detected as a result. The objective signs such as an ovarian mass may not become obvious until the cancer is well advanced. That is one reason why the five-year survival rate is still low. In 2005 the five-year survival rate for females diagnosed with ovarian cancer was 42 per cent compared with 70 per cent for uterine cancer and 73 per cent for cervical cancer. Unfortunately, 70 per cent of women diagnosed will eventually die from ovarian cancer. This is why awareness is so vital. Due to enormous public and private support the five-year survival rate for prostate cancer is now 90 per cent and 88 per cent for breast cancer. Ovarian cancer lags way behind. A reason for this is the lack of awareness and support for women with ovarian cancer.

There are four stages of ovarian cancer. In stage I the cancer is in one or both ovaries. In stage II the cancer is localised to the pelvis. In stage III the cancer is in the abdomen outside the pelvis. In stage IV the cancer has spread outside the abdomen, for example to the liver, lungs or bones. Unfortunately, the most common stage of diagnosis is stage III. While at that stage the cancer is still localised to the abdomen it is often very advanced and ultimately fatal. Most women diagnosed are aged in their early sixties, which means they often die many years earlier than they otherwise would. The median age of diagnosis in New South Wales is 63. Ovarian cancer is difficult to diagnose. It requires taking a biopsy during an operation and other tests such as ultrasounds, CT scans and MRI scans are vital in determining the stage of the cancer. This is why Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month is crucial to raising awareness and funds for the vital national research program.

In south-west Sydney we have the Eggtober Foundation, which was founded in October 2009 by Lynda Chamberlain. Lynda's mother died of ovarian cancer and Lynda also was found to have the disease. Fortunately for everyone in south-west Sydney, due to her heightened awareness of the subtle symptoms she was diagnosed early. She remains well and now raises funds to support gynaecological cancer units and research. We are also fortunate to have Dr Felix Chan in Liverpool. He is a world authority on ovarian cancer and one of the drivers behind the Purple Tie Charity Ball, which is a major fundraiser held in south-west Sydney. Last year at Westmead Private Hospital he used robotic surgery to perform hysterectomies on two women. The cutting-edge procedure dramatically reduced the women's chances of developing fatal ovarian or uterine cancer. Teal Ribbon Day is vital. I commend it and Eggtober to the House.

Mrs ROZA SAGE (Blue Mountains) [6.45 p.m.]: Teal Ribbon Day seeks to raise ovarian cancer awareness, which is why I am wearing my teal ribbon today. I thank the member for Macquarie Fields for bringing this important matter to the House. Ovarian cancer is a topic dear to my heart because I had a scare with it about 13 months ago. Ovarian cancer begins in a woman's ovaries, which are an essential part of the female reproductive system. The ovaries produce eggs that are one half of human life. They are also important in the production of oestrogen and progesterone hormones that regulate the menstrual cycle and affect the development of female body characteristics.

Ovarian cancer is an insidious disease. With about 1,470 women in Australia expected to be diagnosed in 2014 it is uncommon but mortality is high and only about 30 per cent of women survive five years after 26832 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 February 2014

diagnosis. There is no screening available. The symptoms are easily mistaken for common ailments. It can attack any woman at any age although it is more prevalent in the over fifties. It is important to mention that there is no cure. Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynaecological cancer. It is the sixth leading cause of cancer death in Australian women and causes 800 deaths each year. These are sobering facts but Teal Ribbon Day and Ovarian Awareness Month in February are designed to make women aware of the symptoms of ovarian cancer so that it may be detected in its early phase. The mortality rate is very high because the cancer is generally not detected until the latter to advanced stages. Women whose cancer is detected in the early stages have a dramatic survival rate of 90 per cent over five years.

The symptoms of the disease vary and include abdominal bloating, abdominal or back pain, appetite loss or feeling full quickly or change in toilet habits, unexplained weight loss or gain, indigestion, heartburn and fatigue. These symptoms are vague and are often a part of everyday life for many women. The important message is for women to know their bodies. Know what is normal so that any persistent changes can be recognised. Most women with ovarian cancer experience at least one symptom in the 12 months prior to diagnosis. It is important to see a doctor if any of the signs are present and are unusual and persistent. The woman should seek a second opinion if worried and not satisfied with her first visit. The early stages of the disease are asymptomatic. That is why 80 per cent of women are diagnosed at a late stage when the cancer has spread from the ovaries and complete surgical removal is not possible.

The Minister for Health and Medical Research, Jillian Skinner, last week announced grant funding of $15.5 million to enable 26 researchers to explore new ways to prevent, detect, treat and better manage cancer. One of the recipients was Dr Goli Samimi of the Garvan Institute, who was awarded $600,000 for research to identify tumour-specific patterns in DNA in order to develop a blood test that can detect the presence of ovarian cancer at early stages in high-risk women. When a woman is confronted with the diagnosis of ovarian cancer she and her general practitioner are urged to look at the Cancer Institute's Canrefer online directory. There they can find a multidisciplinary team that includes surgeons who work in a special centre that has knowledge and experience gained through frequently performing a large number of ovarian resections.

An identified risk factor for ovarian cancer is age. The disease most commonly affects women over 50. Other risk factors are if a woman has been through menopause for whatever reason, genetics and family history. A woman who has two or more relatives from the same side of her family affected by ovarian and/or breast cancer has a 15 per cent greater chance of ovarian cancer. Endometriosis is another risk factor. Additional risks include lifestyle factors such as—this one gets me every time—smoking, being overweight and having a diet high in fatty food. Those choices are the cause of many ills. Another factor is child-bearing history and that can include women who have not had children, are unable to have children, have never used oral contraceptives or who gave birth over 30 years of age. Lastly, there are hormonal factors such as early puberty or late menopause.

The risk factors need to be put into perspective because ovarian cancer is uncommon, but women still need to be aware of the symptoms and be on their guard against ovarian cancer. I hope that the future will see an easy screening tool developed to identify early ovarian cancer. I hope that Dr Samimi's research will bear fruit to find that tool. Far too many women are dying from this insidious disease.

Mrs BARBARA PERRY (Auburn) [6.50 p.m.]: I acknowledge the members who have spoken in the debate. As the member for Blue Mountains said, to hear the member for Macquarie Fields, who is a paediatric doctor, speak with passion about this issue is, in itself, important because it recognises that the Chamber is taking a leadership role in raising awareness about ovarian cancer. As a woman I have heard about ovarian cancer for a long time, but it hit me many years ago when a woman in my electorate named Mary Dias came to visit me and told me about her mother who had died from ovarian cancer. What was incredible about Mary was that she wanted to raise awareness in the community using her experience with her mother. She came to see me about how she could do that. Indeed, we went about raising awareness—I pointed her in the right direction— through a local campaign in the media. As a result, many people, particularly women, in our local community became more aware of ovarian cancer. That was because of Mary Dias. I have never forgotten Mary Dias. Every year about this time I think of Mary and her mother.

There are many women like Mary Dias in the community who are raising funds and awareness. One organisation that the member for Macquarie Fields did not talk about was the Eggtober Foundation, which is in his area. The foundation shares Dr Chan's vision and determination to find a way through this disease and a cure. Each year the Eggtober Foundation holds the Purple Tie Charity Ball, which is one of the major fundraisers in south-west Sydney. This year the event is being held on 10 May at the Liverpool Catholic Club. It is well supported by local residents, businesses and community organisations, but obviously it can do with much more assistance. Members are most welcome to come and support this worthwhile charity. 26 February 2014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26833

This year, through Australian Rotary Health, the Eggtober Foundation-Dr Felix Chan PhD Scholarship has been established. The student who has won that scholarship, Joseph Po, is a PhD student at the University of Western Sydney. He will be researching the "Biology of circulating tumour cells in patients with advanced ovarian cancer: Does epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) contribute to chemoresistance". The member for Macquarie Fields would acknowledge that the Eggtober Foundation and Dr Chan are proud to be involved in such a research project. Importantly, the foundation is important for women to contact, as are other supports in the community, which can be found through the Cancer Council helpline or by looking up www.eggtober.com.au.

Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields) [6.53 p.m.], in reply: This has been an important debate about an important disease that causes far too much tragedy in New South Wales. Somewhere in New South Wales there would be a woman who has been diagnosed today with ovarian cancer; it is highly likely to be at an advanced stage and highly likely to kill her and leave her family bereft. It was great to hear about the research that is being done in this area by Dr Samimi, Dr Felix Chan and Dr Joseph Po. From debates like this come government initiatives such as funding for research and for cancer services. The member for Blue Mountains referred to the Canrefer website, which is an excellent website. We need teams that are experienced in treating ovarian cancer. Many advances have been made, for example, robotic surgery, which Dr Chan has been doing at Liverpool hospital.

The robotic surgery that he undertook at Westmead Private Hospital last year allowed him to do major surgery to remove the uteruses of two women who, instead of needing three days off work, were out of hospital the next day with minimal pain and scarring. Eggtober is working hard to provide robot-assisted surgery to women in south-western Sydney, such as at Liverpool Hospital. The acquisition of a robot in the south west would not only help with ovarian cancer but also with surgery such as prostatectomy, nephrectomy, head and neck surgery and cardiothoracic surgery. There is still a lot more to do in terms of ovarian cancer. We need to do more as a Parliament and as a community not only to raise awareness of ovarian cancer and provide the services for the treatment of and research into ovarian cancer but also to support the families whose loved ones have been diagnosed with ovarian cancer. I pay special tribute to the Eggtober Foundation—I am looking forward to the ball—and the Cancer Council, which does a great job with all forms of cancer and whose booklet on ovarian cancer and its helpline are vital for women diagnosed with cancer. I commend this matter of public importance to the House.

Discussion concluded.

The House adjourned, pursuant to resolution, at 6.56 p.m. until Thursday 27 February 2014 at 10.00 a.m.

______