21631

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday 18 March 2010

______

The President (The Hon. Amanda Ruth Fazio) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.

AUSTRALIAN SOCCEROOS

Motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch agreed to:

That this House congratulates the Australian Socceroos on qualifying for the 2010 FIFA World Cup to be held in South Africa.

SPEEDBLITZ BLUES

Motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch agreed to:

That this House congratulates the New South Wales SpeedBlitz Blues on winning the inaugural World Champions League Twenty20 competition held in India.

BIKE PLAN

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

1. That this House notes that:

(a) in August 2008 the Government announced that the Premier's Council on Active Living (PCAL) had been commissioned to prepare a new bike plan for New South Wales,

(b) the plan was expected to map out new programs and facilities needed to support the development of cycling for recreation and transport,

(c) submissions were called for and submitted by a range of individuals and groups,

(d) the Government is well overdue in releasing the plan, with no fixed date for its publication except, as noted on the Premier's Council on Active Living website, that "finalisation and release of the PCAL NSW Bike Plan is awaiting the State's overarching transport strategy", and

(e) cycling is increasing in New South Wales, yet funding and infrastructure remains inadequate to meet demand or promote cycling as a way of tackling climate change, peak oil, congestion, poor air quality and to reduce accidents and deaths from poor quality cycling facilities.

2. That this House calls on the Government:

(a) to recognise the need for an updated, comprehensive bike plan for New South Wales and related funding and infrastructure, and

(b) to immediately release the promised bike plan to the community.

BUSHRANGER THUNDERBOLT

Motion by the Hon. Rick Colless agreed to:

That, under Standing Order 53, an Address be presented to the Governor requesting that her Excellency may be pleased to cause to be laid upon the table of the House within 35 days of the date of the passing of this resolution, the following documents in relation to the administration of justice:

(a) written reports from two Armidale constables made to their superior officer, during the week following the 25 May 1870, to the effect that the two constables observed and pursued the bushranger Thunderbolt and his horse Combo at the Glen Innes races three days after he was shot dead at Uralla,

(b) all documents originating from the Officer in Charge of the Uralla Police Senior Constable John Mulhall with respect to the pursuit and capture of the bushranger Thunderbolt,

21632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

(c) all documents originating from Superintendent S. Dowling Brown of Armidale police with respect to the pursuit and capture of the bushranger Thunderbolt,

(d) all documents comprising police staff records of Senior Constable John Mulhall of Uralla for the period 1 May 1870 up to the time he ceased to be employed by the New South Wales police force,

(e) all documents relating to the identification procedures of the corpse presumed to be the bushranger Thunderbolt following his fatal capture by Constable Walker on 25 May 1870,

(f) all documents comprising Dr Spasshatt's original autopsy report of the person presumed to be the bushranger Thunderbolt, dated 26 May 1870, and presented to the inquest on Thursday 26 May 1870,

(g) all original documents relating to the inquest of the person presumed to be the bushranger Thunderbolt conducted at Uralla, dated 26 May 1870, excluding the amended documents forwarded to Sydney during the first week of June 1870, and

(h) any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this Address.

ROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY LAND SALE

Production of Documents: Order

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Minister for Roads, the Roads and Traffic Authority, the Minister for Planning, the Department of Planning or the National Parks and Wildlife Service:

(a) all documents relating to the sale to Rocla Pty Ltd in 2006 of land owned by the Roads and Traffic Authority adjacent to Australia Walkabout Wildlife Park (formerly known as Calga Springs Sanctuary),

(b) any document relating to an expression of interest made prior to the sale by Rocla Pty Ltd to use the site to build and operate a sand mine or quarry,

(c) any document which relates or refers to any evaluation or testing by the Roads and Traffic Authority prior to the sale of the site's suitability for sand mining,

(d) any document relating or referring to the environmental or heritage value of the site prior to the sale, and

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

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE NSW TAXI INDUSTRY

Extension of Reporting Date

Motion by the Hon. John Ajaka agreed to:

That the reporting date for the Select Committee on the NSW Taxi Industry be extended until Thursday 10 June 2010.

REPUBLICATION AND REBROADCASTING OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

The PRESIDENT: I wish to bring to the attention of members the issue of the republication of extracts from Hansard by members for themselves or for distribution to third parties, and the rebroadcasting of video or audio footage of the proceedings of Parliament or provision of such footage to third parties. Members will shortly receive a briefing note outlining a number of issues in relation to the republication and rebroadcasting of parliamentary proceedings either in the form of Hansard or in the form of audiovisual footage available from Parliament. I want to highlight some of the more important issues raised in that briefing note.

In relation to parliamentary privilege, members should be aware that while absolute privilege attaches to the publication of parliamentary proceedings in Hansard and on the Parliament's website, any subsequent republication or rebroadcasting by members or others is not afforded the same protection. Consequently, any person who publishes excerpts from Hansard or official footage may be exposed to legal liability if the material is defamatory. The republication or rebroadcast of parliamentary proceedings that includes defamatory material may, however, be protected under the defences to the publication of defamatory material under the common law and division 2 of part 4 of the Defamation Act 2005, sections 25 to 33. Those defences include the defence of justification, the defence of qualified privilege and the defence of fair report.

In relation to the conditions that are set out in the briefing note for the republication or rebroadcasting of parliamentary proceedings under the Parliament's webcast conditions of access and copyright notice, I wish to advise members that the conditions are aimed at ensuring, to the greatest extent possible, that any republication or rebroadcast of parliamentary proceedings is considered to be fair and undertaken in good faith. 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21633

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I inform the House that on 10 March 2010 Ms Angela D'Amore, MP, was appointed as Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Minister for Police, and Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment.

PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

Reports

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, on behalf of the Chair, tabled the following reports:

(1) Report No. 48, entitled "Citizen's Right of Reply (Church of Scientology, Australia)", dated March 2010.

(2) Report No. 49, entitled "Citizen's Right of Reply (Mr D Kennedy) (No. 2)", dated March 2010.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner.

DEATH OF ROBERT WOODWARD, AM

The PRESIDENT: I inform the House of the passing on Sunday 21 February 2010 of Mr Robert Woodward, AM, the architect who designed the fountain in this Parliament.

Members and officers of the House stood in their places as a mark of respect.

PETITIONS

Coogee Bay Hotel Site

Petition opposing any redevelopment of the site bounded by Coogee Bay Road and Arden and Vicar Streets under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, received from the Hon. Don Harwin.

IRREGULAR PETITION

Leave granted for the suspension of standing orders to allow Mr Ian Cohen to present an irregular petition.

Former HMAS Adelaide

Petition opposing the sinking of the former HMAS Adelaide off Avoca Beach, received from Mr Ian Cohen.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Withdrawal of Business

Contingent Notices of Motions on the Notice Paper for today relating to various bills withdrawn by the Hon. John Hatzistergos.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEES

Membership

The PRESIDENT: I report to the House that the Clerk has received the following nominations from the Leader of the Government regarding membership of general purpose standing committees of the Legislative Council:

General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2: Mr Moselmane in place of Mr Donnelly.

General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4: Mr Moselmane in place of Mr Catanzariti.

21634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

WASTE RECYCLING AND PROCESSING CORPORATION (AUTHORISED TRANSACTION) BILL 2010 (NO 2)

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.22 a.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Robertson: I move:

That this bill be now read a first time and printed.

Dr John Kaye: Madam President—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The question must be put without amendment or debate.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 25

Mr Ajaka Mr Lynn Ms Sharpe Mr Catanzariti Mr Mason-Cox Mr Veitch Mr Clarke Mr Moselmane Ms Voltz Mr Colless Reverend Dr Moyes Mr West Ms Cusack Reverend Nile Ms Westwood Ms Ficarra Ms Parker Miss Gardiner Mrs Pavey Tellers, Mr Gay Mr Pearce Mr Donnelly Mr Khan Ms Robertson Mr Harwin

Noes, 4

Mr Cohen Ms Hale Tellers, Dr Kaye Ms Rhiannon

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

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

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.30 a.m.]: I move:

That the second reading stand an order of the day for a later hour of the sitting.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.31 a.m.]: I move:

That the question be amended by omitting "a later hour of the sitting" and inserting instead "Tuesday 20 April 2010".

Question—That the amendment of Dr John Kaye be agreed to—put.

The House divided. 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21635

Ayes, 4

Ms Hale Ms Rhiannon

Tellers, Mr Cohen Dr Kaye

Noes, 23

Mr Ajaka Mr Mason-Cox Ms Sharpe Mr Catanzariti Mr Moselmane Mr Veitch Mr Clarke Reverend Dr Moyes Ms Voltz Ms Cusack Reverend Nile Mr West Mr Della Bosca Ms Parker Ms Westwood Ms Ficarra Mrs Pavey Tellers, Mr Gay Mr Pearce Mr Donnelly Mr Khan Ms Robertson Mr Harwin

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.38 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Member's Business item No. 5 in the Order of Precedence, relating to the Crimes Amendment (Grievous Bodily Harm) Bill 2010, be called on forthwith.

Question put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 20

Mr Ajaka Mr Moselmane Mr Veitch Mr Catanzariti Reverend Dr Moyes Ms Voltz Mr Clarke Reverend Nile Mr West Ms Cusack Ms Parker Ms Westwood Ms Ficarra Mrs Pavey Tellers, Mr Khan Ms Robertson Mr Donnelly Mr Mason-Cox Ms Sharpe Mr Harwin

Noes, 4

Mr Cohen Ms Rhiannon

Tellers, Ms Hale Dr Kaye

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to. 21636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

Order of Business

Motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 5 in the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

CRIMES AMENDMENT (GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM) BILL 2010

Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Second Reading

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.48 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the Crimes Amendment (Grievous Bodily Harm) Bill 2010 is to amend the Crimes Act 1900 to ensure that offences under that Act relating to the infliction of grievous bodily harm extend to destruction by a person, other than in the course of a medical procedure, of a child in utero. The proposed amendment extends the application to any form of human life in the embryonic stage. Such offences are currently limited to human life in the foetal or later stages—that is, at eight weeks or 56 days gestation. For many years statistical research has shown a causal correlation between pregnancy and domestic violence. In 1994 the Medical Journal of Australia published a paper that found that one in 10 Australian women had experienced domestic violence during pregnancy.

In 2008 the Australian Journal of Primary Health reported that the incidence of domestic violence during pregnancy was one in every five women and of those women 40 per cent were more likely to have their child die in utero. Two public incidents, one in 2001 and another in 2002, draw attention to the deficiency of the law in the protections extended to women during pregnancy. In November 2001 Renee Shields was the victim of a road rage incident that led to the death of her unborn child, Byron. Byron's law has since been passed—the legislation I am hoping to amend—and I am pleased to use that title for this bill. In August 2002 Kylie Flick refused the demands of Phillip Nathan King to abort the child they had conceived. Kylie was subsequently punched and stomped on by Mr King, which resulted in the death of their unborn child.

At that time the definition of "grievous bodily harm" found within section 4 of the Crimes Act was non-exhaustive and essentially limited to circumstances in which the person directly concerned was permanently or seriously disfigured. Hence the law failed to address the loss of a woman's unborn child. The New South Wales Attorney General subsequently commissioned the Hon. Mervyn Finlay, QC, to conduct an inquiry into the "distressing and difficult" circumstances in which a criminal act against the mother of an unborn child resulted in the death of that child. In her submission to the inquiry Renee Shields stated:

Unborn children should be acknowledged in our society, an amendment to the current legislation might lessen the constant attention someone experiences with this kind of incident and maybe make the incomprehensible a little easier to handle.

In April 2003 the Finlay report came to the same conclusion. It contained the recommendation that:

New South Wales legislate to introduce the offence of 'killing an unborn child' relating to a criminal act causing a child, capable of being born alive, to die before it has an existence independent of the mother.

Later that year, in December 2003, in the case of Ms Flick and Mr King the Court of Criminal Appeal made the ruling that:

The close physical connection between a pregnant woman and her unborn child means that the loss of that child can constitute grievous bodily harm to the pregnant woman, even in the absence of other injury to her.

On 1 March 2005 the Government gave notice that it intended to follow the recommendations of the Finlay report, and in doing so codified the principles enunciated by the Court of Criminal Appeal in December 2003. The subsequent legislation, the Crimes Amendment (Grievous Bodily Harm) Bill 2005, amended the definition of "grievous bodily harm" within the Crimes Act to include section 4 (1) (a), which states:

The destruction (other than in the course of a medical procedure) of the foetus of a pregnant woman, whether or not the woman suffers any other harm.

18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21637

The Legislative Assembly passed that legislation on 22 March 2005, and the Legislative Council passed it on 4 May 2005. Whilst the legislation enjoyed unanimous support from both Houses, concerns were raised in the Legislative Council as to the wording and eventual implementation of the legislation. Those concerns involved the scope of the legislation being limited by the definition of "foetus". Women 55 days or less into their pregnancies were afforded no protection under the legislation. Further, given the inherent ambiguity surrounding exact dates of conception, the legislation lacked clarity for women that may have been several weeks further into their pregnancy. The objective of the legislation was therefore not fulfilled.

On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I attempted to address that issue by amending the bill. Unfortunately some in this House seemed to miss that intent and became distracted by other matters. The term "child in utero" was used because no other term was applicable. The term is a technical and legal description used by other nations. The amendments I moved were narrowly defeated by 17 votes to 22 votes. Several members commented to me after the vote that if the matter were to be resubmitted at a later time they might consider supporting it. That has taken some time—from 2005 to 2010—but I am doing it now. Today, almost five years later, I pray that all members have had sufficient time to consider this important issue and I submit the Crimes Amendment (Grievous Bodily Harm) Bill 2010 for the consideration of the House.

The intent of the bill is the same as the intent of the amendments moved in 2005: to provide all women equal protection under the law, especially during the vulnerable time of pregnancy. Losing a child in the first trimester is an incredibly dramatic experience for any expectant mother. I make it very clear that the bill is about grievous bodily harm inflicted on pregnant women. The bill seeks to remove discrimination against pregnant women who do not fulfil the selective criteria defined in the Crimes Act 1900 No 40, and provides clarity and certainty to the application of the law in light of ambiguity surrounding exact dates of conception. The bill removes arbitrary limitations and provides all pregnant women with recourse to the law. Each case is to be rightly determined within the judicial system in accordance with normal judicial procedure and based on expert medical advice. In other words, all the evidence can be put before a court for the judge to decide on.

On the previous occasion, a number of members spoke favourably in support of the proposition embodied in the bill. I understand the Coalition will now allow its members to take a conscience vote. In the interest of fairness and when dealing with a bill that concerns life, the Government should extend to its members the same privilege. The bill will not be voted on until further consultation has been had with both sides to ensure that everyone is happy with its wording, and to determine whether further amendments are proposed. It should then receive support from both sides of the House. I call on all members to give the bill their earnest consideration. This is an important bill. When the matter was previously debated members such as the Hon. Greg Pearce said:

I will vote in support of this amendment and the other two amendments moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher said:

I support the amendment; it provides consistency but does not set any other precedent.

Other members also spoke in the same vein during that debate. The Greens did not support the amendments on that occasion. The Hon. David Clarke supported the amendments. The final vote was quite close—17 votes to 22 vote. As I have said, some Government members indicated to me after the vote that had they been allowed a conscience vote they would have voted for the amendments. It is vital for the Government to allow the traditional right to its members to exercise their conscience in this important matter—members of the Australian Labor Party have previously been allowed to do this under its constitution.

International Women's Day has been recently discussed in this House. The passing of this bill will help those women who experience violence when pregnant. Sadly, a large number of women experience violence, which is a tragedy, but to endure violence whilst pregnant is beyond comprehension, particularly if the husband or partner—which has happened—inflicts the violence. The current law of 56 days or eight weeks is very arbitrary. The Government has sensed that this is a sensitive issue and has made a compromise on the restrictions contained in the original bill.

The bill has been so widely supported and the Attorney General has been so warmly congratulated on the original bill, it is time for the Government to take another step—not a big step but an important one—and support my bill. Although my bill contains minor amendments, it will make the legislation far more effective. 21638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

Members often say in this Parliament that we must respect our courts and the judicial system. The bill will put the onus back onto the judicial system to make decisions on the offence that has been committed by a violent person who attacks a pregnant woman. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 12 noon for questions.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______

HUNTER VALLEY FUNDING

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Premier. On behalf of the Premier, whom the Attorney General represents in this place, can the Attorney General explain why in the Premier's glossy "100 Days" document, containing 124 photographs of the Premier, no mention was made of any funding whatsoever for the Hunter Valley or Hunter Valley projects? Why does the Hunter not rate high enough on the Premier's agenda to be included in her document "A New Direction for NSW"? Can this lack of funding be taken as an indication that the Government has no new direction for the Hunter?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: No. That is the short answer to the last part of the Leader of the Opposition's question. We are very proud of our commitments. The Government's commitment to the Hunter Valley and, indeed, to all parts of New South Wales is exemplified in the State Plan, which identifies the priority that we have given the Hunter region, as well as the significant budget that we provide to regional parts of New South Wales.

ELECTRICITY PRICE RISES

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Energy. What action is the Government taking to assist New South Wales families in response to today's Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal determination on electricity price increases?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] has today released its final determination for regulated retail electricity prices to apply from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2013. The pricing regulator has recommended increases from 46 per cent to 64 per cent over the three-year determination period. The Government is disappointed in the scale of the increases. The Government is deeply concerned about the impact that these price rises will have on New South Wales families and businesses. That is why the Government has today announced that from 1 July this year it is expanding the energy rebate program to include all eligible households with a Commonwealth Health Care Card. Pensioners, single parents, low-income cardholders, students and households receiving Farm Family Assistance will be eligible for the energy rebate. This means that more than one million, or more than one in three New South Wales households, will receive direct government assistance for their power bills from 1 July this year.

The Government also has announced that it will increase the energy rebate from $130 to $145 from 1 July 2010 and index it to energy prices, rather than on the basis of consumer price index increases. This $48 million expansion of the rebate program takes the Government's total customer assistance funding program to $320 million over five years. These changes will deliver real financial assistance to those families and households who need it most. I note that a number of agencies in their submissions to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal supported this expansion and the increases to the energy rebate: the Energy and Water Ombudsman, the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the Council of Social Service of New South Wales, the peak body in New South Wales representing the community and social sector. In addition to the rebates, the Government will continue to provide up to $480 worth of vouchers each year to struggling families under the Energy Accounts Payment Assistance Program. The Government's medical energy rebates and life support rebates will continue to be available to eligible customers.

I can also inform the House that the Government will introduce tough new legislation requiring energy companies to report publicly on their energy prices. We will establish a price comparison website to help 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21639

families identify the best possible deal for their circumstances, as well as encourage increased competition in the market. To further support families, the Government has changed the way that retailers are required to deal with customers in financial hardship, which is why more people are accessing help to pay their bills but fewer households are being disconnected. We also introduced tough new regulations earlier this month to make it even harder for energy retailers to disconnect customers. All energy companies are now required to offer a minimum of two payment plans within 12 months before they can even think about moving to disconnect a customer. The electricity supply of anyone on a life support rebate who relies on electricity to stay alive can never be disconnected.

These changes are already helping families across the State. I am advised that energy disconnection rates are now stable or falling across the New South Wales government-owned energy retailers. The Government also is investing $150 million in energy efficiency assistance for households and businesses so that they can reduce the amount of energy they use. This includes $63 million set aside to refit homes in low-income areas with energy- and water-saving devices to help households cut costs. The Government is very concerned about these increased prices. [Time expired.]

HUNTER VALLEY COAL EXPLORATION LICENCE

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Planning, representing the Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources. Does the Minister recall approving a coalmining exploration licence for Doyles Creek mine in December 2008? Does the Minister recall telling the local community that this mine was to be only a training mine? Is the Minister aware that the declared estimated tonnage is around 250 million tonnes with a "targeted resource potential in excess of 450 million tonnes"? Is the Minister aware that this would have a value of hundreds of millions of dollars, which is a hell of a lot of training? Given this is a very valuable amount of coal, why did this not go to tender and why was the exploration licence granted to a company that included former union boss John Maitland and for only $1.4 million? [Time expired.]

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I undertake to convey the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's question to the Minister responsible.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I ask a supplementary question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! A supplementary question can only seek elucidation of an answer. There was nothing in the Minister's answer that could be elucidated.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I can ask a supplementary question because the Minister did answer the question. He said that he would convey my question to the Minister responsible. My supplementary question is: When will the Minister get me an answer? Is he aware that BHP paid $100 million for its exploration licence?

PRESIDENT: Order! The second part of the supplementary question is clearly out of order.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The only part of the supplementary question that is in order relates to the elucidation of my answer, which was that I would pass the question on to the Minister responsible. I will respond to that part of the supplementary question. When will I get the member an answer? I will do it in the usual time frame.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Thirty-five days.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Yes.

LAND ACQUISITION

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Planning. Last Tuesday the Minister informed the House "that around 82 per cent of new housing development over the last decade has taken place in existing urban areas" and "of that development 40 per cent has been in units". That being the case, what evidence does the Minister have that the Government actually needs the power to compulsorily acquire land to hand to private developers, where clearly people already are selling detached homes to developers for multiunit developments? How does this proposed policy guarantee that the serious shortage of low- and medium-cost housing across Sydney and New South Wales will be met? 21640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The first part of your question is correct. I did say the Government's policy is that 70 per cent of future housing units will be urban renewal in existing urban areas and that 30 per cent will be in greenfield sites. The Opposition has a policy of having more in western Sydney; we do not have that policy. I went on to say that in the last decade 82 per cent of people wanted to live in greenfield urban areas. I did not say that the Government has a policy to compulsorily acquire land to hand over to developers. One group has made that suggestion. We are calling for suggestions from the public for a whole host of things. It has not been to Cabinet. The Government has made no decision on it and it is not government policy.

VOLUNTEERING

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Volunteering. Could the Minister update the House on what the New South Wales Government is doing to encourage volunteering in New South Wales?

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that around 1.7 million volunteers are working more than 241 million hours in the New South Wales community. The State Plan sets a target of increasing the proportion of the community involved in volunteering by 10 per cent by 2016. To achieve this target we are developing the New South Wales Volunteering Strategy to promote volunteering to parts of the community that, for many reasons, have lower participation rates. For example, we provided around $8 million for the Student Volunteering Program to encourage high school students in years 9 and 10 to volunteer. I am happy to report that during the second half of 2009, 20 schools participated in a pilot of the Student Volunteering Program.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Robyn Parker to order.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: The Government has been working also to expand emergency service volunteering, with a focus on diversifying the volunteer base. In the 2007 election the Government committed to expanding the Rural Fire Service Secondary School Cadet Program for young people and establishing a similar program in the State Emergency Service. In 2008-09, 43 Rural Fire Service Secondary School Cadet Programs were run, with more than 600 students participating. Funds were allocated to the State Emergency Service in the 2008-09 budget for a State Emergency Service cadet program similar to the Rural Fire Service program. In 2008 the State Emergency Service program commenced in four schools, with more than 80 students participating. In 2009 the program was rolled out to another 15 schools.

I was hoping that members of The Nationals particularly would be interested in what the Government is seeking to do to increase the numbers in the Rural Fire Service and the State Emergency Service instead of chatting and seeking to interject. The real issue is: they don't care! It is so obvious that The Nationals do not care about what is happening to volunteers and they do not care about rural New South Wales.

Another encouraging activity is a partnership between the State Emergency Service and the New South Wales Department of Education and Training to increase the number of Aboriginal people volunteering in the State Emergency Service. This partnership has enabled the State Emergency Service to extend a program, piloted in Moree in 2007, to another 11 locations. In 2009 the program was extended to culturally and linguistically diverse communities, with training conducted in Hurstville, Armidale, Tamworth and Newcastle. To date, the program has achieved a retention rate of more than 80 per cent. The people of New South Wales have already benefited from this program with a number of the new Aboriginal State Emergency Service graduates from Boggabilla and Toomelah assisting with recovery efforts during floods in Lismore in May 2009.

In addition to these programs, the New South Wales Government, through the Council of Australian Governments, is working to simplify regulatory and reporting requirements for volunteer organisations. The proposed introduction of a voluntary Standard Chart of Accounts is one outcome of this process, as other recent changes to the Associations Incorporation Act 2009, which aims to streamline registration and reporting processes for incorporated associations. The New South Wales Government also assists organisations with a range of issues through the volunteering website portal.

ELECTRICITY PRICE RISES

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is directed to the Minister for Energy and it refers to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] determination on regulated electricity prices in New South Wales. How much of these price increases relate to the $17 billion expenditure on wires and poles over the next four 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21641

years? How much was required to meet the peak loads that will occur for two hours or less per year and how much of that expenditure could have been avoided if EnergyAustralia, Integral Energy, Country Energy and TransGrid had planned for an aggressive policy of energy efficiency and demand management rather than investing in 1970-style wires and poles?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: The networks that are operated by the three distributors to which Dr Kaye refers have reliability standards that are increasing. The trend is that reliability standards are increasing. In regard to the $16.7 billion investment, the Government is making this investment to ensure that we have a reliable energy supplier, that we have an energy supply that meets reliability standards and, more importantly, that we have an energy system that will attract investment and create jobs in New South Wales. To attract investment to the State and create jobs, one of the key things we need is reliable electricity.

We have an independent regulator called the Australian Energy Regulator. Anyone who knows anything about the energy industry knows that the Australian Energy Regulator, which is an independent body, deals with distribution network charges. The regulator assesses what capital expenditure is required to ensure our distribution networks can meet the expectations people have of a reliable energy supplier and to demonstrate that these projects and capital outlay are warranted.

Implicit in the member's question is that prices are going up. Obviously Dr Kaye was not listening when I spoke earlier about the package the Government has announced today to expand energy rebates. The Government has programs in place to ensure that people's electricity supply cannot be disconnected, that they have to be offered two payment plans in any 12-month period before their energy supply can be disconnected, and a program that will ensure that we do not disconnect people on life support or dialysis. As much as Dr Kaye tries to dress this up as something that could have been avoided, all these projects have been assessed independently by the Australian Energy Regulator as required to ensure that we have reliable electricity supplies and an energy system in this State with a reliability standard that is trending upwards.

OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SERVICES

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Energy, and Minister for Public Sector Reform. In relation to the key performance indicators for the Office of Public Works and Services, administered by the Minister, can the Minister explain to the House why it is that the key performance indicator for projects completed on time is only 85 per cent and the key performance indicator for projects within budget is also 85 per cent? What is the rationale for 15 per cent of all projects completed late and 15 per cent to be completed over budget? Further, as the key performance indicator for satisfaction with solutions by clients is only 80 per cent, what sort of organisation does the Minister run that aims to have 20 per cent of its clients dissatisfied with its services?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for his question because it gives me a chance to talk about NSW Public Works—a division of the Department of Services, Technology and Administration—which delivers amazing projects for the people of New South Wales. NSW Public Works carries out a range of functions within government. For instance, it helps local councils at times of emergency, such as floods. The Hon. Greg Pearce may well be interested in floods. I understand his office is under water at the moment.

NSW Public Works steps up to the plate when we experience local disasters such as floods. It assists local councils in those situations and it delivers on the projects that councils might not be able to deliver. The agency also assists local councils to deal with water and sewerage projects, particularly in regional areas, and delivers a fantastic service to local councils and residents in rural and regional areas. NSW Public Works also looks after some of this State's key heritage buildings. It runs a sandstone project to ensure that the heritage of this State is looked after in a manner that we can all be very proud of. NSW Public Works delivers for the people of this State, often working in extraordinarily difficult situations, particularly in times of flood and other natural disasters. I have talked to NSW Public Works employees and I know they are genuinely committed to delivering for the people of New South Wales.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY LAWS

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: Can the Attorney General update the House on the reform of freedom of information and privacy laws? 21642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: As honourable members will recall, last year Parliament passed a suite of legislation to overhaul the law providing access to government-held information in New South Wales. The aim of the new regime was to maintain and advance a system of responsible and representative democratic government that is open, accountable, fair and effective. The object of the Government Information (Public Access) Act is to open government information to the public by authorising and encouraging its proactive release by agencies and giving members of the public an enforceable right to access to government information, provided that the access is restricted only when there is an overriding public interest against disclosure. The legislation also established the Office of the Information Commissioner [OIC]. The law commenced on 17 July 2009 and an acting information commissioner has been in place since that time. The position of full-time commissioner was advertised late last year and I expect to make an announcement on that in due course.

At the time the laws were introduced, the Government flagged its intention to make further reforms in this area to harmonise the law regulating access to personal information without regulating access to other information held by government agencies. On 1 June 2009, I asked the New South Wales Law Reform Commission to look at this issue and, in particular, to advise on how access applications for personal information should be handled and how the Office of the Privacy Commissioner should interact with the Office of the Information Commissioner. The Law Reform Commission recently provided me with two reports, which I will table after question time.

Report 125, entitled "Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners", makes 18 recommendations dealing with the institutional structure of the Privacy Commission and the Information Commission. Significantly, the report recommends that there be one commission headed by the Information Commissioner that contains a privacy division headed by the Commissioner for Privacy, who would also be a deputy information commissioner. Report 126, entitled "Access to Personal Information", makes 17 recommendations dealing with access to personal information under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 and the new legislation. Significantly, it recommends that various regimes dealing with access and amendments to personal information should be consolidated so that there is one clear avenue for people to gain access to and to amend their personal information. I am tabling the reports in advance of a detailed Government response to each recommendation because it is important that we consult widely and publicly on the issues raised.

One important issue that the Law Reform Commission considered was models for integrating the Privacy Commission's and the Information Commission's offices and functions. The Law Reform Commission looked at models in other jurisdictions and put forward a recommended model. It is proper that I make the report public and consult with the incoming Information Commissioner on the model prior to committing to one option or another. It is intended that legislation be introduced later this year dealing with some key recommendations and more will probably be introduced in the following months. In the meantime, a great deal of work is being done by the Office of the Information Commissioner under the acting commissioner to prepare agencies and the public for the new legislation. I am advised that more than 650 people have completed training on the legislation provided by the Crown Solicitor's Office. Local governments are major stakeholders in the new laws and they receive a large number of applications for information. I am advised that the Local Government and Shires Associations organised a private provider to train its members on the new legislation.

In addition, personnel from the Office of the Information Commissioner attend meetings held by the Local Government Managers Australia working party on the new laws and the office has published a special knowledge update entitled "How does the GIPA Act Affect Local Government". The Office of the Information Commissioner has developed an interim training strategy and an e-learning package, both of which are available on its website. More than 20 templates and a series of frequently asked questions are also available on the office's website. Five fact sheets and five knowledge updates have also been published and more are planned. The Office of the Information Commissioner is sending out regular emails and correspondence to stakeholders to keep them informed of the latest developments and the resources available for implementing the new law.

RIVER RED GUM LOGGING INDUSTRY

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Premier in her role as Minister responsible for the Natural Resources Commission. Is it a fact that the Natural Resources Commission provided supplementary advice or any other supporting—or so named—document for its study of the river red gums in which it corrected sustainable yield calculations? Does the Premier concede that because of the error in these sustainable yield calculations, or irrespective of that error, the financial package for industry assistance—currently standing at a miserly $12 million of the $80 million announced—will need to be increased 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21643

by about $30 million simply to provide equity with the Brigalow decision to provide for dependent business assistance and to cover the mill operating in the Mildura management area and all areas which seem to be excluded from the package? With talks on the assistance packages due to be held next Monday, will the Premier commit to increasing the funding package by at least $27 million?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer that question to the Premier.

PORT MACQUARIE HEALTH SERVICES

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, and Special Minister for State. Is the Treasurer aware that the health capital expenditure in the Port Macquarie electorate was a mere $800,000 last year—$3.75 million less than the average health capital expenditure in North Coast electorates from Myall Lakes to Tweed? Given the allocation of only $900,000 in the 2009-10 budget and the fact that the construction of the fourth pod at Port Macquarie Hospital still does not appear in the budget paper forward estimates through to 2013, when will the residents of Port Macquarie ever get the health services they deserve?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I expected a flood of questions; instead members opposite simply drip them out. I know that the honourable member may be a bit wet behind the ears.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You have been working on this.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I have. And there has been a movement to the Wets in the Liberal Party and there seems to be a new leak! I am working them through my system early.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: What about the hospital?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: If we are going to talk about Port Macquarie, we need to look at the history of the area. What happened to the Port Macquarie Base Hospital is a black day in the history of New South Wales. The geniuses opposite decided to privatise the hospital; they decided to sell it off. It cost three times what the Coalition got for it for this Government to get it back. That is the contribution of members opposite to health on the North Coast. History judges people and will judge the folly of what the Coalition did with Port Macquarie Base Hospital. I am happy to talk about health, because the Keneally Labor Government is spending a record $15.1 billion on health in this State. That is the most ever spent on health in the history of this State.

That funding represents an increase on last year's budget of $1.3 billion. That is the Government's contribution to the improvement of health in this State. In the present debate about health reform we welcome the initiative of the Prime Minister in talking to the States about ending the blame game and stepping up to take responsibility for funding. Under the plan of the Coalition's mates in Canberra—and Tony Abbott was intricately involved in that—the Coalition refused to step up and fund health properly. It neglected health. It neglected the health of the people of Australia; it neglected the health of the people of New South Wales.

Today the Hon. Melinda Pavey implied that the Opposition's hands are clean in relation to these matters; she said it has not been complicit in cutting off funding. I remember raising health issues in this House at the time of the Howard-Abbott Government, and members opposite sat in their seats silent. They were complicit in cutting health funding in this country. Their effort in Port Macquarie damns them from ever taking responsibility for health in this State.

The Government is spending an extra $603 million improving health infrastructure all over the State. The budget includes funding to respond to the Garling report, the Caring Together package, which invests $485 million over four years to improve patient care and safety. We are committed to improving the health of the people of New South Wales; the Opposition is not.

SYDNEY METROPOLITAN STRATEGY

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question is addressed to the Minister for Planning. Will the Minister outline how the public can take part in the review of the Metropolitan Strategy?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The Metropolitan Strategy is perhaps the Government's most important document for determining how Sydney will look and grow over the next 25 years. The original Metropolitan 21644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

Strategy was released in December 2005 and set a vision for managing Sydney's growth sustainably until 2031. The strategy is required to be reviewed and updated every five years. This ensures it remains relevant and considers merging planning issues and challenges, and also hears the community's views on how this city should grow. The Government has commenced its first scheduled review of the strategy alongside the exhibition of the new Metropolitan Transport Plan and Connecting the City of Cities 2010, the combination of which is central to this Government's integrated land use and transport planning approach. At the end of the review period Sydney will have a robust, 25-year plan through until 2036 that will give the State, local government and the private sector more certainty when making decisions about policy, planning and investment.

The combined consideration of the Metropolitan Strategy and the Metropolitan Transport Plan demonstrates a commitment to outcomes for a city that is sustainable, well serviced and an attractive place to live, and reaffirms Sydney's global city status. Five years since the launch of the original Metropolitan Strategy we are getting a clear idea of how Sydney is changing. There is fast population growth. We expect six million people to be living in Sydney by 2036. That is a population 40 per cent higher than it was at the time of the 2006 census. One in six people will be aged 65 or older, up from one in eight at the moment. That is a dramatic change. That means we will need a lot more homes just to accommodate those people. An extra 770,000 new homes will be required, and because we expect to have fewer people in each household in the future we will need a greater proportion of smaller homes. As well, 760,000 new jobs will be needed, around half in western Sydney.

This significant population growth demands an integrated and responsive approach to transport, infrastructure and land use planning. So, it is vital we get the planning right to ensure that Sydney's development as Australia's only truly global city remains sustainable. The review starts with the release of a discussion paper called Sydney Towards 2036, which is now available on the website shapeyourstate.nsw.gov.au.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Actually, it is on the website; I can confirm that.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: That is what I said. Does the member think I would mislead the House? Public consultation will continue until 30 April. I encourage not only all members of this House to look at the discussion paper—all those other than the honourable member who has already looked—but also all Sydneysiders to get involved in the review. The community must be involved in this review because it is about how we want the city to look and what amenities the city should provide to the community over the next 25 years. The review includes an online community forum, where people can get involved in discussions and make comments. Printed copies of the discussion paper will be available at local councils and we will accept written submissions, as we have always done.

The Department of Planning will also organise briefings for, and workshops with, key stakeholders such as local government, industry bodies and other special interest and professional groups. At the end of the process an integrated metropolitan plan will be released in the second half of the year. The review of the Metropolitan Strategy will ensure we have an up-to-date metropolitan plan that is responsive to local, national and global change over the next 25 years.

CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION CHARGES

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I wish to ask the Treasurer a question without notice. Is it a fact that the Reserve Bank decision in 2003 to allow corporations to charge fees for credit card transactions has led to a massive rip-off of families in New South Wales? Is it a fact that some taxi firms and airlines are charging customers up to 10 per cent instead of 1 per cent, including American Express customers being charged 3 per cent, per transaction? What action is the Government taking to stop these excessive charges in New South Wales?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I believe that question would be best answered by the Minister for Fair Trading, so I will refer it to her for an appropriate response.

KEMBLA GRANGE DIRECT FACTORY OUTLET

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Planning, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for Lands. Is the Minister aware that the development of a factory outlet at Kembla Grange would create 2,000 jobs in the Illawarra region, where unemployment is currently around 8 per cent, generate $140 million in retail spending, and recapture about $37 million in escape spending 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21645

to other regions? Given these factors, why does the factory outlet's development continue to be caught up in arbitrary zonings? Upon local Labor member Paul Macleay's request has the Minister reviewed the circumstances around the request for zoning change? What actions will the Minister take to allow this development to proceed for the greater commercial and economic good of the Illawarra?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I am aware of the direct factory outlet to which the member refers. I have visited the site as a result of representations from two members, the member for Heathcote, Paul Macleay, and the member for Wollongong, Noreen Hay, who took me there. I agree with most of the comments of the Hon. John Ajaka about its importance and the leakage from Sydney, as it were, of people who like to shop at direct factory outlets—among them, my wife. I take on board what the member has raised and advise that my department is looking into the matter.

SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question is addressed to the Minister for Small Business. Will the Minister update the House on how the Government is helping small business owners improve their management skills?

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: Small businesses in New South Wales—

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Are the engine room of the economy!

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: One cannot be interested in political history in this State without knowing something about, and being interested in, the words of Sir Robert Menzies. During the 1940s Sir Robert Menzies gave a number of fireside speeches. In one such speech Sir Robert Menzies referred to the middle classes as the forgotten people. He said those who ran small businesses were the forgotten people. I have been waiting for two weeks for a question from the Opposition about small business, but I have received none. To the Opposition in this place, small business people in New South Wales are the forgotten people.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I place the Hon. Melinda Pavey on a second call to order.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: There are hundreds of thousands of small business people in New South Wales working hard in New South Wales to create jobs and investment in this State. Our role as the Government is to provide the environment in which these businesses can survive and thrive, and we take that role very seriously. Part of that commitment is to ensure that all small businesses get access to top-quality information, training and support that are useful and accessible.

In February I announced that the Government would introduce a new series of 10 new business masterclasses for small and medium enterprises between March and November this year. These classes give owners and managers practical business management skills in areas like exporting, marketing and leadership. The aim of these business masterclasses is to stimulate the adoption of new ideas and contemporary business practices, encourage innovation and enhance export potential. The inaugural masterclass will be held at the Industry and Investment offices in North Parramatta on 18 March. Craig Rispin of the Future Trends Group will provide an overview of trends in the small business marketplace. Masterclass participants will learn from some of Australia's leading business consultants, who will share their practical tips on how to grow our business.

The Business MasterClass Program joins the existing suite of programs that the New South Wales Government already has in place, for example, the Innovation Pathways Program, developed by Industry and Investment New South Wales and the Australian Technology Showcase, which aims to accelerate the growth of innovative New South Wales organisations seeking product commercialisation, investment or export sales; the Western Sydney Business Employment Fund, which aims to encourage business growth and new jobs in the region; and the Strategic Business Clusters Program, which encourages groups of businesses in particular fields to work in partnership to achieve a common outcome, whether it is jointly developing commercial opportunities or exploring creative solutions to common problems.

An example of this is the Born and Bred Fashion Cluster, which I met with recently. This Sydney-based small group of companies have come together to develop a new Australian fashion label—Made Right Here—focusing on local materials and manufacturing. Recently, in the lead-up to International Women's Day we announced funds to establish a "Women in Manufacturing" cluster to boost women's representation and career advancement opportunities in this major sector. Again I state that for so long as we have a New South Wales Labor Government small business will not be the forgotten people. 21646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

BIRTH CERTIFICATE SEX CLASSIFICATION

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question without notice to the Attorney General. Considering Norrie, an individual who doctors agree cannot be categorised as male or female, was given a certificate from the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages that listed Norrie's sex as "not specified" and considering that Norrie has since received a letter on 16 March from the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages stating that it did not have the power to issue certificates showing "not specified" in the sex field, will the Attorney publicly release the legal advice upon which this decision was made? What was the date of the legal advice? Was this legal advice sought before or after extensive media coverage of Norrie's case and if there is a problem with New South Wales laws that preclude Norrie being specified as "sex not specified", will the Attorney act to reform these laws, thereby implementing recommendation 5 of the March 2009 Human Rights Commission Report entitled "The Sex Files" that recommends a person over the age of 18 years should be able to choose to have an unspecified sex noted on documents and records?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am very proud of the fact that I sponsored and introduced into this House the Courts and Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill, which amended the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act to enable people who were resident in New South Wales but were born overseas and had a sex affirmation procedure to obtain legal recognition of their change of sex. That was legislation that I sponsored into this Parliament and which was passed. It has enabled people who were born overseas to have a sex affirmation procedure, to have it registered and to have a relevant identification document. They can then use that document when applying for passports, having medical treatment, and dealing with police, emergency care workers and hospital staff, seeking emergency accommodation or Centrelink benefits and representations to financial institutions and insurance companies.

This issue was ventilated in the media and a number of inquiries were made with my office. I can advise that my office sought further information in relation to the matter the member has raised. Following those inquiries being made, the director general of my department discussed the matter with the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages and a decision was reached for legal advice to be obtained in relation to the matter. My office was advised of that legal advice, as I understand it, on Monday. The registrar then rang Norrie and advised him of the decision that the member has referred to. I did not speak to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. At no time did I or, I am advised, anyone in my office make any direction to the registrar in relation to the decision that he took. This was made clear in advice from the registry, which states:

Advice received from the Crown Solicitor is that the registrar may only issue a recognised detail certificate or a new birth certificate following a change of sex in either male or female gender. The registrar accepts this advice and has directed that any applications for recognised detail certificates or changes of sex comply with this advice.

In relation to the certificate already issued to Norrie, I am advised that the registrar could request a return of the certificate under section 59 (3) (d) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act since it was issued in error, but has determined in the circumstances that he does not propose to take this action, although he has advised Norrie that the certificate is invalid. I am not aware of any jurisdiction in Australia that, at the moment, captures the specific issue the member has raised. I would need to obtain further advice as to the policy issues and the impact of any change of policy. Ultimately any decision to enact a change to the legislation to facilitate that to occur would require the concurrence of the Parliament.

[Business interrupted.]

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT: Order! I acknowledge the presence in the President's gallery of the Hon. Derek Freeman, a former member of this House.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

[Business resumed.]

YOUTH MEETING PLACES

The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Small Business, Minister for Volunteering, and Minister for Youth. Is he aware of the decision made by the Commission for Children and Young People to replace the meeting spaces available for youth organisations in 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21647

their Surry Hills headquarters with office space? Is he aware that this was one of the very few free spaces available for young people in Sydney? What action is the Minister taking to ensure that young people and youth organisations have reliable access to meeting spaces in Sydney?

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: As the member is aware, the Commission for Children and Young People has recently moved premises. In fact, I met with the Commission for Children and Young People and my Youth Consultative Council in one of the large meeting places in their new premises. The member asked me for specific details about various meeting places in that location. I will come back to the member with details about the specific locations and the available meeting places. I will refer generally to the role of the New South Wales Government in providing meeting places throughout New South Wales through the commission itself, without making reference to the role of other departments, organisations such as RSLs, local government and so on.

The Hon. Don Harwin would be aware that the Government is assisting young people in a major way through the Better Futures Strategy, which was established in 2001. It originally targeted young people aged 12 to 24 years who were using drugs or at risk of drug use. In 2003 the strategy decentralised and was managed within the Department of Community Services. Following the Government's structural reforms to the public sector in mid-2009, responsibility for the Better Futures Strategy is now with the Commission for Children and Young People, which is located within Communities New South Wales.

For the Hon. Don Harwin's interest, the 2009-10 Better Futures budget is $3.9 million. In 2009-10 Better Futures has provided funding to 52 projects, such as the Kool Kids Club, which is run by South Sydney Youth Services and which I know the honourable member has an interest in; Shire Wide Youth Services, which provides facilities and activities for young people in Miranda and Menai; the Port Stephens Adolescent and Family Counsellor Project operated in and around the Newcastle area; and Better Futures Merana, which is operated by the Merana Aboriginal Community Association for the Hawkesbury, to name but a few. I was fortunate to visit Shire Wide Youth Services' youth centre at Menai a couple of weeks ago and was pleased to see the active role the centre plays in engaging the local youth, with a steady flow of young people coming and going during my visit. The success of services such as the one at Menai is testament to the vital work that Better Futures has funded in recent years, providing not only structured activities but also a range of meeting places in the community that are required by young people.

The New South Wales Commission for Children and Young People is currently reviewing the Better Futures Strategy to ensure that it addresses current issues and priorities for children and young people. The review is considering current research and obtaining the views of children and young people, service providers and key stakeholders. For the benefit of the Hon. Don Harwin, that is a general overview of the Better Futures funding, which is providing facilities in the community. The honourable member specifically asked me about locations within the commission's centre here in Sydney. I will come back to him with those details.

STATE ECONOMY

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the latest data showing the strength of the New South Wales economy?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I can report more good news for the New South Wales economy, more good news for the green shoots of recovery. Growth in the $380 billion New South Wales economy is leading the nation. That is a cold, hard fact from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The latest official data from the bureau shows that New South Wales's State Final Demand grew by 3.9 per cent over the first half of this financial year. The national average managed only a 3 per cent rise. State Final Demand is the best, broadest and most up-to-date measure of how State economies are faring. In fact, the latest data shows that New South Wales's growth for the first half of this financial year was stronger than for any other State. Growth in our State was around twice that in Western Australia and about four and half times that in Queensland.

Economic growth in New South Wales is leading the nation and, unlike in other States, growth in New South Wales is broad-based. Indeed, I have some new labour statistics released today from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This is original—that is, a little more volatile—data for the February 2010 quarter. Today's Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that for New South Wales for the February 2010 quarter one in 10 full-time jobs were in the construction industry, one in 10 full-time jobs were in the professional, scientific and technical sector—better than Victoria's performance for the same sector—8 per cent of full-time jobs were in retail, and 10.7 per cent of full-time jobs were in the manufacturing sector. 21648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

These latest figures, hot off the press, confirm the broad-based recovery in the New South Wales jobs sector. Indeed, the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that business investment grew by 7.2 per cent in the December 2009 quarter, while the national average was only 3.5 per cent. This means that growth in New South Wales business investment was more than twice the national average for the last quarter. This is more good news for the people of New South Wales and more good news for the New South Wales economy. And the more depressed members on the other side of the House look, because they are very unhappy with any good news about the New South Wales economy.

[Interruption]

Members opposite are perking up now. Opposition members have shown their true colours: talking down the economy and opposing the stimulus. Members opposite oppose the stimulus, yet they talk about standing for job losses. In fact, the Federal Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry, estimated that if there were no fiscal stimulus, we would lose around 100,000 jobs nationally. The Coalition's position is that it is opposed to the stimulus and opposed to jobs. We can see that that links nicely with the new secret plan—or, not so secret plan—leaked out by the Hon. Greg Pearce: Beijing Barry's plan to send data jobs in this State overseas—

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: I refer to the budget papers, which show a project called data centre outsourcing—

The PRESIDENT: Order! That is not a point of order—

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member will resume his seat. I place the Hon. Greg Pearce on a call to order.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I will never support sending jobs offshore, which is the Barry O'Farrell plan. We in the Labor Party would never send jobs offshore. We will not be doing that. [Time expired.]

SERVICES DELIVERY

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, on behalf of the Minister for Community Services. Is the Minister aware of a recent survey by the Australian Council of Social Services that found that New South Wales agencies are struggling to meet the rising demand for services and are forced to turn people away? Is the Minister aware that New South Wales fared the worst in the survey, of any State or Territory? In particular, is the Minister aware that more than 110,000 people in New South Wales who were otherwise eligible for services were turned away, and that 75 per cent of the people who were turned away were seeking financial and material support, housing, and food and health services? Will the Government continue to provide additional funding for much-needed program delivery as well as adequate funding to ensure the ongoing sustainability of organisations that deliver such critical services to the State's most vulnerable people?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes for his question and interest in this matter. It is a wide-ranging question, and I am not aware of the particular survey the honourable member refers to. However, I think it is worth reflecting on what is in the budget in terms of the many areas of service he raises. I have spoken previously in the House about the Health budget. Indeed, I have spoken about a record $15.1 billion being invested in Health in New South Wales, a record $14.7 billion being invested in Education and Training, a record $2.3 billion being invested in Ageing, Disability and Home Care, and the $1.6 billion invested this year in Community Services. And so it goes on. We are absolutely committed to delivering the best set of services to the people of New South Wales. That is precisely the objective of the budget, and it is precisely what we are doing on a daily basis right around New South Wales.

It is important that when we talk about delivering services to the people of New South Wales we recognise that the challenge of delivering services across the State is taken by all levels of government—local, State and Federal. That is why I am so pleased that there is a new opportunity presented by the Rudd Labor Government nationally to sit down and talk about dealing with a number of issues to improve services for the people of New South Wales.

One can contrast the relationship between the Rudd Labor Government and the New South Wales Labor Government with the relationship between Tony Abbott and Barry O'Farrell. As we know, Tony Abbott 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21649

has been very critical of the Barry O'Farrell's teensy-weensy, itsy-bitsy target strategies. I have probably embellished that slightly on what Tony Abbott said. Nevertheless, he has exposed the laziness of the New South Wales Opposition in not putting forward any policies whatsoever. Tony Abbott has exposed that he does not want to be associated with the New South Wales Opposition. He has made it very clear that he wants to be at arm's length from the New South Wales Opposition. It is not surprising that Tony Abbott wants to distance himself from the New South Wales Opposition, when one looks at some of the candidates the Liberals have coughed up in their recent round of preselections.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: The response of the Treasurer has nothing to do with the question he was asked.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I assume the Hon. Don Harwin is taking his point of order on relevance. The Treasurer will continue to be generally relevant.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I remind the House that there were a number of new initiatives contained in this year's budget to help communities and to deliver better services. The Local Infrastructure Fund is a $200 million fund to assist councils with loans to bring forward infrastructure and improve delivery. There is also the very popular Community Building Partnerships fund. I cannot recall the number of times I have seen Opposition members praising that program in the media and happily posing for the happy snaps, trying to steal credit for yet another New South Wales Government initiative. However, I welcome Opposition members supporting New South Wales Government initiatives. That was one of the many initiatives the Government included in the budget to support the people of New South Wales and to improve services.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. I ask the Minister whether he will pass my question on to the Minister for Community Services for answer.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The time for the Treasurer to answer has expired. However, I believe that at the commencement of his answer the Treasurer said that he would refer the specifics of the question to the Minister responsible.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I suggest that if members have further questions, they place them on notice.

FILM CLASSIFICATION

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Yesterday in question time Ms Lee Rhiannon asked me a question is relation to X-rated videos. I undertook to take the second part of her question on notice. I now respond to that part of her question. The Commonwealth Classification Act establishes the various classification categories including the X18+ classification, establishes the Classification Board, and sets out the procedures the Classification Board follows in making its classification decisions. The board decides what material fits into each classification band. It does not provide for the legality or otherwise of selling, possessing or publicly exhibiting X 18+ films or any other type of film in any part of Australia. It is up to each State and Territory to determine what types of films, publications and computer games are legal in their jurisdiction.

The sale of X18+ films is prohibited in New South Wales, and has been since the commencement of the cooperative scheme for classification in 1995. However, other jurisdictions participating in the cooperative scheme—the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory—do allow for the sale of X18+ films. New South Wales, along with other jurisdictions that prohibit the sale of X18+ films, does not prohibit mere possession of such films. I believe this is a sensible approach in a modern, mobile society where there are some differences in the regimes across the country. I note that on 17 March Ms Lee Rhiannon asked:

Why [is it] legal to purchase and possess X-rated material in this State but it is not legal to sell it? How can a jail sentence be justified for selling anything that is legal under Commonwealth law?

First, I would say that it is a misconception to say that this pornography is legal under Commonwealth law. The Commonwealth does not decide what is legal in this area. What the member is referring to is the fact that it is legal to sell this pornography in two jurisdictions in Australia: the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory under territory laws.

The reason that the sale of hard-core pornography is not legal in New South Wales is that the community and their representatives want to minimise the opportunity for it to be distributed in this State. That 21650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

should not be surprising; every other State in Australia takes the same approach. But in the field of classification we also need to cooperate with other jurisdictions, and we need to avoid undermining the sovereignty of other parliaments. As a practical measure New South Wales, like other States, allows the possession of material legally purchased elsewhere in Australia. This sensible approach maintains New South Wales's position against pornography but avoids the ridiculous outcome of criminalising visitors from the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory.

It interests me that Ms Lee Rhiannon is concerned about increasing access to X18+ pornography in New South Wales, particularly when I have read the Greens policy on women, which is clearly against pornography that "discriminates against women by presenting them as suitable objects for violent or sexual exploitation". Frankly, that approach seems pretty sensible. Perhaps the member needs to revise her knowledge of that policy, and perhaps the Greens need to make up their minds about what they are proposing, rather than just making inconsistent complaints about sensible, considered policy.

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.04 p.m. The House resumed at 2.40 p.m.]

COMMITTEE ON THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION

Reports: Report on the Twelfth General Meeting with the Police Integrity Commission and Report on the Tenth General Meeting with the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission

The Hon. Lynda Voltz, on behalf of the Chair, tabled the following reports:

(1) Report No. 11/54, entitled "Report on the Twelfth General Meeting with the Police Integrity Commission", together with answers to questions on notice, transcript of evidence and minutes of proceedings , dated March 2010

(2) Report No. 12/54, entitled "Report on the Tenth General Meeting with the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission", together with answers to questions on notice, transcript of evidence and minutes of proceedings, dated March 2010.

Reports ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Lynda Voltz.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [2.41 p.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the reports.

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

TILLEGRA DAM

Production of Documents: Further Return to Order

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to resolution of 25 February 2010, documents relating to a further order regarding Tillegra Dam received this day from the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of the documents.

Production of Documents: Claim of Privilege

The Clerk tabled a return identifying those of the documents that are claimed to be privileged and should not be tabled or made public. The Clerk advised that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only.

HURLSTONE AGRICULTURAL HIGH SCHOOL SITE BILL 2009

Second Reading

Debate call on, and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay and set down as an order of the day for a future day. 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21651

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Christine Robertson agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 230 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to International Women's Day, be called on forthwith.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Christine Robertson agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 230 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

Debate resumed from 11 March 2010.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [2.44 p.m.]: As I said when this motion was previously before the House, I have raised in the House before the portrayal of women in the media, particularly in the sports pages of the major newspapers. This year I attended the preliminary final of the Women's National Basketball League, where unfortunately Canberra defeated our own Sydney Flames, and the final of the National Women's Soccer League, where Sydney FC women's team walked away champions, scoring some fantastic goals. But another year passes where the sports pages barely acknowledge that other 50 per cent of the population. Perhaps they are trying to balance out the number of women cooking the dinner on commercial television—only in advertisements, of course, not on the cooking shows. While I am on the subject of the image of women, I will mention the National Body Image Advisory Group. Whilst I appreciate the Federal Government feels obliged to act, the launch of this group hardly left me inspired. I refer to a quote from the chair of the group, Sarah Cornish, who is the editor of Girlfriend and TV Hits magazines, to give a tenor of the sentiment. In a blog, Sarah Cornish states:

This is the photo that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald today and I shall blame it for my own bad body (and face) image. Dumb idea to stand next to Sarah Murdoch and Kate Ellis (federal minister for Sport and Youth) who are both tall and luminously beautiful. DUH. Doesn't help that I look to be in the middle of saying something. Or chewing something. Both of which are highly likely. You know it's a bad photo when your Mum (who usually raves to the point of embarrassment) admits "Um, not the best photo, darling" and a media colleague texts to say "Could they have possibly made you look worse?" I should have demanded re-touching. Oh wait. At least I was wearing control pants or it could have, in fact, been worse. Far worse.

It is hardly inspiring stuff from the chair of the National Body Image Advisory Group. One of the voluntary aims of the code is to use a diverse range of people who are appropriate to their target audience. When considering diversity, particular focus should be given to including a range of body shapes, sizes and ethnicities. It is a pity that the Federal Government did not include a whole lot more of this diversity when setting up the advisory group or acknowledge the 10 per cent of the male population who have poor body image. I am not sure what our suffragette forebears would have made of it all.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA [2.46 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to support the motion of the Hon. Christine Robertson. As she outlined in her speech in this place last week, we had the honour of participating in the wonderful Bridging of Peace ceremony hold on Monday 8 March 2010, International Women's Day, in Parliament House. The Women's Federation for World Peace International was responsible for bringing together many Australian women of different cultures, spiritual beliefs and traditions to participate in a moving peace ceremony. Ms Tracey De Geer, President of this great organisation, together with Auntie Ali Golding, a Biripi woman representing the Gadigal people of the Eora nation, their elders past and present, guided all present in meaningful indigenous storytelling and movements symbolising the role that all of us play in bringing a cultural richness to our communities and, indeed, our great nation.

It was also a pleasure for me to host the White Ribbon Day Breakfast last November at Parliament House with my senior adviser and White Ribbon Day Ambassador, Councillor Vincent DeLuca, OAM. Ending domestic violence against women continues to be supported across our society and in a bipartisan manner. In this global world we live in, where communication, technological, medical and scientific advances are racing ahead, we face constant threats of economic downturns, terrorism and natural disasters. Through having an increased understanding of people's beliefs, cultures and traditions, history and current circumstances, we are 21652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

better able to provide a humane response to these challenges confronting our communities and the world. Seventy per cent of the world's poor are women. Eight out of every 10 female workers are in vulnerable employment in Africa and Asia. Every minute a woman dies from the complications of pregnancy and childbirth. Economic security for women remains a real challenge, together with enabling women to make life choices free of discrimination, enabling them to access education for themselves and their children, providing them with adequate employment and safeguarding their rights. I expect these important issues are shared by all members of our Australian Parliaments.

As men and women working together we should strive to eliminate ignorance, prejudice and exclusion, which create tensions, violence and unhappiness in our communities, on a local, State, national and global basis. Women have a natural instinct to nurture and care, and on International Women's Day we celebrate the presence of women and their voices, which are needed in so many aspects of life—families, educational institutions and community services, where they often play major roles. The presence of women and their voices are needed in our businesses, our democratic institutions, our judiciary, our international affairs, our diplomatic corps and our peacemaking processes to ensure the values that women hold so dear in their dealings with others are kept at the forefront of decision-making.

I have been fortunate in my life, from my time as President of the Australian Local Government Women's Association, to be placed in leadership roles in which I have been able to work with so many wonderful women. I acknowledge the many members of this place who have given so much to their local communities when serving as councillors and mayors in their local areas. The Australian Local Government Women's Association has encouraged, and continues to encourage, the democratic involvement of women across the political spectrum. The Australian Local Government Women's Association prepares and assists them in their journey, sharing knowledge and experience for the good of the people we serve.

I had a feminist mother who was born in the Eolian Islands off Sicily in Italy who had the opportunity to emigrate to Sydney post the Second World War. I am indebted to my parents for encouraging me in all my life endeavours—at school; at university; in the corporate world of pharmaceutical sales and marketing, and later in diagnostics and women's health; in local government, when I stood for election to Hurstville City Council and then when I became a member of the Legislative Assembly as member for Georges River; in the executive of the Liberal Party of Australia, New South Wales Division; and then, ultimately, in this hallowed place, the New South Wales Legislative Council. I want to give back and will continue to assist other young women—and men—in their life endeavours so that they can achieve their potential for the betterment of our society.

Today I congratulate the United Nations Development Fund for Women [UNIFEM] in particular on its excellent international advocacy work, especially in highlighting the need to end violence against women and alleviate their suffering in undeveloped and developing nations. On health, education, justice, employment and working conditions, and fighting domestic and community violence against women, the strong and respected voice of UNIFEM is heard loudly. Ending world poverty by 2015 as a target and as the theme of this year's International Women's Day appears to be overly ambitious, but the advocacy and energy levels devoted to it are to be respected and encouraged. We all understand the linkage between poverty, poor literacy, numeracy, unemployment, lack of proper housing, the cycle of despair and resultant poor social outcomes.

International Woman's Day has been observed since the early 1900s, a time of great expansion and upheaval in the industrialised world, with booming population growth and the rise of the suffragette movement. From that time critical debate amongst women started to gain momentum, and oppression and inequality were vocally and physically resisted. Many men joined the movement in campaigning for change, and, indeed, they still do. In 1908, 15,000 women marched through the streets of New York City demanding better pay, shorter hours and voting rights. In 1910 an International Conference of Working Women was held in Copenhagen and a woman named Clara Zetkin, leader of the Women's Office for the Social Democratic Party in Germany, came up with the idea of an International Women's Day. Now, on 8 March every year, we not only celebrate women's contribution to society but also use the day as a vehicle to press for more legislative, judicial and social changes on any level they are required—local, State, national and international.

For many years the United Nations has held an annual International Women's Day conference to coordinate international efforts for women's rights and participation in social, political and economic processes. All over the world, and in our own communities, many small-, medium- and large-scale events are held to recognise and further encourage women's advancement while reminding us of the need for continued vigilance and action to ensure women's equality is gained and maintained in all aspects of life. 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21653

Women feminists of the 1970s continue to encourage young women of today to believe that more must be done in our boardrooms, courts, councils, State and Federal parliaments, and major institutions to increase female representation. An increased critical mass of women in these workplaces is needed if we are to achieve equality. Indeed, my own party, the Liberal Party of Australia, does not believe in a policy of affirmative action, so much is needed to be done by people like me to identify, encourage, guide and nurture young women in the field of politics. Through my work on the Liberal Party Women's Council and our Young Liberal Movement as well as in mainstream activities in the community I give it my best and I am encouraged by what I see around me.

Great improvements have been made with the presence of female Prime Ministers, Premiers, judges and astronauts—the list goes on and on. Women are welcomed into universities, specialities and professions, business and politics. They are welcomed because the outcomes from their presence and contribution are positive for the corporation, the institution or the political party. Women can make real choices to work and have a family. Expectations of young women today are more realistic than those of the feminists of the 1970s. We have learnt by experience that women cannot do it all on their own and that a loving and supportive partner certainly helps.

Women are still not paid equally to their male counterparts doing the same job. It is estimated that the gender pay gap remains at 17 per cent, according to the National Centre of Social Economic Modelling. In its report, drawing from two decades of Australian Bureau of Statistics wage data between 1990 and 2009, it states that the gap has climbed 2 percentage points to 17 per cent over that time—93 billion or 8.5 per cent of GDP each year. The Australian Services Union has recently launched a gender pay gap test case with Fair Work Australia focusing on the lower pay of community services sector workers—a female-dominated and highly professional sector, but a discriminatory environment for many women—and an excellent test case at that. I wish the Australian Services Union much success.

Responsible employers should look closely at their pay rates, policies and practices with a critical eye towards better productivity and not just the wages dollar bottom line. Women often need to work in jobs that provide flexibility, as they are more likely to combine work with caring for the family, and part-time work is more readily available in lower-paid occupations and positions, such as retail. But even after you allow for the differences in qualifications, length of service, full-time and part-time hours, there is still a wide unexplained gap in earnings for comparable jobs. Why are women paid less from the moment they step into the workforce? Female graduates on average earn $2,000 less per year than their equivalent male graduates when they first start working. The 2008 Graduate Pathways Survey estimated that males earn around $7,800 per year more than females in their fifth year after graduation. Work that out. The National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling report estimated that women could expect to earn nearly $1 million less than men over a lifetime doing equivalent jobs. Women are two and half times more likely than men to live in poverty in their old age. By 2019, on average, women will have half the amount of superannuation that men have.

Paid parental leave is a welcomed proposal and I congratulate the Federal Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, on his proposed universal paid parental leave scheme. Encouraging women and men to have a family and indeed increase the size of that family, lifting our home-grown population and contributing to the nation's productivity, has much public support. Six months parental leave at current pay levels capped at an annual pay rate of $150,000 a year will mean a 1.7 per cent levy on our nation's top 3,200 businesses on all taxable incomes in excess of $5 million. We face a national challenge with an ageing population of baby boomers; we need to lift our work outputs. An industry-supported paid parental scheme is an excellent proposal.

One in three Australian women experiences physical violence and almost one in five experiences sexual violence over their lifetime. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women report higher levels of physical violence than non-indigenous women and they are more likely to experience sexual violence and to sustain injury—clearly an unacceptable situation causing much personal, social and economic cost for all our community. We continue to speak out against such acts of ignorance but we must do more to empower women, their families and friends to speak out and give these women all the support they need to keep their lives and their families together. Young boys and young men need to hear the message loudly that if they want to be respected as real men they must treat women with respect.

The incidence of people trafficking, or the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of people for the purposes of exploitation such as slavery, forced labour, including sex work and servitude, is still unacceptably high in many parts of the world, especially where there is armed conflict, a breakdown of law and order, and natural disasters. Young women feature significantly in the trafficking statistics and I believe we 21654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

know of only the tip of the iceberg. Traffickers manipulate, bribe, blackmail and coerce vulnerable young women, who then have their basic human rights violated, are sexually exploited and more often than not subjected to violence, forced marriages and other harmful practices. Organised crime involving prostitution is still a big business, with estimates of the women victims involved ranging from 500,000 to two million a year.

The international women's colours are green, white and violet. In the early suffrage days green was for "give", white for "women" and violet for "vote"—Give Women the Vote. They have since come to represent green for "growth", white for "purity of purpose" and violet for "dignity and solidarity". International Women's Day in this country is an opportunity to celebrate the positives achieved for women over the past century, but we should never forget the many negatives that still exist for vulnerable women at the most fundamental level of human rights. It is for those women in particular that our voices will continue to be heard loudly.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [3.02 p.m.]: Family First supports the motion moved by the Hon. Christine Robertson and congratulates the excellent speakers who have outlined many points that we support. Two weeks ago I read an article written by Mia Freedman entitled "We've Come a Long Way, Baby" and was so impressed by it that I reproduced it and circulated it to people I know—of course, with acknowledgment. Ms Freedman picked up many of the current issues that other members have referred to that still need to be confronted, and Family First generally supports them.

Two or three weeks ago in "Christian Voice: Family Values"—an electronic magazine I produce each week—I published an editorial about empowering women to end poverty by 2015. Of course, that is the theme of International Women's Day 2010. I indicated Family First's support for achieving movement towards gender equality. However, I made the point that there is still so much more to be done. Women, and in particular women with a disability, experience more poverty and discrimination than most. The following is a list of examples of what is meant by empowering women to end poverty: action taken to promote women's greater involvement in public life, legal and social programs to protect women from violence, the promotion of social change—encouraging more equitable sharing of domestic duties, providing greater access for women and girls to technical training in information and communication technologies, and the reform of social services with greater priority being given to the needs of women.

This International Women's Day we remember those women who still live in bondage, fear and poverty. It is estimated that women comprise 70 per cent of all people in the world living in poverty. We have also raised in the past few weeks the fact that violent rape is now seen as an acceptable weapon of war in some countries, particularly African countries. I note the increasing tendency in western countries to home-based violence. I never use the term "domestic violence" because it seems to make it more acceptable than other kinds of violence. Violence is always violence. Family First is committed not only to fighting against these tendencies but also to continuing to support Australian women in improving gender equality and, in particular, seeking salary equity and equal representation in senior management positions.

About 40 years ago I was impressed while at university by a series of lectures I was privileged to hear given by Germaine Greer based on her book The Female Eunuch. Since that time I have consistently done whatever I could to obtain domestic and religious equity in terms of female leadership, not only in the community but also in the church. In my earlier life I organised springboard programs for young women managers, mentoring programs and management training programs for in excess of 3,000 women. When I was responsible for payroll levels for 4,600 staff I realised there was still so much more to be done to achieve equity and sought to achieve it by providing child care, parental leave and equality in superannuation benefits and at all levels of pay.

A member who spoke earlier made a reference to the image of yummy mummies. The reason I do not appreciate that reference is that the woman I married is a yummy mummy. However, I did appreciate the fact that when Thérèse Rein, the wife of the Prime Minister, spoke about significant women achievers last week she included Dr Catherine Hamlin, AC, for her work in establishing fistula surgery in Ethiopia. My wife and I rejoiced at the highlighting of Dr Hamlin's work because we have financially supported Dr Hamlin and her work in a major way for more than 20 years. I commend her biography to everyone. I was personally thrilled to be able to congratulate her and to welcome her into the group of Companions of the Order of Australia some time ago when she was awarded that high honour. She richly deserves that highest of honours that our country bestows. I also congratulate the New South Wales Premier's Council for Women and the Office for Women's Policy on raising some of the issues that concern us during International Women's Day. I pledge that Family First will continue to work on these important issues. 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21655

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.07 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party fully supports this motion on International Women's Day moved by the Hon. Christine Robertson. We usually allow the ladies to have an opportunity to speak on motions such as this. I join in congratulating the nominees, the 10 finalists and the winner of this year's New South Wales Woman of the Year award, Christine Weston. I also acknowledge the plight, contributions and achievements of women in New South Wale throughout history, that 70 per cent of the world's poor are women, and that empowering women can help to break the cycle of poverty. I support the motion's call for both sides of politics to work together to support and encourage women to achieve a greater balance of women in senior management and leadership roles. I express my gratitude to my mother, my wife and my daughter for all that I have learnt from them.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [3.08 p.m.]: I appreciate that this debate has been going on for some time and I do not intend to make a lengthy contribution. However, I take this opportunity to put a couple of reflections on the record. I commend the Hon. Christine Robertson for moving this important motion. A number of issues associated with the key theme of the motion have been addressed. I make particular reference to paragraph (e), which refers to acknowledging that empowering women can help to break the cycle of poverty, and paragraph (f), which calls on both sides of politics to work together to support and to encourage women to achieve a greater balance of women in senior management and leadership roles. I fully support those and other aspirations in the motion.

I will raise an issue that I have spoken about in this place before and about which I am particularly concerned because I am father to a daughter, I am happily married and I have a mother, a sister and a niece. Like all men, I am connected to women in a range of ways.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: You sound very qualified.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: No, I do not wish to qualify it in any way. I want to reflect on a matter I have spoken about in the House: what I believe is the very serious impact of the sexualisation of children, both girls and boys. I will not re-canvass issues I have covered in the past because they are in Hansard, but I want to use a case study that is current this week to bring into sharp focus the point I want to make. To continue the theme, last week's Weekend Australian published a couple of interesting articles about the impact of what is colloquially called the "raunch culture" and its impact on young girls. I am not talking about girls experiencing puberty, I am talking about prepubescent girls. I am also talking about—and I think this is important because there has not been enough research or comment about this—the impact of this culture on young boys. I draw the attention of members to an article on page 3 of that edition of the Weekend Australian. I will not read it, but it is a considered reflection by Mia Freedman, who is probably known to most members as someone who has been involved in women's matters over a long period in her previous role as editor-in-chief of some very well-known girls' and women's magazines. Mia is continuing some work commenced some years ago on this topic by Melinda Tankard-Reist, who was well known for her groundbreaking work in raising this issue and causing us to reflect on the sexualisation of children. While their reflections focused particularly on girls, I think is equally important that we look at the impact of this culture on boys.

The Weekend Review supplement in the same newspaper contained a review by Rosemary Neill of a book written by Natasha Walter that is about to be published. I think it is fair to say—and I doubt that there would be disagreement about this—that perhaps Natasha, like Mia, at some point in the past had a different view about some of these matters. However, increasingly both are expressing concern about what is referred to as the hypersexualisation of childhood in Australia. It is not just a problem peculiar to Australia; it is obviously an international phenomenon. Natasha's new book is titled Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism. I have not yet read the book—I am not sure that it has hit the bookstores yet—but I understand that it focuses also on the impact of hypersexualisation on children as they grow into early adulthood and beyond.

I move from that reference to make some comments and reflections about the presence this week in Sydney of a well-known, popular cultural icon who is probably well known to some in this House but perhaps not all—although she is certainly well known to virtually every young woman or young girl, below the age of 25 or 30. I refer to Lady Gaga. I am not going to offer any philosophical reflection in any significant way on Lady Gaga, but I will make a couple of comments. On the weekend I was invited—I am not sure that is the correct word—to log on to Lady Gaga's well-known song Telephone.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: How does it go?

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: I did download the lyrics. I was tempted to bring them into the House but I thought that might be taking things a little bit too far and I might be told to resume my seat. At first blush 21656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

I did not think the lyrics were particularly offensive, although I suspect that if one has a somewhat warped mind, one could read all manner of things into certain words. I suppose one can read warped things into anything if one sets one's heart to it. I will put aside the lyrics for the moment and go direct to the film clip that accompanies the song, which is about nine minutes long. Members can Google this and see it on YouTube. I encourage every member in this House to see the clip. And I do not mean just any clip; I mean specifically the official, explicit version of the clip, which runs for about nine minutes.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Why?

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: Because it is apposite to the point I am making about the impact of what I regard is the hypersexualisation of our culture. Members should see the clip for themselves, but first they will need to log in. Viewers are meant to be "at least 18 years of age", but anyone who is au fait with computers knows that if you enter a bogus birth date, you can get access to anything. There is no obstacle to accessing the clip. It is probably the most downloaded clip that has ever been made. As of yesterday I think some 13 million copies of the clip have been downloaded. It is worthwhile looking at the clip. In some detail in today's Australian Melinda Tankard-Reist gives a very good summary of the clip. The clip features a duet. The first half of the clip shows Lady Gaga singing her song Telephone, and then, after a break, Lady Gaga is paired with Beyoncé.

Members should look at that material and reflect on the concert that was held last night at the Sydney Entertainment Centre. I did not attend that concert; we were working back at the end of the day and, even though I am the Government Whip, I could not arrange a pair for myself. Consequently, I was forced to do the hard yards here in the House. The Daily Telegraph website today gives one a pretty good sense of the concert. I know that some members of this House feel strongly, quite opposite to my views on this matter, that the Lady Gaga phenomenon is an example of the capacity of women to make choices in their lives and to exercise those choices. That is a wonderful thing, and I am not questioning her choice about becoming an entertainer. But I do comment on the impact that those choices that she has made as an entertainer has on our popular culture.

I have in front of me a copy of a photograph that appeared in the Daily Telegraph this morning. It shows a complex and detailed stage backdrop to last night's concert. The photograph can be downloaded from the Daily Telegraph website. I refer in particular to two phrases that appear on that backdrop. The first one states, "What The Fuck Have You Done?" and the second, "Hot Arse." Last night's concert at the Entertainment Centre attracted pretty much a capacity crowd. There were about 12,500 people there; the Entertainment Centre holds an audience of about 12,500. The vast majority of that crowd would have been girls and, I suspect— although I was not there—very young girls. Many were probably pre-teenage girls, some teenage girls and no doubt some young women. Of course, there also would have been men and boys there—males who enjoy that sort of entertainment. People are attracted by various aspects of such entertainment: its energy, its excitement, its activity, and a whole range of things—things that I do not think members of this House would disagree with.

However, I ask myself: If such material is out there so in your face, what effect is it having on men's attitude towards women and, indeed, women's attitude towards men? How is it impacting on male and female relationships? We have spent a fair bit of time in this important debate talking about the appalling aspect of violence by men towards women. My question is: What effect is this horrible, coarse, sexualisation of young girls—I am not talking about girls who are at the age of consent, or 14 or 15 years of age; I am talking about even younger girls—having on the attitudes of men towards women? One can argue that women can exercise choice, and I understand those feminist arguments. But I ask: What effect is this having on males, and is that not something that we should be concerned about? I suggest it is something we should be very concerned about.

Approximately 12,500 people attended that concert. Lady Gaga will appear at three such concerts in Sydney, and that means that about 37,000 mostly young girls and women will be directly affected by the material presented to them and the explicit nature of what is being said by this par excellence performer of our popular culture. There will be 13 such concerts held around Australia. Members can do the math. There will be not only the direct, immediate one-to-one impact on the attendees of the concert; there will also be the massive flow-on effect to the many people who have read today's newspapers.

I am deeply interested in popular culture. It is fair to say that millions and millions of people would have been exposed to this photograph, and the background comments, on the Daily Telegraph website. Although people may not consciously respond by articulating a position on the meaning of the photograph, I ask rhetorically: What are the implications of this? If this does not matter, what ultimately matters? To put it another 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21657

way: If such coarsening is not a step too far, with such a terrible and profound impact on the attitudes of men and women—which begins with the attitude of boys to girls and the attitude of girls to boys—what is? When do we reach the point of saying, "We have gone too far"? Lady Gaga is happy to acknowledge that her work as an entertainer has its antecedents in the very popular, well-known work of Madonna—and we know that. I recall that when Madonna was at the height of her involvement in our popular culture as a singer, dancer and performer some people argued she had gone a little too far.

The Hon. Christine Robertson: So did Elvis.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: I acknowledge the interjection that Elvis went too far. But my question is: Can we ever go too far? Some people argue that this really does not matter and that it is up to individuals to make choices. There is no doubt that Lady Gaga makes her choices as an entertainer; she does very handsomely as a result and good luck to her. However, she has commercialised the product she sells to a high degree and, I would argue, she has sold her soul. My concern is not so much with Lady Gaga but with the cultural impact of her work. Will we ever reach the point of admitting that we have gone too far? We seem to have crossed the line whereby it is acceptable for 12,500 young people to attend the Entertainment Centre to read the words "What The Fuck Have You Done" and "Hot Arse" displayed before them in large lights. It seems that we, as a society, accept the fact that this is popular culture and we leave it at that.

Well, I take a very different view. As members of a society concerned about our children's wellbeing we should confront these issues and actually debate them. Members may say that they do not agree with me and may not want to debate the matter. But I am inviting debate. Those who think that all this does not matter—that such displays are not having any impact on popular culture or on the attitudes of boys to girls, girls to boys and, into maturity, women to men and men to women—should put their views on the record in Hansard. Those members should stand up in this Chamber and defend their position.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It is offensive that you are using this motion to debate that matter.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: No, not at all. I find it extraordinary that we have a motion before us that relates to 50 per cent of the population and yet this matter has not been engaged in a more robust way. Members who do not regard it as important should speak in the debate. I disagree with anyone who suggests that this matter is not important. Slowly but surely a recognition is emerging that this is pretty poisonous stuff. Young boys may start to think that women and young girls are fair game and that they can go to a party on the weekend and get loaded up with grog, and that it is their right to ask a young girl for a head job or for anal sex or to push a young woman up against a wall and have sex with her. Well, I do not agree that that is their right. Some members are grimacing, but that is the reality. This material agitates a mindset in young boys, who grow into men, that women are fair game and that such behaviour really does not matter; that they can get loaded up with grog or drugs and everything is okay. Many rainbow parties will be held all over Sydney this weekend. Do members know what a rainbow party is? For those who do not know, at a rainbow party the girls wear different coloured lipstick and at the end of the night they generally give the boys head jobs—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. This motion is to celebrate International Women's Day and the accomplishments of women. It has specific themes. The member's speech is not only offensive, it is also irrelevant to the motion. He gave an undertaking that he would be brief but he has spoken on this matter at length.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order! I ask the Hon. Greg Donnelly to be generally relevant and remind him that the motion is about International Women's Day.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: That is my very point. At these rainbow parties, at the end of the night a count is conducted and the boy who has the most colours is the winner. It is obvious that members find that offensive—and so do I. In my view what agitates such behaviour is the attitude of young boys to girls and, later, the attitude of men to women. That behaviour is derived from this sort of material. It is inescapable; there is a nexus. For as long as men deny this—and if I may be so bold as to say women also—we will all be seen to have our heads in the sand. We must come to terms with the problem. It is not an easy matter; it is very difficult. I am merely trying to bring it into the debate and then see where it leads us. [Time expired.]

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [3.27 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Hon. Catherine Cusack, Ms Sylvia Hale, the Hon. Helen Westwood, the Hon. Robyn Parker, the Hon. Penny Sharpe, the Hon. Lynda Voltz, the Hon. Marie Ficarra, Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Hon. 21658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

Greg Donnelly for their contributions to this incredibly important debate. I thank them for their wonderful and important stories and for their acknowledgement of the contribution of the women of New South Wales. It was delightful yesterday to receive from the Hon. Marie Ficarra photographs depicting the member and I "reconciling" at a ceremony to celebrate International Women's Day to commemorate harmony and our membership of the sisterhood.

The roles of women around the world are very complex. It is important that the whole community, including men, recognises International Women's Day. I have no issue with men speaking in such an important debate. We cannot pretend that women in isolation can move forward; such success is achieved by all members of society working together. It has been valuable to hear the various personal perspectives on the importance of International Women's Day and to reflect on the differences for women across New South Wales, and indeed the world. We all know that there is still a long way to go.

I was a very fortunate child. I was the only female child in my family; I had three brothers. Like the Hon. Lynda Voltz, I too was appointed the cook and dishwasher in the family—and I cooked for the family from the age of 13. We ate chops or sausages and one or two vegetables every single school night. I might add, I could buy enough chops or sausages for four or five of us, depending on how many were home at the time— dad was not around all that much—for 40¢!

The Hon. Rick Colless: Did you have to kill the sheep, though?

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: No. I did not live on a farm.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Four bob?

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: Four bob it was, that is right. And I had change to buy an apple! Those days are certainly gone. However, apart from the fact that I did the cooking and the dishwashing, there was never an attitude in the family that I could not achieve what I wanted to achieve. This was in the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s. I never came across a perception of difference about what women could achieve until I started nursing in the late 1960s, when I discovered that women could be nurses and men could be doctors. In those days a women's role was of total subservience.

The behaviour in those days was so bizarre. I recall that during our first week of training at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital we spent one whole morning learning how to step off the footpath onto the road if someone more senior than us—mainly male doctors—came towards us. We were to let them go past. We were also taught that if a senior person was going up or down a staircase and we were on that same staircase, we were to step back and let that person pass. That was the sort of bizarre behaviour that was going on in those days. Of course, things have changed a lot because society as a whole changed and suddenly women became doctors and men became nurses, so there was not such a tight structure. In those early days we spent half a day learning how to behave, and how to walk backwards down or up a staircase or to step backwards onto a road. It was such a complete waste of our nurse training time.

Without wishing to discount or discredit any of the contributions that have been made thus far, I want to raise one other matter. In 1986 I became what was called the women's health education officer in the New England region. As has been mentioned by other members in the debate, it was suggested at that time that the so-called women's movement of the 1960s and 1970s had managed to leave an awful lot of women worse off, not better off, than they were in previous times. The roles they had chosen had somehow been discredited. Some women had managed to climb up the ladder—perhaps some got in over their heads—but action was taken to ensure that some did not progress further in order to give other women more power. The majority of women in country New South Wales, where I was working, were suffering a considerable backlash.

When I was appointed to the position of women's health education officer and people started to hear a bit about me, I was given the label "the hairy-legged lesbian from Tamworth". That was a very exciting time! It certainly was an interesting time in my life so far as social acceptance was concerned. Even people in the local tennis club at Duri had an incredibly difficult time coming to terms with my new role. One of the first projects I worked on in my position as women's health education officer was with some very powerful and beautiful Aboriginal women in a far western town in our region. I soon learnt that the work was about addressing their lack of self-esteem. If the women were to move forward in their lives and get on with something, they had to feel good about themselves. 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21659

I worked with these people for six months, and it was just amazing. We started off with them believing that they were not beautiful because they did not look like the women on Days of Our Lives. However, their self-esteem grew stronger by the day. Unfortunately, as I think I have said in a previous debate, because I was so naive and had so little concept of society as a whole, I did not realise that these women were becoming more empowered and the Aboriginal men were being disempowered. The women were finding new ways, but the men in their families were not being given any skills base to grow and deliver upon. That aside, a checklist on the value of the course would show that we did really well. Many of the women got away from their small town, taking their kids with them, and became educated. They stayed with their family units but simply changed their lives. However, that came with a lot of black eyes, and their incidence kept increasing until gradually we realised that we were interfering with their social structure. That is an important point to bear in mind whenever we are talking about change and where women want to be.

Since that time much legislation has been enacted, many issues have arisen in relation to acceptance and culture, and considerable social and cultural change has occurred. But whenever we are feeling good about moving forward—and we have been reminded throughout this debate about how important that is—we have to remember that the job is never done and that successes can only be achieved by society as a whole being involved. In no way should the term "International Women's Day" exclude any part of society. It is an inclusive term. It is also a day when we can celebrate and work together to increase and improve the role of women in both our society and across the world. I commend the motion to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 238 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to Harmony Day, be called on forthwith.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 238 be called on forthwith.

HARMONY DAY

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [3.37 p.m.]: I move:

That this House notes that:

(a) 21 March 2010 is Harmony Day, when Australians will celebrate the many cultures that make Australia;

(b) since Harmony Day began in 1999, thousands of schools, community groups and organizations have hosted celebrations;

(c) Harmony Day celebrates the cohesive and inclusive nature of our nation and promotes the benefits of cultural diversity;

(d) the continuing message of Harmony Day is "Everyone Belongs", and is about community participation, inclusiveness, respect and a sense of belonging for everyone;

(e) this day raises awareness about the importance of all Australians respecting one another regardless of cultural, racial or religious differences; and

(f) the 2010 theme is "Express Yourself"—diversity in your workplace, school and community through action, performance, fashion and food.

Australians of all backgrounds will celebrate the diversity of the nation's cultural heritage on Harmony Day, Sunday 21 March. The occasion follows two other important occasions: International Women's Day, which the 21660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

House has just debated, and the recently celebrated Youth Harmony Day. Harmony Day is an opportunity for people across the nation to showcase their cultural diversity. It is an opportunity to celebrate the cohesiveness of Australia's communities and to promote the benefits of a multicultural society.

The theme for Harmony Day 2010 is "Express Yourself", which reflects the importance of community participation, inclusiveness, respect, and a sense of belonging for everyone to have a say and express themselves. The nation will be abuzz with a celebration of language, dress, food, culture and faith. I want to thank all the Harmony Day supporters, of whom there are many. I will not take up the time of the House mentioning them all by name now, suffice it to say that without their support Harmony Day would not be the success it has been.

Thousands of community groups, businesses, schools, government agencies and councils throughout Australia have registered Harmony Day events. Together they will play host to more than 4,200 events. At each of these events a story will be told. Harmony Day is part of the Diverse Australia Program, which helps local communities address cultural, racial and religious intolerance, and works with different levels of government and community organisations to empower everyone to express themselves. It gives everyone an opportunity to express themselves in a way that depicts their background and, at the same time, their Australianness. Harmony Day is dedicated to celebrating the diversity of cultures that we call Australian. The promotion of racial tolerance and acceptance is the key to keeping the door open for all to be part of our inclusive and welcoming society.

All Australians should take time on Harmony Day to reflect upon and appreciate the unique range of peoples who have come to call Australia home. However, we should not forget our indigenous Australians who are integral to our Australian way of life. Our indigenous Australians cared for and were part of this land for more than 60,000 years. We should celebrate and acknowledge them as we acknowledge Australia Day and Harmony Day. We should also acknowledge them by establishing a national Aboriginal Day to be in harmony with the Harmony Day slogan "Everyone Belongs". Our indigenous people must feel a sense of partnership and be included in all our celebrations.

Many years ago Australia was nicknamed "the lucky country". We were given this name because of the great opportunities Australia had to offer anyone who came here—a land that gave people a new beginning, regardless of their past or background. Since 1945 more than six million people have made Australia their home. As a free, open and democratic society, Australia still has a lot to offer its people. This is evidenced by the fact that each year thousands of people become Australian citizens—few other countries in the world could boast such figures. This represents the tolerance, acceptance and appreciation that the majority of Australians have for other cultures, religions, races and ethnicities.

Unfortunately, there are always those few—very few—among us who maintain intolerant attitudes that promote divisiveness. Harmony Day is the day for us all to show our national and international communities that such attitudes are unacceptable and un-Australian. We should take a stand against racism, prejudice and intolerance. We should help build a peaceful and productive future for our children by setting the example of living in harmony and making the most of our racial, cultural, social and religious diversity. We should put into practice the best of traditional Australian values: justice, equality, fairness and friendship. Harmony Day is a wonderful opportunity to celebrate these great values and for us as a society to put on our best performance and lead the way.

Australians have so much to celebrate. Every one of us is enriched by the multiculturalism of our society but we should not ignore the disharmony that we see in some places. In years gone by there was rioting at The Block in Redfern. Those riots demonstrated the extent to which some indigenous Australians felt disenfranchised in our society—cut out, powerless and ignored. Regardless of who was at fault, the riots revealed the strength of feeling in the community and that work needs to be done to change that discordant note. Some should also hold their heads in shame for triggering, igniting and perpetuating racism and a sinister sense of disharmony in the Cronulla riots. We are all proud Australians but the events that transpired at Cronulla were shameful and left our international image in tatters. Many were stigmatised by those events and tarnished with the brush of racism and bigotry.

Cronulla is a beautiful and peaceful part of southern Sydney. Neither the suburb of Cronulla nor its residents deserve the stigma of the Cronulla riots. A handful of people were to blame for those riots and no-one else, but the good and decent citizens of Cronulla, Sutherland and the St George region were left to pick up the pieces and rebuild the community. As a councillor on Rockdale City Council, I had the honour of organising a 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21661

touch football game at Brighton-le-Sands in which a number of distinguished members of our community participated: Anthony Mundine, the boxer and former footballer; Khoder Nasser, the manager of Anthony Mundine; Attorney-General Robert McClelland; and Senator Mark Arbib, together with a host of other councillors and community members. That football game was a great success and reflected the harmony that can be expressed by the Australian community, one on one.

The Cronulla riots stretched Australia's social fabric and gave our leaders much cause for concern as to the future wellbeing of Australia. Those riots revealed that the clever use of media and a simple trigger were all the ingredients needed to cause suspicion, distrust and animosity among sections of the Australian community. Over the past few years in Australia we have seen an increase in the number of reports of Muslims being harassed, particularly Muslim women for wearing their headscarves in the streets, vandalism of mosques and anti-Muslim graffiti. Some bad elements captured national and international attention through attacks on Indian students and Indian nationals in general.

The objective of Harmony Day is to say no to racism, no to intolerance and no to prejudice. Harmony among our different races is the key to Australia's success, and I urge all to express themselves. Harmony Day is the perfect time for us to reflect on and try to understand other people's faiths, cultures and values. In society today some continue to lack a proper understanding of other people's faiths. Some people do not fully understand Christianity, just as many do not understand Buddhism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Islam, Sufism, Judaism and many other religions. All those religions espouse love, kindness, tolerance, understanding and acceptance, and embrace humanity. As the mayor of Rockdale City Council I had the honour of hosting several functions in celebration of Ramadan and Easter, which proved to be a landmark for the city of Rockdale. I invited distinguished guests from our local churches, Buddhist holy places and other religions who participated in these important events. I recall that Father Dave Smith—known as "the Boxer"—was the guest speaker.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Fighting Father Dave.

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: That is correct. He made a wonderful speech about harmony between religions and the value of working together. That set the scene for the council to host other religious and social events to unite the community. I am proud to have commenced that process. Prejudice is a fact of life and is always with us. It is born of fear and ignorance. Prejudice will continue to grow unless we act. If Australia is to continue to be open, inclusive and multicultural—as we pride ourselves on being—we must work together to dispel these ignorant and racist attitudes. Harmony Day reminds us to proactively discourage intolerance and close-minded attitudes in all aspects of our lives. We must lead by example. Harmony Day offers all Australians the opportunity to stop and consider the value of our uniquely diverse nation. It is essential to have the right attitude of openness and understanding, and to be a multicultural society that recognises every person's uniqueness and yet finds the desire to be a nation for all.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [3.48 p.m.]: I am pleased to acknowledge Harmony Day 2010, which the Opposition supports. The Australian Government's Department of Immigration and Citizenship coordinates Harmony Day. An annual program of events is held across Australia on 21 March, which coincides with the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The principal objective of the day is to celebrate our nation's cohesive and inclusive nature and to promote the benefits of cultural diversity.

This year, and particularly this week, I want to reflect on the origins of Harmony Day and the circumstances in which it came to pass. Harmony Day is a legacy of the previous Liberal-National Federal Government, which established the Living in Harmony Program in 1998 in fulfilment of a commitment made during the 1996 Federal election. The Howard Government recognised that the most effective and sustainable long-term approach to addressing the issue of racism was to encourage events celebrating cultural diversity, social cohesion and inclusion at the level of local communities. Rather than a prescriptive top-down campaign involving government advertising and major national and State events, the Living in Harmony Program engaged hundreds of thousands of individuals and community groups through celebrations in their local areas. Through the program the Howard Government provided grants for numerous anti-racism projects and events every year.

Harmony Day is one of the lasting contributions of the ministry of the Hon. Philip Ruddock, MP, Australia's longest-serving and, in my view, greatest immigration Minister and now the third-longest serving member of the House of Representatives, after Billy Hughes and Sir Earle Page. Apart from Harmony Day, Philip Ruddock's greatest achievement was restoring Australia's public confidence in our immigration system, which is critical to our nation's future. In 2008 the Rudd Government rebranded the Living in Harmony Program as the Diverse Australia Program. The current Federal Government has retained the basic core of the scheme as 21662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

a community-based educational initiative aimed at addressing issues of intolerance by promoting respect and inclusion. The program continues to provide small grants to local communities, particularly schools, for celebrations of diversity in a spirit of inclusiveness on Harmony Day. Regrettably, the amount of grant funding for Harmony Day celebrations has been reduced by the Rudd Government and the available money has been awarded to substantially fewer projects. Between 2001 and 2007 the Howard Government awarded $1.5 million every year to between 37 and 43 Living in Harmony community projects. Last month the Rudd Government announced that this year just 28 projects would share $1.2 million.

The lasting message of Harmony Day is "Everyone Belongs", which seeks to communicate a sense of inclusiveness, respect and belonging for everyone. Every year there is a specific theme for the celebrations, and in 2010 the theme is "Express Yourself". This theme aims to give participants the opportunity to share the importance of diversity through action, performance, fashion and food. Over the next week a wide range of events will be held across Australia in connection with Harmony Day 2010. This Friday, for example, students at St Mark's Primary School in Drummoyne are inviting pupils from another school with a more diverse cultural background to join them for lunch. On Saturday the City of Canada Bay will launch a photographic project called "Capturing Cultural Diversity" with a morning tea at Concord Library, while on Monday evening the second Abbotsford Port Neptune Joeys and Cubs will participate in multicultural games, crafts, dances and meals.

Next week Nowra East Public School will hold a special school assembly and a series of activities throughout the day, while Randwick Public School pupils will be encouraged to wear traditional dress, participate in cultural games and enjoy a culturally diverse lunch. On Monday Randwick TAFE will hold cultural displays, a free barbecue and a traditional dress competition, while the Mana Polynesian Dance Group will hold a dance workshop in Waverley. On 27 March 2010 Randwick City Council is holding a story time event for children at Randwick Library at which myths and legends from a variety of cultures will be recited, following contributions from local residents. Several events have already taken place in the lead-up to Harmony Day. Over the past few days Waverley Council has highlighted the diverse food choices in Bondi Junction by distributing 5,000 fliers across offices in the local government area to promote businesses that are participating in the council's "Deliciously Diverse" campaign by serving culturally diverse meals.

Waverley Council has also held an "Express Yourself" evening with staff and clients of the Waverley Community Living Project and has promoted Harmony Day at three area childcare centres by hanging special decorations, handing out balloons and badges to every child and preparing special cultural dishes for lunch in accordance with suggestions from parents. That is a very good performance by Waverley Council. Harmony Day is an excellent initiative. I commend the councils, schools, community organisations and workplaces that are holding events to promote diversity and social cohesion. On behalf of the Opposition I support the motion. I urge all members of the House to recommit themselves to celebrating our cultural diversity and fighting those who would seek to disrupt it through bigotry.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.55 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I support the motion. I echo the words of the mover of the motion and most of the words of the Opposition Whip—with the possible exception of the adulation of the former Minister for Immigration, Mr Philip Ruddock. Australia has benefited enormously from its multicultural community. Australia's diversity is our strength, and it maintains our strength. Many members in the Chamber are old enough to remember an Australia that was less diverse. We understand from our own experiences that it was a less robust Australia, a less dynamic Australia and a less exciting Australia to live in. The future of this country is determined by our capacity to capitalise on the strengths of multiculturalism and to reject attempts that threaten our multicultural future. It is a tragedy for this nation that over the past five years there has been a resurgence in racist attitudes that threaten the cohesion of our society and make life intolerable for many people who come from diverse ethnic and linguistic backgrounds. That must come to an end. The celebration of Harmony Day is an excellent way to work towards a commitment from all Australians to a diverse society.

I conclude by committing Greens members and all members in this Chamber to the fine words of the motion and of its mover. All of us can commit ourselves to better understanding others by walking in their shoes. Perhaps if there is one clue to achieving harmony and one cure to the disruption of harmony, it is the capacity to walk in someone else's shoes. In this way we can appreciate the essential humanness of us all and the essential validity of the wide range of cultural beliefs and understandings that make up this nation. We can celebrate the breadth of that understanding and those beliefs and practices, and understand fully that they are our strength and our future. 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21663

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [3.57 p.m.]: I am delighted to speak on this very important issue and to acknowledge Harmony Day. Since the inception of Harmony Day in 1999, New South Wales has a proud history of supporting this fine event. This year's theme, "Express Yourself", showcases diversity in workplaces, schools and in the community through performance, fashion and food. I am sure that all members have noticed the fantastic examples of self-expression by young people from around New South Wales in the posters that are displayed in the Fountain Court. We have been able to admire and consider the posters as we walk to and from the Chamber. Already, hundreds of businesses, community and government organisations, schools, individuals and religious organisations have registered on the Department of Immigration and Citizenship website to hold Harmony Day celebrations.

People from all walks of life will come together to participate in morning teas, luncheons, national costume parades, flag displays and cultural performances as they celebrate the rich cultural tapestry of their local surroundings and pay tribute to their heritage and backgrounds. Although Harmony Day is celebrated once a year, Australians should celebrate it every day. In New South Wales we are a community of communities. All individuals and organisations should have an opportunity to contribute and participate in public life, as well as have equitable access to government services. Individuals and organisations have the right to feel a sense of belonging, inclusiveness and respect.

Since 1983 New South Wales Labor has led the way in the development of multicultural policy. New South Wales is one of the most culturally diverse communities in Australia, with people from 200 birthplaces making it their home and 26 per cent of the population speaking a language other than English at home. The New South Wales Government believes this cultural and linguistic diversity is an asset for our State, making it an exciting and vibrant place to live. That is why today New South Wales has the longest standing and arguably the most sophisticated framework of multicultural governance in the world.

In 1983 the then Premier Neville Wran had the vision to introduce the Ethnic Affairs Policy Statement program. Not only was Neville originally a Balmain boy and Labor to his bootstraps, embracing all those great principles of social justice and equity that we hold dear as Labor people, but he was also the member for Bass Hill. As a long-time resident of that area I consider it to be one of the most culturally and linguistically diverse parts of New South Wales and Sydney. I am not surprised that it was former Premier Wran who had that vision. The Ethnic Affairs Policy Statement was the first example of a strong multicultural governance model in Australia, aimed at improving the provision of services to better meet the needs of a culturally diverse population.

In 2000 the Labor Government took multicultural policy into the twenty-first century by introducing the Community Relations Commission and the Principles of Multiculturalism Bill into Parliament. Moreover, every New South Wales public sector agency is required to report on the implementation of its Ethnic Affairs Priorities Statement within its annual report. For more than 25 years, the Ethnic Affairs Priorities Statement program has been the vehicle for all New South Wales public sector agencies to demonstrate their commitment to the principles of multiculturalism. This is underpinned by the program's legislative foundation, which has contributed to its resilience and longevity.

However, an operational review of the Ethnic Affairs Priorities Statement program conducted in 2008 and 2009 concluded that the term "Ethnic Affairs Priorities Statement" was out of step with the objectives of the Community Relations Commission and Principles of Multiculturalism Act 2000 and the contemporary public sector operating environment. The Community Relations Commission consulted broadly with a range of agencies and resolved that the title "Multicultural Policies and Services Program" was a more accurate reflection of what the program is seeking to achieve.

The change of name is just one element in a suite of reforms that will revitalise the program, including an online reporting system, Multicultural E-Advice NSW; a multicultural planning framework to assist government agencies in their multicultural planning; a chief executive officer and senior management guide; and a practitioner's resource manual. The Ethnic Affairs Priorities Statement, now the Multicultural Policies and Services Program, has established many of the features of current public service program delivery in New South Wales. This includes the provision of interpreter services in order to communicate with clients from non-English speaking backgrounds; communication strategies, which use a range of mainstream and language-specific media to provide information to all people in the community; the inclusion of people from culturally diverse backgrounds in consultation processes and structures; and the use of identified multicultural and bilingual positions to assist in the delivery of government services. 21664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

As I mentioned earlier, the principles of multiculturalism, which have been enshrined in law, are fundamentally about opportunity, participation, cohesion, acknowledgement of diversity and promotion of equal rights and responsibilities for all residents of New South Wales. The maintenance of social cohesion and community harmony does not happen on only one day a year; it is a never-ending project. Every year the Community Relations Commission is required to table a report in Parliament. This is a report card on how well New South Wales government agencies are doing their job in a multicultural society. These reports are full of wonderful projects, which are sometimes as beneficial to the public officials who deliver them as they are to the people who are aided by them because they give those government officials a much better understanding of the needs of the community they serve. This is the living, breathing personification of the legislation that is enshrined in the Community Relations Commission.

The formal language of the legislation comes to life in the stories of the work and the people described in the reports. The Community Relations Report is also a report card on the work of the commission, which oversees and advises on cultural diversity and community relations issues. As I have already indicated, it is a mandated responsibility of all New South Wales government agencies to meet their obligations to a culturally diverse society. The Community Relations Report details how agencies meet their legislative obligations according to the Multicultural Policies and Services Program. The report underscores that the New South Wales Government is earnest about fulfilling the promises it has made to the New South Wales people about serving every individual equally, whatever their language, culture, race or religious background may be.

The overarching message of Harmony Day 2010 that "Everyone Belongs" applies not only to Harmony Day but also to every single day of the year. This is the message that needs to be communicated and carried forward in order to maintain our cohesive and harmonious state. The Australian social landscape has changed rapidly in a few decades. What was not long ago a largely Christian population with minorities from some other faiths has now become a blooming multifaith society. It behoves us all to remember that our nation has been built by people who had to leave their homeland because of global upheavals and who created a new life here. All who live in this great country, and especially in New South Wales, should be grateful for that. But we do not want to be overshadowed by complacency. If cohesion and harmony is to continue there will always be a role for community leaders to articulate needs and contribute to debates about various issues.

I have been disappointed with the tenor of some debates over the past few years, particularly regarding applications to build Muslim schools. I can think of two recent examples that made me ashamed of my fellow Australians—the applications for Muslim schools at Camden and in my own area of Bass Hill. I was a member of Bankstown council when the first application was made for the school at Bass Hill and I read the objections lodged against it. It was very disappointing to read people's concerns and views, which were being fed by racist attitudes in the media. The shock jocks were certainly feeding the debate—and, regrettably, so were a number of politicians. I do not believe it reflects well on a community when its leaders are fearful of being publicly critical of racist attitudes and of talking about developments from a planning perspective. Even some speeches delivered in this place I believe bordered on being racist.

It shames us all when people in leadership positions in our community are willing to foster fear in the general population that is unfounded. I was the only woman serving on the council when the horrendous gang rapes occurred in the Bankstown local government area. As the only woman on the council, I took the lead on reconciling our community following those horrendous events. I was the mayor when the Cronulla riots occurred and I was in Cronulla on the day of the riots for a presentation to volunteers working with the Department of Fisheries. The atmosphere in Cronulla was very ugly on that day. I drove back to Bankstown not knowing what would eventuate. Like many other Australians I was horrified. Of course, a great deal of conflict and disharmony followed those events.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! I ask members to reduce the level of audible conversation.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: I am sorry that not everyone is interested in community harmony and that they do not want to hear from those of us who have been involved in reconciling communities that are portrayed in a very negative and unfair way. Every year newspapers and shock jocks allege that places like Bankstown do not celebrate Christmas. It is said that Christmas carols and decorations are banned. That is an absolute myth. I have shopped at Bankstown shopping centre every Christmas throughout my life and there are always Christmas decorations, Christmas carols and a Santa. One year the owners of the centre made a commercial decision to hire out the space normally used for Santa and the nativity scene. It was simply a 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21665

commercial decision. Of course, it was reported that the local Muslims had insisted that the nativity scene not be erected and that Santa not occupy his usual spot: that he had been relegated to the basement. Once again, that was not true.

Of course, as happens every year, that myth was run in the media. Clearly, journalists do not move out of the inner city and go to Bankstown to see for themselves because they continue to make these unfounded claims. I am sure my colleague the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane will agree that people of all faiths join in the Christmas celebrations and line up so that their kids can sit on Santa's knee for a photograph. Mums wearing hijabs also line up with their children to have their photograph taken. Those of us who live in these wonderfully diverse communities know that the media reports are untrue. Regrettably, people who continue to offer racist arguments do not live in or go to those communities. They do not have the knowledge or experience of living in the diverse places that we live in. They do not appreciate that wonderful diversity.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: Are you saying the Sydney Morning Herald is racist? Or is it only the Daily Telegraph that is racist?

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: Madam Deputy President, I ask you to call the Hon. Trevor Khan to order. His interjections are preventing me from hearing the Hon. Helen Westwood.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! I uphold the point of order. The Hon. Trevor Khan will stop baiting and interrupting the member with the call.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: I understand that it is painful for some people to hear the truth. Those of us who live in these very richly diverse communities know what a wonderful contribution migrants make. When I was a child we had the post Second World War migrants and refugees from Europe. Of course, over the years that has changed. We now have many refugees from Vietnam and more and more people are coming from China, the Middle East, South America and the various African nations.

As mayor I had the privilege of conferring citizenship on our newest Australians. One comes to appreciate the diversity of people's backgrounds and, most importantly, just how much they want to be a part of Australia and to make a positive contribution to this great nation they have chosen to call home. They see a great future for themselves and their children in this country. It is a real privilege to be part of those ceremonies and to share those experiences with our newest Australians. As I said, for cohesion and harmony to continue, there will always be a role for community leaders to articulate needs and to contribute to debates. It is important that those contributions be fair and honest, and that they have integrity. Unfortunately, that is sometimes lacking.

Young people will be the key to the development and the success of our culturally diverse society, which has been unique in the world. The 2010 Youth Harmony Festival was held at Tumbalong Park in Darling Harbour last Sunday. The event was coordinated by the Community Relations Commission and co-funded by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship as part of the national action plan to build on social cohesion, harmony and security. Young people of all religious backgrounds came together for a day of interaction to help forge a future of harmony and coexistence for New South Wales. In New South Wales we recognise that we have different beliefs that are private to us and to our families. However, those differences do not threaten or impinge on the Australian way of life. In fact, they enrich it. What matters is a unifying commitment by all of us to Australia and to its future. Acceptance of difference is a great virtue, but it requires goodwill and effort on the part of all of us. That is what Harmony Day is all about: recognising what we have in common as Australians and emphasising that as Australians we all respect the laws of our nation and each other.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [4.18 p.m.]: Our history of multiculturalism goes back a long time before the European colonists of the eighteenth century arrived in this country. Australia has always been multicultural. It has about 250 sovereign Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nations and since the beginning of the Dreaming those nations have seen many changes in this land. In Australia today more than 200 different languages and dialects are spoken, including 45 indigenous languages. Hopefully we can retain all of those languages.

Harmony Day is 21 March, but it has evolved to include events and activities in the days and weeks before and after that day. Fortunately for me, 21 March is also my husband's fortieth birthday. I know that he has no interest in reading Hansard, so I am safe in telling the House that my children have organised a surprise birthday party for him. He is an Australian-born Greek who did not set foot out of Marrickville before the age of about 20 and Greek is his first language. Accordingly, we will have a bouzouki day at our house to celebrate his 21666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

birthday. We will have lots of lamb and food from the Hellenic bakery. The event will be presided over by my Greek-speaking children. They read and write Greek and religiously attend Greek school every Saturday, despite all the tears.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You will have enough to feed an army.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: Yes, and the Chamber is obviously welcome to attend as—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: As there is tzatziki.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: Your tzatziki is not better than mine; trust me. As is the case with any Greek celebration—and every Greek and Mediterranean around here and people from the Middle East will confirm this as well—there will be too much food. I will have enough food to feed the Chamber for about two weeks, I suspect. There will certainly be too many sweets because, despite the fact that I have a cake that will feed 150, every yia yia will bring more galagtabouleki and Turkish delights and almond biscuits or whatever else. Feel free to pop in if you are anywhere near Bardwell Park. This is indicative of the Australia of today.

Quite often I feel that my family history reflects much of what Harmony Day represents. I have a grandfather who is Aboriginal. I had a great, great grandmother—Wilhemina Butzke—who was born in Saxony in what was then Germany. My grandmother was born in Dysart in Scotland and my father was born in Taumarunui in New Zealand. My brother lives in a little village called Kolsass just outside of Innsbruck in Austria. My brother-in-law lectures at Cambridge University in England. I feel there is no part of the world I cannot go and feel that part of our family and the history of our nation is there. I moved the motion about St Patrick's Day yesterday. We often look back at the history of the Irish people in this country as well. My maternal grandmother was of Irish descent. So much of our history is rolled up in multiculturalism, and that is what makes us a very strong, diverse and growing nation.

Sunday 21 March is an opportunity for people to come together and participate in local activities, to share a sense of community spirit and embrace our old cultural, linguistic and religious diversity. I remind members that we are running into the Easter festivals. I advise people not to try to move around Marrickville on Saturday night when the streets will be closed for the bringing out of the little crypt, which has to be walked around the church in Marrickville. This usually involves closing down every street. The same thing will happen in Newtown and a number of other suburbs across Sydney, such is the strength of the ties of our immigrant populations to their religions, which is quite right. This is what multiculturalism is about: the strength of our own nation and religions, and the strength of the people we bring here who come together to build a stronger nation.

More than 2,000 community groups, businesses, schools and government agencies and councils throughout Australia have registered for 5,200 events. This means that hundreds of thousands of Australians will be out this weekend and into next week supporting a diverse range of activities and celebrating the diversity of our nation and the strength of its communities. The theme for Harmony Day 2010 is "Express Yourself". The Hon. Greg Donnelly has already said that Lady Gaga will be doing that this weekend. The day celebrates the benefits of cultural diversity, including our religious, linguistic and ethnic diversities. The key messages are to express pride in Australia's cultural diversity in your own way and celebrate the cultures that make Australia a great place to live. Express your diversity through action, performance, fashion or food.

Harmony Day began with just a handful of events in 1999 and has been gaining momentum ever since. The event is now in its eleventh year. Students graduating from high school this year have been celebrating Harmony Day nearly every year of their school lives. Over the years Harmony Day has blossomed in popularity as communities have made the day their own. One of the wonderful aspects of Harmony Day is that communities decide how they would like to mark the occasion. Morning teas, fetes, lunches and festivals in which people wear their national costumes are just a few of the ways in which people celebrate.

Another interesting aspect of Harmony Day is that a variety of groups get involved, including sports organisations, community groups, churches, schools and workplaces. People who would like to host or attend an event are encouraged to visit the official Harmony Day website at www.harmony.gov.au to register their event. Specific events around Sydney on Sunday 21 March include a free carnival with entertainment and food at Holroyd Gardens in Merrylands. The Hon. Don Harwin has made mention of some of them, including Polynesian dancing. However, he did not mention that the event was being held in a pole dancing studio at Waverley, but that is the way it is. 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21667

A OneWorld Festival at Hornsby Park will start at noon, and the City of Ryde will host a multicultural Harmony Day festival at Ryde Park from 4.00 p.m. The Jesuit Refugee Service at Elizabeth Bay will host a barbecue at Peace Park with music and entertainment. Various scout group Harmony Day activities are planned for Sunday, such as a sausage sizzle at Moorebank, a group campaign at North Rocks and a Girl Guides regatta at East Lake Macquarie on the Central Coast. I am sure many more Girl Guides events will be happening because it is the guides one-hundredth birthday. I look forward to seeing all those Harmony Day events, particularly the Girl Guides regatta because nothing is as good as the Scouts and Girl Guides putting on a sausage sizzle and celebrating these days.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.25 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane dealing with Harmony Day, and I commend him for the motion. Harmony Day will be celebrated on 21 March 2010, as stated in the motion, when Australia will celebrate many cultures. The motion goes on to say:

(b) since Harmony Day began in 1999, thousands of schools, community groups and organisations have hosted celebrations

(c) Harmony Day celebrates the cohesive and inclusive nature of our nation and promotes the benefits of cultural diversity,

(d) the continuing message of Harmony Day is 'Everyone Belongs', and is about community participation, inclusiveness, respect and a sense of belonging for everyone,

(e) this day raises awareness about the importance of all Australians respecting one another regardless of cultural, racial or religious differences, and

(f) the 2010 theme is 'Express Yourself'—diversity in your workplace, school and community through action, performance, fashion and food.

In a previous year a Harmony Day event was held at Parliament House in Macquarie Street with groups from many religious schools, non-religious schools and government schools all coming together. I was most impressed with that. Like other members, I congratulate the Hon. Phillip Ruddock, the former Minister for Immigration, on introducing Harmony Day at a Federal level and for its being continued at both State and Federal levels, although I note a previous speaker said that Federal funding had been reduced. That would be a pity when the Federal Government is spending so much money on many other projects at the present time. Harmony Day should have continued as a priority.

I saw an example of Harmony Day only last weekend when thousands of people gathered in Sydney under the leadership of the Korean community. That community organises an annual event in March, which it calls the Sydney Holy City Convention to promote Sydney as a holy city. The Korean community invites people from all different races and religions to take part in the event, which was held in the Sydney Town Hall on the Saturday. It was crowded. About 99 per cent of the proceedings were in Korean, which made it a bit difficult for me to understand. Most of the audience was Korean, so there were no interpreters.

On the Sunday the community held an open event and invited people from different racial and national groups to take part. People assembled in Belmore Park near Central railway station to take part in a march from Belmore Park to Martin Place, where they enjoyed a music festival from about five o'clock to seven o'clock. I was impressed to see all the different groups participating. Obviously there were a number of Korean groups, particularly Korean teenagers, but also Cambodians in their national dress, a large number of Pacific Islanders from Fiji, Samoa and other nations of the Pacific, as well as Arab representatives, Aborigines and people of British origin as well.

Australia welcomes people from all races, colours and creeds and has from the very beginning of the colony. Many people from other races or religions did not come here by choice but were convicts. The initial groups of convicts included a wide range of individuals, although a large number were Irish convicts, as we heard during debate on the St Patrick's Day motion. They made a huge contribution to Australia. Many of them were not criminals but people rebelling against the harsh reign of the British over Ireland. That created friction, riots and fighting. Some groups legitimately complained about the harshness of their landlords, who were mostly British landlords. People were starving and had limited resources. If they questioned the landlords, they were charged with creating a revolution or sedition against the authorities. They were convicted and sent to Australia for seven years. Many of those people were good people and made a valuable contribution to our nation.

I do not have an Irish background but my wife does. A little fiery element is inherited from the Irish. It is pleasing to note that people from 140 nations now make up Australia. My father was a migrant who came from Plymouth in the United Kingdom after the First World War. He served in the British Army. My mother 21668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

came to Australia via New Zealand from a Scottish background. The parents or grandparents of all members probably came from other nations. It is wrong for anyone to criticise people who come to live in Australia. Everyone is welcome to Australia.

Obviously we would prefer everyone to come to Australia legally, to apply for a visa and to go through out immigration procedures. That is why the so-called boat people are causing tension at the moment. It seems that some people are trying to leapfrog over those who are anxious to come to Australia. I have a list with 2,000 names of people from the Middle East who want to come to Australia, many of whom have been waiting for eight years. It seems unfair that people can make the choice to come here and be approved before others who have been law abiding, who have gone through the necessary procedures and who have been patiently waiting for a long time.

Some speakers have made reference to historic events, particularly the Hon. Helen Westwood. Recently we have had the tragic and serious cases of people charged with terrorism in our Australian courts: They had planned attacks on our Australian Army bases and other strategic centres. That type of behaviour is the opposite of harmony. It is important that the leaders of all cultural, religious and national groups discourage that type of attitude, which can turn into antisocial and violent behaviour. I know that the leaders of various cultural groups are concerned about these developments. We face the great challenge of ensuring that those attitudes rapidly disappear. We have not had them in Australia in the past and we do not want to see them in the future.

I note that reference was made to the Cronulla riots. They should be understood in the context of their historic background. On 4 December 2005 a group of volunteer surf lifesavers was assaulted and several other violent assaults occurred during that week. These incidents were widely reported and commented upon in the Sydney media. This widespread publicity led to an estimated 5,000 people gathering at Cronulla Beach on 11 December 2005 to protest against the violence that had occurred.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: That is going too far.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I still say that the majority of people at that gathering protested against the violence of the preceding week. Unfortunately some people in the crowd had consumed too much alcohol and behaved violently and antisocially, requiring police to bring them under control. The resultant bad publicity circulated around the world. Reportedly at approximately 11 o'clock that night, a convoy of more than 40 cars comprising 100 to 200 people from the Punchbowl area drove down to the beaches to seek revenge. For some reason many of the cars ended up in Maroubra. I was driving through Brighton-le-Sands at the time of this convoy. The police had been told at that point not to interfere with the convoy.

The people in the convoy were armed with bars, bats, knives, machetes and even guns. They assaulted several people, knocked others unconscious, damaged between 60 and 100 cars and set at least one car on fire. Police in riot gear finally arrived and brought the situation under control. We do not want a repeat of that situation in Sydney. People of all racial and religious backgrounds must do everything in their power to cooperate to ensure that we have a peaceful and harmonious society.

I could say more about Bass Hill and Camden, but I merely state that both local councils voted against having a Muslim school in their communities. The communities expressed the view that such a school would not fit in with their community. The application for the Bass Hill school was deceitful in that it purported to buy land on the Bass Hill sportsground supposedly to build units and then later it was shown that it was to be for a Muslim school.

Mr Ian Cohen: Point of order: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has strayed from the intent and substance of the motion, which is to celebrate World Harmony Day. I find it offensive that he is using this motion to express what are seriously non-harmonious views on what are significant issues to this House on this day. I ask that you draw him back to the leave of the motion, which is to reflect on World Harmony Day.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: To the point of order: The Hon. Ian Cohen was not here during earlier debate. These issues were raised by previous speakers and are part of the debate. I did not introduce these topics; other speakers did. If they had not been raised, I would not have raised them.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order! Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is correct: the matters about which the point of order was taken were raised by other speakers in the debate. However, I remind Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile that his contribution should be generally relevant to the question before the House. 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21669

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I simply wanted to put that on the record; as I said, I do not wish to pursue the matter in detail in the House today. As Mr Ian Cohen says, it is not the time or the place to discuss those matters again; they have already been discussed in this House. I have outlined the reasons we should promote Harmony Day. Hopefully we can genuinely take part in Harmony Day, and hopefully the element that has caused some of these problems in the past will embrace Harmony Day. That is the whole purpose of the occasion. There is little sense in just those of us who believe in the occasion promoting it; we have to encourage the entire community to be genuinely supportive of it and to become involved in it. That is the challenge for those who are in charge of promoting Harmony Day: to encourage 100 per cent of our society to embrace it.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [4.41 p.m.]: I invariably say I will be brief, and I will try to do that on this occasion. I commend the mover of the motion, the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane. Plainly, the intent of the motion is sound. Indeed, most of the speakers in this debate have embraced the entire concept of Harmony Day. When one speaks of Harmony Day in the context of Australia, one must recognise, as the Hon. Lynda Voltz did, that the history of immigration to Australia has been long and, indeed, quite diverse. It has not only been prior to, for instance, the 1940s that Australia has had immigration from throughout the world. People came to this country not just from the British Isles. Indeed, with regard to my family, as best we can determine, my grandfather, Fauzi Mohammed Gulham Khan, came to this country in about 1900. Even though a newspaper article I recently found referred to my grandfather as a "Hindu man", he was far from a Hindu man; clearly he was a Muslim. And yet, he was widely accepted within the community. He was also widely accepted later on, after he left Victoria, within the community of Sydney. Indeed, he developed a significant and very good reputation among sections of the community for his work.

So we have, in the early part of this century, a Muslim man who was capable of demonstrating not only that he could integrate into the Australian community but that the white Anglo-Saxon community of Australia was prepared to accept and embrace him. Indeed, we know that in Sydney in the early part of last century not only were Indians accepted but also a significant Lebanese community was accepted and embraced by the Australian Anglo-Saxon community. We know that such people as Sir Nicholas Shehadie and the Governor, Marie Bashir, were part of that community that was accepted and embraced by the Australian community. That is an indication of the essential decency of the Australian community and its capacity to accept and embrace others. In many ways, if it were left to the Australian community—free of certain political influences that, on all sides, seem to take the opportunity to create division—I believe we would be a great deal better off. We would integrate and accept people far more easily. It is when sections of the community choose to use to their own ends the obvious differences that exist that we seem to exacerbate the problems that arise.

For the last 20-odd years I have lived in the community of Tamworth, a community that, perhaps unlike some other communities, has been able to embrace the significant diversity in its racial mix. The Aboriginal community has mixed well with the Tamworth community, has been well accepted, and continues to grow and prosper within that community. Sure, there are issues that need to be addressed, but the Aboriginal community has been capable of considerable diversity and tolerance within the Tamworth community.

I again congratulate the mover of the motion, the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane, and also congratulate those who will participate in Harmony Day. But I ask that we all recognise that the Australian community has shown, over a long period of time, a capacity for tolerance, integration and harmony. Harmony Day should not be seen as any more than a demonstration of the essential decency of the Australian community. It is not the start of a process; it is simply a small reflection of what our community is capable of.

Mr IAN COHEN [4.45 p.m.]: I support the comments in this debate of my Greens colleague Dr John Kaye. I congratulate the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane on moving the motion and acknowledge that he is a member of the Muslim faith. I was interested to hear the Hon. Trevor Khan's succinct commentary on his origins. I am from a Jewish background, although I am no great believer. I am very much Australianised—I am a second-generation Australian; my parents came to Australia from Palestine at the end of the First World War.

The Hon. Don Harwin: They were Sabras.

Mr IAN COHEN: At one stage they were, yes. I acknowledge the Hon. Don Harwin's interjection. In the 1950s when I was growing up in Australia I experienced certain racist taunts; that was part of my upbringing. However, whilst we as members often disagree in this House, to a great extent I can say, "Trevor Khan, you are a Coalition—'whatever'", and that is as far as it goes.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Dot, dot, dot. 21670 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

Mr IAN COHEN: Yes, dot, dot, dot. I thank the Hon. Penny Sharpe for her interjection and for supporting my point of view. We all acknowledge and recognise one another's contributions to the community, and the fact that we work together and sometimes against each other. But as far as I am concerned, when I am speaking with members of this House the issue of race does not even arise; it does not come to the fore. People are free to disagree and argue with me and I with them, but that has nothing to do with race. I think this is a good example of where we are moving to with Harmony Day. The motion is commendable. Whilst some disharmony has been evident in this debate, I believe it is absolutely appropriate that we acknowledge that there is a message to be sent to our community. I have experienced the fear and narrow-mindedness that can occur throughout the community, and I am sure that others of different ethnic backgrounds have also experienced it.

I was sorely oppressed at different times as a youth growing up in Australian society, and I longed for a society that celebrated difference. I think we are moving in that direction. Sharing with people from different cultures creates a wonderful openness. Australia is one of the most multicultural nations in the world, and Sydney certainly reflects that in a wealth of different experiences making up our culture. I have been to many functions—Tibetan Buddhist, Islamic, Jewish and many others—and I have thoroughly enjoyed the experience. The reason for that is perhaps that I have travelled widely and enjoyed many cultures. Australian society must get over the hurdle of the fear of difference. Those who perpetuate such fear by stirring up racial disharmony should be condemned by all members of this House.

I draw the attention of the House to some correspondence I received about a group of people from Chittagong Hill Tracts who have been somewhat oppressed by the Bangladesh Government and who propose to conduct a peaceful protest and demonstration to coincide with Harmony Day. As Buddhists these people are very much attuned to the idea of peaceful protest. On 19 and 20 February this year there were reports of a number of villages in the Rangamati District being torched and a number of indigenous people being killed. As many as 400 houses belonging to indigenous people of the area were destroyed by fire and a similar number of indigenous families displaced. Catherine Ashton, a spokesperson of the European Union, reported on these acts as follows:

The EU [European Union] calls upon the Government of Bangladesh to swiftly and thoroughly follow up with an independent investigation of this incident and of the allegations that the armed forces were involved. The EU {European Union} calls upon the Government of Bangladesh to ensure that the perpetrators of these shameful acts are brought to justice.

It is the constitutional responsibility of the Government of Bangladesh to ensure the protection and the fundamental rights of all its citizens. Incidents such as this have no place in an inclusive and tolerant society.

The EU [European Union] is also concerned about the wider impact that this violence may have on the stability of the CHT region as well as on Bangladesh's international reputation, and calls on the relevant authorities in Bangladesh to take more effective measures to implement the CHT Peace Accord.

The same values are represented by Harmony Day. I have attended peaceful celebrations with Kabita Chakma, at which indigenous people dressed in their various costumes. It was a wonderful sight. I particularly like the bright reds of the hill tribe people. These very gentle people demonstrated a few weeks ago at the Sydney Opera House. I spoke at that gathering. They are planning their next demonstration deliberately to coincide with World Harmony Day. It is important that these people have the right to hold peaceful demonstrations, as they did on Friday 26 February, at which people can wear either traditional Jumma dress or something red. That singles out one hot spot, if you like, to highlight Harmony Day. People in Australia have every right to protest peacefully; one of the wonderful things about Australian society.

I hope that Harmony Day will allow people to communicate by extending a hand of friendship across the insurmountable barriers that are often fuelled by narrow-mindedness and evil. I hope Harmony Day will be celebrated by what we might call all the warring factions around the globe. Australia can set an example to this war-torn world on Harmony Day by showing that various communities can live in harmony and, more importantly, can work together to create a better society for the future—one in which people can live in peace. I congratulate the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane on moving this motion. I hope that harmony can be achieved among the people of the many different races who call themselves Australians today.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [4.54 p.m.]: Family First associates itself with this motion and I commend the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane for moving it. Many members have contributed to this debate, including the Hon. Helen Westwood, who developed a very important rationale for Harmony Day. I add two points that have not been previously mentioned. First, Parliament supports the work of Harmony Day. At the moment approximately 60 pieces of artwork celebrating various aspects of Harmony Day are hanging in the Parliament's Fountain Court. I encourage all members to view those artworks to see how artists among our 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21671

youth and children at our public schools have expressed their thoughts and beliefs about Harmony Day. Second, over the past few years on my visits to various public schools I have noticed that Harmony Day has a permanent place. It is often painted up in schoolyards. I am thinking particularly of Wyong public school, which I attended a week or so ago, which has major Harmony Day features displayed in its library. I was pleased that the young indigenous people and their contributions to this land were also included.

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [4.55 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Hon. Don Harwin, Dr John Kaye, the Hon. Helen Westwood, the Hon. Lynda Voltz, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, the Hon. Trevor Khan, Mr Ian Cohen and Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes for their contributions to this debate and for their kinds words of support. Harmony Day supports 4,200 events throughout Australia and we should proudly support our communities to celebrate the occasion.. Harmony Day sends the strong message to our community, and particularly to our children, that differences do not make enemies, they make friends, and that with our differences we can work, study and live together harmoniously.

Many cultures and religions live side by side and prosper in Australia. Recently I had the privilege of visiting Fairfield with the local member, Joe Tripodi, and attending a number of churches and places of worship for Buddhists, Muslims and other religions in that electorate. It gave us a strong sense of pride that in Fairfield, in the middle of Sydney, so many different groups practise their religions without inhibition. As Australians we should all be proud of that.

Australia sends a strong signal to the rest of the world that freedom and freedom of speech is practised here; everyone has the right to have his or her say. In a recent interview on Lebanese television I was asked by a reporter whether my loyalty was to Australia or Lebanon. I replied, "I am Australian. My blood is to Australia. I have lived, grown and studied in Australia. I am proud of Australia because it clearly is a democratic country that gives every member of every community, irrespective of race, culture or religious background, the opportunity to live in harmony, to express their views freely and to have their say."

Harmony Day is an important event for all of us. Although one's views may be different from those of others, it is important that they be expressed in order that others can learn about, understand and perhaps adopt them to bring about change for the better. Through Harmony Day we can work together to send a message of friendship, love, care and support to all communities in Australia so that we can live in harmony and peace. I thank all members who contributed to debate on this motion, which I commend to the House.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and passed.

Motion agreed to.

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

The House continued to sit.

Pursuant to sessional orders Government business proceeded with.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 20 April 2010 at 2.30 p.m.

WASTE RECYCLING AND PROCESSING CORPORATION (AUTHORISED TRANSACTION) BILL 2010 (NO 2)

Second Reading

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.01 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Robertson: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

21672 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

The Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation, which trades as WSN Environmental Solutions, or WSN, operates a State-owned waste collection and processing business. The purpose of the bill is to allow the Government to transfer WSN to the private sector. The Government announced in late 2008 that it intended to investigate the possible sale of WSN. Expert financial, legal, tax, accounting and environmental advisers were appointed to undertake a comprehensive strategic review of WSN that considered factors such as the suitability of a transfer to the private sector and the proposed transaction structure. I seek leave to have the remainder of the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted. ______

Following the completion of this review, the Government announced its intention to proceed with the transaction and consequently is now tabling enabling legislation.

The Government has decided to proceed with this transaction for a number of important reasons.

Firstly, the sale of WSN addresses the inherent conflict between Government being both owner and regulator of this business.

Secondly, WSN operates in an increasingly competitive market along with private sector operators, who are best placed to make the significant technology development and capital investment necessary in this growing industry.

There is growing demand for Alternative Waste Technology—or AWT—facilities, which serve the critical function of diverting waste from landfill and form an important part of the Government's waste strategy.

While WSN has taken a lead position in the development of AWT facilities, the Government believes the private sector is best placed to make the significant investment that will need to be made over the coming years.

The Government has committed as part of this bill to report on how the transaction complies with the Government's waste management strategies and also to address any outstanding competition issue.

Taxpayers will benefit by shifting the need for this additional investment from the public sector and the community as a whole will benefit through the investment of the sale proceeds in the priority areas of health, education and transport.

It is important to note that the transferred business will continue to be managed in accordance with strict environmental regulations, regardless of ownership.

If I may turn to the details of this bill.

Part two of the bill authorises the transfer of WSN to the private sector.

To provide flexibility, part three of the bill authorises the transfer of WSN to the private sector through various methods:

• Firstly, through direct vesting of assets and liabilities;

• Secondly, through the conversion of WSN to a Corporations Act 2001 company and the subsequent transfer of its shares;

• Or thirdly, through the establishment and transfer of a new company.

The bill provides the Treasurer with the necessary powers and functions to effect the transfer to the private sector via one of these means.

The bill includes a provision allowing the new owner to be excluded from the payment of State taxes relating to this transaction, such as stamp duty.

It should be noted that Section 52A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 does not apply to a contract for the sale of land that is entered into for the purposes of this transaction.

In Clause 19 of the bill, it is made clear that provisions in the State Owned Corporations Act 1989 do not in any way prevent, restrict or otherwise limit the carrying out of this transaction.

This applies also to the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporatisation Act 2001. There are also provisions to allow for the repeal of that Act, after the successful completion of the transaction.

In addition, the bill establishes the Waste Assets Management Corporation which will retain and manage sites not transferred to the new owner as part of this transaction. The Waste Assets Management Corporation will be under the direction and control of the Treasurer.

A General Manager will be appointed for the day-to-day running of the Corporation, and staff may be employed under Chapter 1A of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002 to enable the Corporation to carry out its duties.

After discussions with the Opposition, the Government has agreed to direct cash and other assets sufficient to cover the provision for rehabilitation and future maintenance costs associated with the land fill sites to be managed by the Corporation.

18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21673

These maintenance and rehabilitation costs are accounted for as liabilities in WSN financial statements. These liabilities will be determined by an independent technical expert, as occurs now. This will allow external verification of the fund balance.

A key part of this bill relates to employee protections for those currently employed by WSN.

The bill authorises the transfer of employees to the private sector, and the continuation of their existing leave and superannuation entitlements, as well as a three year employment guarantee for permanent employees.

Temporary employees will receive a three year guarantee or to the end of their fixed term, whichever occurs first and the bill empowers the Treasurer to provide transfer payments to those employees who choose to move across to the private sector.

The bill also includes a provision to allow permanent and temporary WSN employees to remain with the public sector if that is their preference.

The bill I am introducing today is part of the Government's responsible program of transferring non-core assets to the private sector to strengthen the State's financial position.

This, in turn, improves the Government's ability to focus more resources to core social services such as health, education, roads and transport.

Significantly, it also addresses the Government's conflict of interest as owner and regulator of the WSN business.

While divesting ownership of WSN, the Government will continue to regulate the waste industry in New South Wales to minimise the impact of waste facilities on the community and the environment.

I commend the bill to the House. ______

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [5.02 p.m.]: I lead for the Liberal-Nationals Opposition on the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation (Authorised Transaction) Bill 2010 (No 2). Initially we had intended to move some amendments to this bill. However, as a result of constructive discussions with the Treasurer's office, the bill before the House incorporates the two amendments. They were difficult negotiations, and I appreciate the fact that our amendments have been taken on board. On that basis, the Liberal-Nationals parties will support the bill. It has long been our policy to support the sale of WSN Environmental Solutions. Having said that, I say also that we have a number of concerns about the process that has been flagged by the Treasurer. I will put those concerns on the record and urge the Government to view this sale as more than a simple financial transaction with the sole objective of maximising revenue. I also ask the Government to consider the significance of a very large organisation operating a near monopoly on landfill—all landfill facilities with the exception of the Woodlawn facility, which is not located in Sydney and which is operated by Veolia. WSN has demonstrated some predatory conduct, which is one of the characteristics of a market dominated by one major player.

The Opposition contemplated a breaking down of WSN before the sale of this public asset into private sector hands. We strongly recommend that the Government look at the model proposed by experts in the industry and supported by the conservation movement, which would see the waste transfer centres taken out of the organisation and sold to at least one operator or ideally a diversity of operators. If the waste transfer centres were owned and operated by others independently of the landfills and recycling centres, that would guarantee effective competition in the Sydney waste market.

It has been put to me by an industry observer that waste transfer stations are to the waste industry what the copper wire network is to the telecommunications industry. Looking back at the privatisation of Telstra, some people wish that the copper wire network had been sold off separately. Had that happened, all industry stakeholders would have had independent and fair access to participation in the market. Leaving it in the hands of one player has created a problem for other stakeholders. Similarly, the waste transfer stations are seen as the interface point between the collection and distribution of rubbish. If the landfill and alternative waste technology operators in Sydney also operate the waste transfer centres, we can immediately see problems for others seeking to enter the market.

In the case of WSN the situation is further complicated by its ownership or control of virtually all the land in the Sydney metropolitan area that has been set aside for the purposes of waste. Landfills are a sensitive issue and, understandably, difficult to establish. Local communities are not enthused by the prospect of having a huge landfill, which takes other people's waste, operating in their backyard. It is difficult to access suitable sites for landfill. As a result, there are only three landfills in Sydney to manage most of our waste. Two of them are owned by WSN. One is at Eastern Creek, where I believe WSN also owns the land. The other landfill is at Lucas Heights. In fact, there are two landfills at Lucas Heights but one is closed. The second has considerable 21674 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

capacity but is limited by a transport agreement between WSN and Sutherland Shire Council that limits the number of garbage trucks on residential streets. That highlights the constraints that apply in operating a waste system. The Lucas Heights landfill is on land leased from the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation [ANSTO], so it is Commonwealth-owned land. However, the land is set aside for landfill and is under the control of WSN. It is envisaged that control of the facility will be part of the sale process.

The third landfill, the Woodlawn facility operated by Veolia, is outside the Sydney metropolitan area. The Wright report, which was released by the Government yesterday, points out the constraints that apply to that facility. Although it has considerable capacity, there are constraints in accessing that capacity because of the need to transport the garbage by rail. It cannot be assumed that all of Sydney's waste could be conveyed on that transport system. It is not as the Treasurer said in his media release of 9 March 2010, when he suggested:

WSN Environmental Solutions operates in an increasingly competitive market along with private sector operators.

I dispute that interpretation of the waste market. When that is put to other operators, they openly laugh at the suggestion because of the dominance of WSN. I note that the Department of Planning has described class one landfills in New South Wales as being effectively a duopoly, again naming WSN and Veolia as the only two players. The Wright report—which, as I said, was released yesterday but is dated March 2009—is extremely critical of what it calls "arbitrary caps" being placed on waste that is able to be deposited in landfill. At the moment Veolia's ability to access landfill is capped at 400,000 tonnes per annum at Woodlawn, and WSN is capped at 500,000 tonnes at Eastern Creek and 575,000 tonnes per year at Lucas Heights.

The Wright report released yesterday also contains the revelation that it is quite possible that Eastern Creek will be full in three years and may have to close. The rumour in the industry—and it is only a rumour but I believe it is interesting to raise it in the House—is that the constraints on the Eastern Creek landfill site may well relate to a Department of Environment and Conservation licence condition and that if that licence condition were to be varied, the landfill capacity would be enhanced significantly. That is significant because if the facility was sold now on the basis of its stated capacity under its current licence and the purchaser got a licence variation, there could be a windfall of literally hundreds of millions of dollars. The people who purchase the facility will obviously know that and will factor it in as a financial risk or opportunity. I presume all that translates to a bottom-line price. The Government wishes to sell the facility, but I have highlighted fairly dramatically how much value is being created by current regulations. The Government needs to be more forthcoming on what regulatory environment it envisages in the future because the process impacts directly on the value of WSN as the current major operator in Sydney, and it will certainly impact on what any purchaser perceives as its potential value in the future.

The caps that I have outlined are less than the amount of waste that is currently being generated by Sydney residents for landfill. I have inquired as to where all the extra waste is going, and I understand that it is being placed in landfill facilities, which is resulting in the caps being breached on a regular basis. In the case of Lucas Heights, I understand that WSN is making penalty payments for breaching the caps. Therefore, the Wright report finds that the caps have been ineffective in limiting the amount of waste being generated for landfill. The main recommendation of the report is that these caps be abolished. The Government announced yesterday, in a speech given by a backbench member of the upper House, the Hon. Ian West, that it rejects this key recommendation. It was not made clear to the House why, and I hope that at some stage the Minister for Planning deigns to make a statement in relation to the Government's response to the Wright report.

It is clear from a letter dated 1 March—which is signed by someone in the Department of Planning who declined the freedom of information request—that the department is saying that the Minister and the Cabinet have not yet considered the Wright report and that no policy decisions are being made. Therefore, the speech given by the Hon. Ian West yesterday was very significant as it is a response to the report on landfill and Sydney's future landfill needs. In his speech, the Hon. Ian West provided all the information that this House and the public of New South Wales have about the Government's future intentions in relation to landfill. On a matter of such significance I believe it is most appropriate for the Minister for Planning to make a statement and give reasons for his decisions, particularly when a report has been released that sets out its findings in great detail and argues its recommendations cogently. When the Government rejects that recommendation I believe the Minister has an obligation at least to give reasons why. I will quote briefly from the Wright report because it contains some excellent insights into the condition of the current Sydney waste market. It states:

The underlying contract landfill gate price has been driven down over some years, leaving little margin for further gate price cutting without eroding profitability.

18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21675

That is the gate price in relation to the cost of landfill. The report continues:

Moreover, with very limited landfill capacity remaining, WSN is not in a position to join a further round of landfill gate price competition. And Veolia's ability to receive much more waste is constrained by its logistics system. In any case, given the failure of the input caps to deter waste growth, it is clear that factors other than the annual input caps are the drivers of waste generation. And the scale of the announced annual escalation rate for the Waste and Environment Levy will be the real driver of an accelerating AWT uptake rate.

AWT stands for alternative waste technologies. These facilities basically seek to recover, recycle and reuse at least 80 per cent of material. The report goes on:

Would removal of the annual input caps have an adverse impact on other resource recovery initiatives such as municipal kerbside recycling and C&I dry material recycling? Such an impact could be conceivable only if the annual input caps were a current driver of resource recovery by third parties (local government and C&I waste generators) in order to assist WSN and Veolia to operate within its (limited) input caps. The caps provide no such driver and it is unlikely that the relevant third parties are aware of or have any interest in the existence of the caps.

I have been in contact with Jeff Angel from the Total Environment Centre, who puts the countervailing view in support of the Government's decision to retain the caps. Mr Angel writes:

An immediate lifting would have opened the floodgates to a lot more new landfill.

You're right about the monopoly issue - transfer stations should be broken up as this would allow more diversity and competition for recycling facilities as opposed to one size fits all from one company and consequent market control. Having said that we also think that a condition of sale should be proof of commitment and capacity for a high level of recycling.

A further issue highlighted in the report that I wish to draw to the attention of the House is the complexity of competition in the waste market in the Sydney area. The Sydney waste market is not insignificant. The Sydney metropolitan waste industry employs thousands of people and, based on figures from 2006, I estimate its value to be in excess of $1 billion. So the sale of WSN and the return to government needs to be put in the context of the impact on the dynamics of a much bigger and very important industry. All members of Parliament would agree that the collection of waste is an extremely important issue for Sydney and its sustainability. It impacts directly on every person and business in this city.

According to the Wright report, competition in the industry in relation to landfill is currently between two players, Veolia and WSN. That competition is constrained by distribution networks and caps on waste going to landfill. The report says the Government should try to develop a regulatory regime that shifts the competition away from landfill versus landfill to competition between landfill and alternative waste technologies. We want alternative waste technologies to be able to compete more effectively with landfill so that we ultimately reach the ideal market situation where alternative waste technologies can compete with other like technologies and landfills are left with the very small residue of material not suitable for reuse on recovery. That is our ultimate objective.

Why do we want less waste to go to landfill? The answer is:first, landfills in New South Wales are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, I believe they are second only to power stations. Up to 16 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions come from landfills. One of the reasons for that high level of greenhouse gas production—and I was surprised to learn how high it is—is that landfills produce methane gas, which is far more damaging to the atmosphere even than carbon. That is why they rate so highly in their contribution to the State's greenhouse gas emissions. Second, we want to recycle and reuse materials so that we can reduce pressure on our natural resources and operate more efficiently. We also want to live in a cleaner and more sustainable city. There are many good reasons to reduce the number of landfill sites and to stop wasting materials. Third, on a purely practical level, Sydney is running out of landfill sites.

Obviously, increasing resource reuse and recovery rates increases employment and helps the economy. It will also ensure that Sydney keeps up with international best practice. Sadly, we are not only falling behind other countries but also falling dramatically behind other States in Australia. The Government has a recycling strategy that includes targets against which it reports. However, as I speak, we are set to miss eight of the nine targets in that strategy. The Government has resorted to using one blunt instrument to boost recycling: the waste levy. It wants to make putting rubbish into landfill sites so expensive that other alternatives will be found. We are getting a great deal of negative feedback from local government about the way in which that levy is being implemented. It raises $214.7 million more than the Victorian environment levy despite the fact that Victoria recycles 19 per cent more waste material than New South Wales. Clearly, on any measure, we are falling behind not only the rest of the world but also, and more alarmingly, smaller States in Australia. 21676 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

Emissions in this State have risen by about 7 per cent while we have been trying to cap and then reduce them. There are many reasons to be concerned about the way the waste market is operating and the lack of guidance offered by the Government about how it will operate in the future. I congratulate the shadow Treasurer, the member for Manly, on the excellent work he has done to protect the taxpayers of New South Wales by proposing and having accepted by the Government amendments that will ensure that the liabilities left with taxpayers after WSN is sold can be fully funded. I also thank the Treasurer for incorporating those amendments in clause 7 of the bill, which provides for the establishment of a fund to be used for the payment of the outstanding landfill liabilities of WSN that will become liabilities of the Waste Assets Management Corporation, which will be created by the bill, with the balance of the fund to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Funds transferred into the Consolidated Fund for use for other non-waste purposes must be net of the liabilities that New South Wales will retain after the sale of WSN. The Government has not made clear what liabilities will be retained. The assumption is that landfill sites that have been closed will require considerable funding in the future and will not be wanted by the private sector. Their inclusion would make WSN unsaleable. Some people refer to them as the "dead assets".

People are also wondering what will happen with the land assets. I hope the Government will closely consult industry and the community on those issues. The Treasurer's press release indicated that he had done a lot of work on a sale strategy. Again, if the Government considers only the land value—particularly the land at Karuah and at other strategic sites around Sydney—it might be argued that that land would be more valuable if it were sold for housing. If that were to occur, Sydney would lose the very small amount of land set aside for waste purposes. That would be a great shame. We need land for the future development of recycling and waste transfer centres.

Obviously, the manner of this sale and the conditions placed on the new owners of WSN will be significant in determining what options we have for waste management in the future. I urge the Government to realise that this is not simply a financial transaction. If WSN is sold with all its assets and having regard to the arrangements made by governments over many years to provide for the future waste needs of Sydney, and if those assets are not managed properly and carefully with the environmental needs of the city in mind, we could irreversibly mess up waste management in Sydney. I am not talking about the far distant future; it could happen within five years. We could find that Sydney is in a most dreadful mess.

The Government's response to the competition issues I raised is that they will be addressed through the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which will vet the potential purchasers of WSN. A potential purchaser will put forward a proposal and the commission will indicate which parts of WSN the purchaser will be forced to divest to ensure a competitive market. I understand the role that WSN plays in protecting consumers' interests. However, that is a very poor substitute for a properly planned waste market. It appears that the entire responsibility for planning for Sydney's future waste needs has been delegated to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which will be in charge of designing the market based on the bids. That is more than a little unsettling. I do not know whether the commission realises that it has this task ahead of it. We have the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, and the Department of Planning. It would have been much more effective and positive if the Government had considered a bigger plan for Sydney and put the sale of WSN in the context of that bigger plan.

Probity has been raised with me by many people in the industry. The concern is that the sale process must not be accompanied by scores of fundraising dinners and donations made to the Labor Party. There is an expectation that that is what will occur and that people who are not seen as supportive of the Labor Party will not be as engaged in the process as one would expect. I was very depressed by that immediate expectation. It is not a fear; it is an expectation on the part of many in the industry that that is how the game will be played. I urge those businesses considering bidding for WSN to understand that the concerns, anxieties and rules are changing in New South Wales. That sort of approach must not be tolerated. We must have arrangements in place that allow for open review. The Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, has indicated that that matter will be vigorously pursued in the event that the Coalition is elected to government. I urge the industry to understand that we take these matters seriously. No-one should be required to indulge in that sort of underhand behaviour. The prime concern must be the public interest and meeting Sydney's waste needs.

I again acknowledge the shadow Treasurer's successful negotiation on the Coalition's two amendments. One requires that provision be made for the company's liabilities and the other requires that the Government report back to the Parliament on the social, environmental and competition impacts of the legislation. Given that this is enabling legislation, these are the most proactive amendments we felt we could propose to ensure that those important issues were addressed. 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21677

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [5.29 p.m.]: I usually would not be expected to support a bill that is about privatising a government service, but because I have experience in this area and because I have listened to the debate on the other side and read some of the contributions by members in the other place, I feel it is important that I speak from my personal experience and knowledge of both WSN and the issue of waste management in our city and State. I should put on record that I was a board member of what was then Waste Services New South Wales for some time, and I have witnessed its transition from a government trading enterprise to the corporation it is today.

The history of WSN seems to have been lost in this debate. There is this preposterous idea that WSN's existence is some evil government conspiracy that prevents all these wonderful private operators from being in the waste management business in Sydney. That is absolute nonsense. WSN was established as the Metropolitan Waste Board following an inquiry—I think it was in the 1970s but it may have been a bit later—into pollution from council-owned and privately owned waste facilities, mostly landfill, around Sydney. There had been some quite serious incidents and the government of the day commissioned an inquiry. Recommendations were made and the organisation was established to manage the existing facilities around Sydney. Some stayed in council ownership. Bankstown council, on which I served, had a landfill site—in those days we called it a "tip"—as did many other councils. Other sites were transferred to the new organisation that in those days had responsibility for both regulation and service delivery.

The situation has changed. WSN Environmental Solutions, like many organisations that were government owned, has evolved over time in accordance with the needs of the market and the changing needs of society and the communities and consumers it serves. Presenting it any other way is disingenuous and unfair. WSN is an excellent organisation that has provided a great service to the people of Sydney. It got into the business when that was hard to do. It operated the Lidcombe liquid waste facility, and in those days there was nowhere else for that waste to be managed and treated. It was difficult stuff. That is the reality of a modern society: as our needs changed and we became a more densely populated urban environment, and as industry processes and manufacturing changed, we had to deal with waste management differently. Thankfully, technology has helped us to develop much better responses that do not damage our environment.

The old approach has left a legacy. Thankfully, today we have moved away from landfill. We have heard from others the impact landfill has on the environment, and that is well recognised in the industry. Reference was made to the Wright report. The Wright report will assist the Government plan; it is not just about WSN. WSN is not the only player in the market. Again, the situation has changed. Initially there were no private operators to provide the service. That is why the Government became involved in a commercial activity— because the private sector was not providing the service. The service was needed so the government of the day decided to become involved. Of course, things change over time.

It is important to put on record the history of WSN. It is important to acknowledge the great work that that organisation and its public service workers have done over many years. Waste Services was involved in the rehabilitation work at Homebush. Any members who have enjoyed the great parklands at Olympic Park should know that WSN was one of the organisations involved in their rehabilitation. It has done great work over the years, and so have its workers.

Mr Ian Cohen: Then why privatise it?

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: I acknowledge the interjection. I am happy to speak on the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation (Authorised Transaction) Bill 2010 because there are sound reasons for privatisation. It is important for the Greens to acknowledge that they have been playing games by constantly suggesting that there is somehow some terrible conspiracy because WSN is government owned. That is wrong. It is never a level playing field, and for government-owned agencies and corporations the benchmark is so much higher. Members move motions calling for papers from government-owned commercial enterprises that they certainly would not demand from the private sector. The Greens are happy to play that game when it works in their favour. They are quite disingenuous about the way they treat government-owned enterprises in this State. One day they will wake up to the fact that the games they play help to push them out of business—but I know they will never acknowledge that.

One of the key reasons for the Government's decision to transfer WSN Environmental Solutions to the private sector relates to trends in the growing industry. Again, I have had the opportunity to witness that. WSN has led the way in developing alternative waste technologies in this State. It has been a leader in that field. Gone are the days when waste was simply collected and buried in a landfill. As our landfills diminish, this approach is 21678 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

just not sustainable. Consequently, the waste industry is now experiencing a rapid transformation from waste disposal to waste processing. This transformation is being driven by demand from local government, from the community and from business for a more sustainable approach to waste. It is clear that councils and their communities want to see long-term solutions to how we deal with domestic waste. Businesses are much more aware of their environmental impacts and are keen to see their waste processed in a more responsible way.

This has led to the development of alternative waste technologies, as I have already mentioned. These facilities play a critical role in diverting waste from landfill and form an important part of the Government's waste strategy. The Government will report on how the transaction complies with its waste management strategy, including the development of alternative waste technologies. Alternative waste technologies involve the mechanical separation and recovery from waste of recyclable material such as metals, plastics and paper. I am sure that some members—hopefully quite a number—have had the opportunity to visit places such as Eastern Creek and Macarthur Resource Recovery Park. The facility at Eastern Creek uses alternative waste technology that is new to Sydney and, some may argue, to Australia. WSN went to great lengths to examine methods and processes being used not just in Australia but also in other parts of the world before it developed that facility, which it constructed and is operating.

To keep pace with demand, significant and ongoing investment in infrastructure and technology will need to be made. It is the Government's strong belief that this investment is best met by the private sector, which is willing and able to deliver the facilities the State needs. The development of alternative waste technologies is an essential part of the Government's strategy to divert waste from landfill, because kerbside and commercial recycling programs are simply not enough to meet the targets. It is acknowledged that to help achieve these targets from municipal waste, New South Wales needs to process and recover resources from the mixed household waste stream.

This includes recyclables that do not make it to recycling bins and organic waste that can be processed for either compost or green electricity. Process technologies can not only recover around 60 per cent of the mixed waste stream but also can contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases that are emitted from organic waste in landfills. There are currently four waste technology facilities in New South Wales processing around 20 per cent of the State's mixed household waste, and many more facilities are planned. The potential market for alternate waste technology facilities is potentially large, with the mixed waste stream in New South Wales alone accounting for more than three million tonnes per year.

To meet the Government's waste diversion targets and to have a real impact on greenhouse gas emissions New South Wales will need considerable new infrastructure in the near future. Taxpayers should not have to bear the burden of these considerable investments when the waste industry is both willing and able to meet this need. Taxpayers should not be exposed to the commercial risks associated with building and operating alternate waste technology facilities. That is a strong argument. It will take significant investment to continue to invest in the necessary new technology to meet the important environmental targets that have been set and the demands of consumers. We should not use large sums of taxpayers' funds to drive the development of alternative waste technologies.

The transfer of WSN means that public funds can be better directed to front-line infrastructure. This will enable the Government to focus on its important role in regulating the industry rather than the day-to-day operations of a waste business. A number of private sector players in this competitive industry regularly participate in council tenders for either waste processing or waste collection. Members who have experience in local government will confirm that point. Many private sector providers submit tenders to councils that advertise for expressions of interest or calls for tenders and very often win significant contracts.

Some councils have banded together to form regional groupings to attract new entrants in the Sydney market and increase the competitive tension in the tender process even more. A significant portion of Sydneysiders already has its waste processed by private operators. By transferring WSN to a private operator, taxpayers benefit in three ways: firstly, by reducing their exposure to the commercial risk associated with the day-to-day running of a business such as WSN; secondly, through the investment of proceeds in front-line services and priority infrastructure; and, thirdly, in transferring the significant technology and capital investments needed from public to private finance.

We know the private sector is both willing and able to provide waste management services and make the necessary investments to take this industry forward. These operators are subject to the same regulatory environment as WSN and work to achieve the Government's waste targets in the same way. It is clear that the 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21679

waste sector already operates competitively, and the case for continued government participation as an owner and operator is not strong. For all these reasons in November 2008 the Government announced its intention to sell WSN as part of a program to transfer non-core business to the private sector. This in turn enables the Government to focus on front-line services for the benefit of the whole community. The Government will continue to work hard to meet the challenges faced in areas such as health, education and transport.

While we can point to significant achievements and reforms over our term in government, our focus always remains on how we can continue to meet the needs of the community into the future. This means rolling out the Building the Education Revolution stimulus spending to deliver long-term benefits to communities right across the State. This means providing a new fare structure for greater Sydney that makes using public transport fairer, simpler and easier and rewards frequent commuters. This means continued improvements to our world-class health system and working with the Federal Government to develop workable reforms at a national level. This means working with communities across the State to deal with catastrophic impacts of natural disasters. The list goes on. By divesting itself of non-core business operations such as WSN the Government can continue to focus on delivering in these priority areas. I am sure that WSN under its new owners will continue to provide much-needed quality waste management services to the people of New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: That was a good speech. I do not agree with all of it, but it was a good speech.

Mr IAN COHEN [5.44 p.m.]: I understand that all members of the Greens will participate in this important debate on the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation (Authorised Transaction) Bill 2010 (No 2). It is interesting to make my contribution after the last speaker. I acknowledge that members opposite said that it was a good speech, but in terms of policy and direction of the Government, it borders on some form of political schizophrenia. I look forward to my colleague Dr John Kaye speaking, who has repeatedly unveiled the moral and ideological bankruptcy of the New South Wales Government's privatisation agenda. I indicate from the outset that the New South Wales Greens do not support the privatisation of WSN Environmental Solutions. The Greens support a metropolitan waste service and infrastructure that delivers environmental outcomes at the most equitable cost for Sydney households. This bill cannot achieve that aim.

The object of the bill is to facilitate the sale to a private operator of the waste, recycling and processing corporation trading as WSN Environmental Solutions, which currently services 90 per cent of Sydney's population. Sylvia Hale and I visited the site, as I am sure have many other members. It is a significant operation. Damian O'Connor, a former union member, introduced me to the facility. He was justifiably proud of the facility at the time, and it augured well for government participation in such a valuable venture.

The bill establishes a framework for the transfer of WSN assets, including rights, liabilities and tangible assets via a variety of transaction structures. The bill provides discretion to the Treasurer to manage the proceeds of the sale. WSN currently owns and operates four open landfills, seven waste transfer stations, two material recycling facilities and alternative waste technology plants at Eastern Creek and Jacks Gully. Five landfill sites have considerable future liabilities and would compromise the attractiveness of WSN to the private waste sector. The proposed waste assets management corporation will retain landfill sites that have reached capacity and require rehabilitation management in government hands. The bill also provides some level of protection for existing workers and their entitlements. However, as recent redundancies at NSW Lotteries demonstrate the rhetoric of protecting workers rights in the privatisation process is devoid of practical commitment.

The Greens do not support this proposal to sell WSN as it leaves Sydney households and local governments with inflated waste management costs, it does not guarantee improvements in environmental outcomes and resource recovery, and will simply privatise a virtual monopoly. In the end, it is the consumers and the householders who will pay a premium for waste services as the lines between the passing on of waste levy costs and corporate profit blur. There is no doubt that Sydney householders will pay more. Vice-President of the Local Government Association, Allan Ezzy, summed up the impact in an article in Tuesday's Sydney Morning Herald as follows:

It's going to be painful, adding more cost to ratepayers and putting more pressure on councils. It will cost more, with less control over charges and activities.

I can already see the headlines of the Daily Telegraph of 2 November, "Sydney households pay through the nose for waste disposal". The single monopoly private operators will simply say they are passing on the waste 21680 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

levy cost and the cost of investing in alternate waste technologies if the private operator takes that path. The increase in costs will reflect pure company profit. The structure of the proposed authorised transaction leaves no room for consumer protections.

Let us consider the arguments for the privatisation of WSN. The rationale proffered by the economic wizards and visionaries in the New South Wales Labor Party is interesting. As they scurry in retreat from the founding principles of public ownership and employee rights, the New South Wales Labor Party has served up some of the most fanciful rhetoric on privatisation to date. The stated case for privatisation of WSN is so absurd that one would be forgiven for thinking the Treasurer was playing a joke on the State. Both the Treasurer and the member for Miranda, Barry Collier, have stated, "… the sale of WSN addresses the inherent conflict between the Government being both owner and regulator of this business".

How many State-owned corporations or government agencies are subject to regulation by the State? Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, the New South Wales Labor Party would be of the opinion that we should privatise the State Water Corporation, the Sydney Ports Corporation, the Hunter Water Corporation, Landcom and the Rail Infrastructure Corporation. If the Labor Party were so concerned about the conflict between Government as owner and regulator of a business, would not the New South Wales Government need to privatise NSW Forests and the NSW Trustee and Guardian as well?

Dr John Kaye: It's dangerous.

Mr IAN COHEN: It is dangerous, I agree. Indeed, it may be an absurdity. I believe that waste services are no less important to be held in public hands. I believe that waste services are a no less important a utility in a society than the other major services I will refer to in a moment. The Government claims that it will make money out of this service, but that it is somehow not as important as what it describes as its front-line services. What an ultimate hypocrisy! Since when did the New South Wales Government become so concerned with conflicts of interest? How did the party of workers become the party for absolute and unabashed privatisation of public assets and infrastructure?

There are circumstances in which the Greens are very concerned about the joint owner and regulator roles being exercised by Government. Let us consider how many times the New South Wales Government has lampooned concerns from the community about conflicts of interest pertaining to State-owned corporations or particular government agencies. The Government talks about corporate responsibility, the independence of boards, annual reports, and provisions for accountability. Why is it any different in this case? The argument is simply a false bottom in a sinking ship that is the New South Wales Government.

The Government makes a secondary argument in aid of its expansive privatisation agenda. The Government's codename for this process is "transferring non-core assets to the private sector to strengthen the State's financial position". The Government believes that readdressing the failure of State infrastructure investment—a calling card of this Government over the past 15 years—can now be patched up by some short-sighted fire sales to balance the books and give the Treasurer a glowing sheen of economic responsibility: A little fertiliser for the elusive green shoots that the Treasurer talks longingly about every single question time.

Unfortunately, the Treasurer's false mirage of green shoots will crumble in the long term. The Hon. Eric Roozendaal, Treasurer and Minister for green shoots, is growing an economy with short-sighted privatisation at its very heart, turning our economy into one overrun not by green shoots but by uncontrollable, festering weeds of gutter-level political opportunism. Eric the Eel has become the New South Wales Government's prime real estate agent. I say that after having had a little bit of experience of that of late. The lying and deceit that has been undertaken with this process is mind-bending. When I asked the Treasurer a question about this matter recently, he did not answer me. It is one thing for the Treasurer not to answer; that is pretty typical—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Par for the course.

Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the Hon. Catherine Cusack's interjection: It was par for the course. But what galled me was that the Treasurer spent the entire question time ridiculing the Opposition—which, incidentally, is pretty well in support of this process anyway. As there was no ridicule for me, I suppose I felt somewhat left out. I asked the question and then I was blatantly and totally ignored. That is the superficiality of this man who is running Treasury in this State. I have been around for a while now, 15 years, and I have to say: 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21681

he ain't no Michael Egan. I will not extol the virtues of Michael Egan and his policies, but he certainly knew what he was talking about. I believe we now have a Treasurer on training wheels being led by forces that are much bigger than he can cope with.

Selling public assets to pay recurrent debts and liabilities is the sign of a desperate government that has failed to secure the economic and environmental prosperity of this State. What I find most interesting is the claim that waste management and resource recovery is not a core concern and priority for the New South Wales Government. This is certainly evident in the continued failure of the New South Wales Government to reach its resource recovery targets. As has been highlighted time and time again in the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Progress Report 2008, the New South Wales Government is not on target to meet its target of diverting 66 per cent of municipal waste from landfill by 2014. The New South Wales Government is not committed to managing waste and increased resource recovery through effective extended producer responsibility schemes and has acted as a roadblock at the Federal level to stop national development of container deposit schemes.

If we were to ask Sydney households about which government services are most important to them, waste management and kerbside recycling would surely rank in the top five. It interacts with our management of natural resource, sanitary and health needs, and our broader environmental management objectives. Without municipal waste services our suburbs would become foul wastelands of consumer rubbish. Sanitary and waste services are essential to healthy communities. Environmentally, resource recovery is a key component to managing our natural resources, reducing contamination and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike the Labor and Liberal parties, the Greens see waste management as a core function of government that should not be left to the whims of the market and gambled on potential market failures. If the Liberal Party is concerned about the failure of WSN to reduce waste going to landfill and lacks confidence in the ability of WSN to recover both consumer, commercial/industrial and construction waste, why has it not pursued a legislative agenda that addresses the problems? Like the Labor Party, it is taking the easy and lazy way out.

Another argument put forward by the New South Wales Government and blithely mimicked by the Liberals—although Michael Richardson has not fallen into the same lack of critical analysis dogging the rest of the party—is that privatising WSN will enhance environmental outcomes because private companies are in a better position to invest in alternative waste technologies. Michael Richardson said in the other place:

Ultimately, this sale should be about … better environmental outcomes, that is, a reduction in waste going to landfill and an investment in alternative waste technology by the private sector. It really has not been spelt out how either of those goals will be achieved under this bill ….

One has to agree with a former shadow Minister for the Environment. Private sector investment in alternative waste technologies—which is a key component to better environmental outcomes through high diversion of waste and recyclable resources from landfill—is a matter of basic economics and policy settings. The key policy settings and economic drivers of alternative waste technologies investment are reliant upon waste levy levels and landfill capacity and demand.

We can be under no illusions that the sale of WSN will improve environmental outcomes. The basic economics remain. As long as New South Wales has remaining landfill capacity and waste levies do not substantially change, investment in base level alternative waste technologies facilities, costed at $80 million a facility, will not necessarily encourage private investment. The de-monopolisation is central to ensuring there is a business environment that encourages private sector investment. The transfer stations must be split up. Without splitting up the transfer stations we are simply swapping a public monopoly for a private one. The mooted benefits of privatisation, including innovation, efficiency, environmental improvement and competition, will be totally non-existent. New South Wales will be burdened with a private waste manager gorging on increased profits without any improvement in service. I turn to the Liberal Party policy on WSN as my proof. The policy states:

A Coalition Government will break the Government's near-monopoly on putrescible waste in the Sydney region by selling WSN Environmental Services' transfer stations and landfills to the private sector. The corporation will be split into at least two parts to ensure competition and stimulate innovation. To maintain competition, we will legislate to ensure that no private company or individual can control more than 45% of Sydney's putrescible waste stream in the future.

I hope members heard that: The Liberal Party will legislate to ensure that no private individual or company can control more than 45 per cent of Sydney's putrescible waste stream in the future. Strangely, when I looked at the 21682 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

amendments put forward by the Liberal Party yesterday I could not find this policy commitment reflected in them. Instead we have proposed section 8—now reflected in the mark II bill in section 8—that requires the Treasurer to report on strategies implemented to resolve competition issues.

How utterly ineffectual! This will simply lead to a question time circus where the Opposition will challenge the Treasurer for creating a privatised monopoly, with the Treasurer retorting with some aimless lambasting of an insignificant Liberal right wing zealot preselected to contest a marginal Labor seat. It is all too predictable. It highlights the dilemma for the voter in 2011 that there is not a major party worthy of forming a credible government. One can only dream about a minority government here.

The Liberal Party appears keen to jump on board a Labor privatisation agenda that will greatly increase waste management costs without any corresponding environmental benefit. Liberal support for the current proposal is decimating a core element of the party's environmental policy. Why is the Liberal Party policy not reflected in the amendments? Why are the Liberals willing to support a bill that privatises WSN, exchanging a public monopoly for a private one, at the great expense of working family bottom lines? The ideological commitment to competition and environmental outcomes must surely be in question. It seems like déjà vu happening here.

Last year the Liberal Party sold out its ideological integrity when it drafted an amendment to the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Amendment Bill 2009 that basically reinforced powers of compulsory acquisition in relation to properties owned by Michael Winston-Smith and Ray Fazzolari at Parramatta. The amendments put forward by the Liberal Party yesterday do not adhere to its own policy. Every Liberal member in the Legislative Assembly expressed a desire to stop a public monopoly becoming a private monopoly during debate. What mealy-mouthed words! It appears the policy-lite New South Wales Liberal Party cannot even keep its word on what little policy it does have. Liberal Party commitment to policy: zero.

It is interesting to note that the original bill did not make any provision to hypothecate funds to cover existing liabilities associated with landfills that will be retained in Government hands. Eric the New South Wales Government real estate agent thought he was home free on a big cash grab, a pot of gold to win back the disaffected electorates brutally neglected by the New South Wales Government with a pre-election cash splash. They can brand it, "Eric's Cash Splash 2010". Fortunately, the Liberals have shown some basic sense and raised amendments to have proceeds set aside for liabilities of closed landfills.

The Greens support the establishment of a WSN Transactions Proceeds Fund, which Labor has rebranded the Water Administration Ministerial Corporation [WAMC] Landfill Rehabilitation Fund, mark II, to hypothecate sale proceeds to be applied for liabilities associated with decommissioned landfills. This is a sensible step in hypothecation—one we would never see with the waste levy under this New South Wales Government. We should note that the liabilities relating to contamination management and greenhouse gas emissions could be significant. I think it may have been Pru Goward, in the other place, who suggested that once the costs associated with landfill liabilities were deducted from the sales proceeds we would be left with as little as $20. While I think that figure might be stretching the imagination, we should consider the extensive liabilities associated with landfill management. The fund is a sensible way to ensure money is available for remediation activities and legacies are financially planned for.

I do note that proposed section 8 in WSN privatisation bill mark II leaves out reporting on consumer protection and ratepayer measures as proposed in the original Liberal amendments. I think this speaks volumes about the philosophical and pathological predisposition of Labor to ignore the plight of local government ratepayers. I am surprised the Liberal Party did not notice this but, again, maybe this speaks volumes about its commitment to an effective waste management system. This is one of the lowlights of the legislative program that I have seen from this Government—when I say "this Government", I mean stretching back some 15 years —and I believe it will regret it in the not too distant future. I feel very comfortable in saying that the Greens strongly oppose the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.04 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I speak in support of the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation (Authorised Transaction) Bill 2010. This bill authorises the transfer of WSN Environmental Solutions to a new private operator. It is another step from large government to smaller government to bigger people. The speech of Mr Ian Cohen has reinforced my picture of the Greens as the new Socialist party of this State, far to the left of the Australian Labor Party.

The bill contains a major change to part 2, the authorised transaction, through the proposed amendments negotiated by the Coalition. The original bill simply authorised the transfer of the WSN assets to 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21683

one or more public sector agencies listed in clause 6 to the Consolidated Fund. Clause 7 of part 2 will now provide for the establishment of a fund to be used for the payment of outstanding landfill liabilities of WSN that become liabilities of the Waste Assets Management Corporation, with the balance of the fund to be payable into the Consolidated Fund. The Christian Democratic Party supports the proposed Coalition amendments, which the Government has indicated it will accept and will now form part of this bill. That was a very important change because no-one knows what costs could be involved with landfill sites and it is best to make that a priority before the money is put into Consolidated Revenue.

The object of the bill is to authorise and facilitate the transfer to the private sector of the assets, rights and liabilities of the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation. In the bill the corporation is referred to as WSN to reflect the corporation's trading name—WSN Environmental Solutions—and its assets, rights and liabilities are referred to as WSN assets. I found that helpful in understanding the use of the term WSN. The main provisions of the bill provide for the potential structures for transferring the WSN business to a private operator. The bill also provides for the transfer of WSN employees, protection of their entitlements and a three-year employment guarantee for permanent employees. I am pleased this has been included as part of the bill because quite often with privatising small sections of the Government it is important for employees to be fully protected. I am glad that was always included as part of the Government's bill.

The bill also provides a guarantee for contract employees to the end of their fixed term or three years, whichever occurs first. On top of that it provides the ability for permanent and temporary employees to remain in the New South Wales public sector, if they so wish. I commend the Government for ensuring the full protection of those employed in one way or another through WSN. The main rationale of the bill is that the transfer of WSN will reduce risks to taxpayers from operating in competitive markets against private sector companies, and addresses the inherent conflict of interest of government being both owner and regulator of this business. That is a very good principle and for that reason the Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [6.07 p.m.]: The purpose of the Waster Recycling and Processing Corporation (Authorised Transaction) Bill 2010 (No 2) is to sell to the private sector the assets, rights and liabilities of the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation. I support the remarks of my colleague Mr Ian Cohen, but I make some additional comments as to the implications of the bill for local government. The last 30 years of rate pegging have seen a slow but steady decline in the ability of local government to meet new costs and charges. The sale of WSN will see an increase in fees from a near monopolistic private operator, which will increase the cost to ratepayers across New South Wales.

While the call from both Government and Opposition has been for efficiency, after 30 years it is possible that local government is now the most efficient level of government in the State. The Minister for Local Government has called on local government to be more efficient, but that mantra is little more than a smokescreen for lazy governments to shift blame for a decline in public services as frequently as they shift costs to local government. This is particularly the case in waste services. In the face of increasing waste collection and disposal charges, local government is already reacting with what some may call efficiencies and others may characterise as endangering the public health.

In Penrith there has been much concern among residents at Penrith City Council moving to collect rubbish once a fortnight. Although Penrith's councillors claim that their waste services are among the cheapest in the metropolitan area—and that is a choice they make on behalf of their community—it is a choice clearly driven by financial constraints rather than by concern about issues of health and hygiene. Penrith council's website gives some good tips on managing waste, including keeping food scraps in the freezer until garbage night. While this may be sensible, a number of questions arise from it. Should we be using energy to keep waste safe for up to a fortnight in the interests of health? Is this a procedure that everyone can or should follow? Again, is it safe?

Clearly, there is an energy cost to keeping a refrigerator running, and the more one has in the refrigerator the more it costs the individual and the more likely it is for the temperature of the refrigerator to increase, thus increasing the chances of food poisoning. So in reducing Penrith council's costs, at least some of these costs will still be met by Penrith's citizens. There is an environmental cost, too, as the demand for coal-fired electricity increases. Penrith's operations also assume that each and every family will do the right thing or has the capacity to do so. While most people are good citizens, some people are not or do not know enough to be so. Some people live in large households and many do not have the money to buy a second storage fridge. 21684 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

Some households produce lots of nappies. Many people have a garbage bin that is overfull of stinking, vermin-attracting rubbish from which disease may spread. As costs increase there is little doubt that other councils will follow Penrith's lead, and the major advances in public health in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries of regular garbage service may be undermined by cost cutting brought about by the so-called rational operation of market forces. Once again the market, monopolistic as it is, will act against the interests of the public. There appears to be no protection in this legislation for local government against price gouging by the new private entity. This legislation offers no incentive to reduce waste and, indeed, may operate to undermine efforts to reduce waste as the newly privatised WSN will make more money the greater the amount of waste it is able to collect.

The ratepayers of New South Wales will pay for this sale again and again. The State Government and its Federal counterpart have failed to support waste reduction measures such as container deposit legislation or legislation that addresses the serious and growing problem of electronic waste. Cleaning up this waste costs ratepayers many millions of dollars every year. The sale of WSN will do nothing to improve the situation for ratepayers and local government. One effect of the sale may well be an additional tax on ratepayers that the Government and Opposition will then blame on local government when councils, in response to those increased charges, seek to increase waste levies. Increasing charges will no doubt lead to local governments reviewing their charges for related services such as clean-up days, which many councils operate for free because they assist in reducing unsightly and unhealthy dumping of rubbish. Councils also often run drop-off events so that people can clear out dangerous products such as old paint, poisons and the like.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: Car batteries.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Yes, exactly. If these services become more costly, councils become less keen to promote them because of the additional costs that will be incurred, so the incidence of dumping will increase. Once again, local government costs will increase, and the aesthetic of our suburbs and towns may be undermined, as may the health of our community. While most people who can pay will do so, there remain those for whom cost is a barrier, even to sensible behaviour. The Parliamentary Secretary, the member for Miranda, spoke in his agreement in principle speech of the need for further investment in waste services in years to come, and said that the sale of WSN will shift the need for this investment from the public sector to the private sector. But, as we all know, the private sector operates not in the public interests but in the interests of its bottom line and its shareholders. Someone will pay for that investment in cleaning up waste, and it will be the ratepayers through punitive rates and charges. The member for Manly said:

We understand that some assets will be retained in Government ownership.

He expressed the pious hope that, "We support this transaction in the hope that alternativee waste technology in this State will be enhanced." A pious hope indeed! Once again it seems that this sale, rather than being of benefit to the community, may be a major cost. By keeping in public hands some assets—presumably old tips so polluted that the Government could not pay anyone to take them off its hands—the cost of remediation of these lands will be borne by the taxpayer, only this time without the income stream provided by the public operator to cross-subsidise the process. For local government, this will perhaps be a bad re-run of the experience of Marrickville ratepayers who had to pick up the costs of remediating the old Tempe tip when Waste Services managed to persuade the Labor-controlled council to pay for what rightfully should have been the responsibility of the State Government.

I remember this well as I was on the council at the time. The Tempe tip of ill repute was an enormous burden for nearby residents, particularly in respect of the smoke, noise, smells and fumes it generated. It was opened as a State Government facility in the Tempe area. Every night when Bunnerong power station operated the coke ovens would be cleaned up and the residue would be dumped on Tempe tip. That was done at night because they wanted to cover the food scraps to prevent the birds from feeding on them, which then presented a danger to planes entering and leaving Mascot. Council consistently approached the State Labor Government for permission to charge a fee for the remediation of the land. Council wanted a fee that not only covered the ongoing operating costs but also the costs of remediating the land.

The State Government consistently refused to allow the council to do so. In the late 1990s the Government said, "Although the tip has been closed for years, we want it cleaned up and remediated." Council said, "We wanted to put aside money to do this but you refused to allow us to do so." It was only the fact that Marrickville Council was controlled by the Labor Party at that time that it meekly rolled over and said, "We will pay for the remediation." It was a scandalous shifting of costs from the State Government to local ratepayers. 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21685

Most of our old tips are time bombs, and the privatised waste service will not be interested in maintaining or remediating them. The vital remediation work will be unfunded by the State Government and by default it may well fall to local government to protect the community. The experience in Great Britain is comparable to what we are doing here. In the late 1980s water and sewage works in Great Britain were privatised. They were sold to private operators, at a considerably discounted price, and they were given a tax-free period in which their profits remained untaxed.

There was a wholesale dismissal of workers; over time many workers lost their jobs. The burden of paying for the privatisation of water was shifted to the poorest of households. In 1996 the Save the Children Fund did a survey of the poorest households. It found not only that real cost shifting had taken place where households were spending 4 per cent of their weekly budget on water, but also a rise in the number of cases of dysentery. The operators of the privatised water organisations, despite all their assurances, failed to invest in new pipes or ensure that the existing infrastructure was well maintained. Pipes were leaking and sewage was overflowing. There were claims that privatisation would lead to greater competition. That was far from the case, as many of the smaller utilities were bought up by the larger operators. There has been a complete concentration of the water outlets in the hands of a few companies.

Even the notorious Enron, whose operations resulted in a major scandal in the United States of America, had a water subsidiary in the United Kingdom. It was fined £36,500 in one year and in 1998 it was fined only £5,000 with £500 costs for discharging one million gallons of raw sewage into a Dorset marina on an August bank holiday. One may say this is capitalism run riot; that is what happens. But we are privatising essential services and there can be no more essential service than waste collection. Despite evidence from overseas and evidence in front of our eyes, the Government says that we should proceed with the sale in the hope that the eventual outcome will be in the public interests. That is an extreme case of wishful thinking.

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. John Ajaka of my ruling relating to mobile phones sounding in the Chamber and place him on a call to order.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [6.22 p.m.]: On behalf of Family First I speak on the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation (Authorised Transaction) Bill 2010 (No 2), the object of which is to authorise and facilitate the transfer to the private sector of the assets, rights and liabilities of the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation. The Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation, known as WSN, which trades as WSN Environmental Solutions, operates a State-owned waste collection and processing business. Part 2 of the bill authorises the transfer of WSN to the private sector. To provide flexibility, part 3 authorises the transfer of WSN to the private sector through various methods: the direct vesting of assets and liabilities, the conversion of WSN to a Corporations Act 2001 company and the subsequent transfer of its shares, or the establishment and transfer of a new company.

The bill provides the Treasurer with the relevant powers and methods. It includes a provision allowing the new owner to be excluded from the payment of State taxes relating to this transaction, such as stamp duty. Section 52A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 will not apply to a contract for the sale of the land that is entered into for the purposes of this transaction. Clause 19 makes it clear that provisions in the State Owned Corporations Act 1989 do not prevent, restrict or otherwise limit the carrying out of this transaction. This applies also to the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation Act 2001. There are provisions to allow for the repeal of that Act after the successful completion of the transaction.

The bill establishes the Waste Assets Management Corporation, which will retain and manage sites not transferred to the new owner as part of this transaction. The Waste Assets Management Corporation will be under the direction and control of the Treasurer. A general manager will be appointed and staff may be employed under chapter lA of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002. I congratulate the Opposition on negotiating with the Government the inclusion of the amendments, which we envisaged moving to this bill. The bill authorises the transfer of employees to the private sector and the continuation of their existing leave and superannuation entitlements, as well as a three-year employment guarantee for permanent employees. Temporary employees will receive a three-year guarantee or to the end of their fixed term, whichever occurs first. This bill also empowers the Treasurer to provide transfer payments to employees who choose to move to the private sector. It also includes a provision to allow permanent and temporary WSN employees to remain with the public sector. 21686 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

In late 2008 the New South Wales Government announced that it intended to investigate the possible sale of WSN. Financial, legal, tax, accounting and environmental advisers were appointed to undertake a review of WSN. Following the completion of this review, the Government announced its intention to proceed with the transaction and now is introducing this enabling legislation. According to the agreement in principle speech in the other place, the Government has decided to proceed with this transaction for a number of important reasons. Firstly, the sale of WSN addresses the inherent conflict between the Government being both owner and regulator of this business. Previous speakers have pointed out the difficulties in this regard. Secondly, WSN operates in an increasingly competitive market along with private sector operators, who are best placed to make the significant technological development and capital investment necessary in a growing waste industry. Government members who spoke in this debate indicated how important this is to the future of our State.

There is growing demand for alternate waste technology facilities, which serve the critical function of diverting waste from landfill and providing recycling opportunities. The previous speaker, Greens member Ms Sylvia Hale, said that Penrith City Council and other councils have advised citizens how to store their waste for fortnightly collections. Rather than keeping waste food in a freezer for a fortnight, with all the problems that creates, such as, an increase in electricity consumption, I recommend keeping four chickens in the backyard. They will clear up all the waste created by a family and supply the family with fresh eggs at no cost. I also suggest there is nothing better than a worm farm because it improves the soil in the garden.

Ms Sylvia Hale: I could not imagine putting nappies into worm farms. It is a bit off putting.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I do not want to know anything about the member's private life. I join the Opposition and crossbench in highlighting key questions that need to be addressed, including the structure of the sale, the handling of closed sites, and whether money will be put aside for the remediation of closed sites and any liabilities that may occur as a result of closure. The longstanding market expectation is that the New South Wales Government will retain control of closed facilities, stripping out of WSN's big liabilities to maximise the value of its other assets. This will lead to long-term and perhaps serious liabilities still to be paid by the taxpayer.

WSN is the largest waste management network in Australia, with 11 waste recycling, processing and disposal facilities across Sydney, and the sale is expected to be worth around $300 million. WSN has applied to extend the final date for acceptance of putrescible waste at its Eastern Creek landfill site from June 2014 to June 2016. However, the Eastern Creek facility is likely to be included in the grouping of dead assets that the Government will retain. I join other members who have stated that we must ensure that liability is fully funded before the Government spends the sale proceeds on other projects. There must be more assurances about processes to ensure social and environmental outcomes will be achieved. I congratulate the Opposition on its negotiations with the Government in this regard.

WSN has a bevy of council waste collection contracts. Despite its competitors regularly referring it to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission alleging that it uses its near monopoly on disposal to underbid on collection, market scuttlebutt suggests that several operators will be very keen to get their hands on this business. The network of transfer stations dotted around Sydney will also be a key attraction for any potential bidders. According to Inside Waste Weekly, there is plenty of industry speculation about the form of the sale. Would selling the entire business create anti-competition concerns? It seems unlikely that Veolia— which broke WSN's disposal monopoly when it opened the Woodlawn facility near Goulburn—would be allowed to restore that monopoly in its own favour. But would a duopoly with two players in the municipal disposal market be enough for Sydney? The waste and environment levy is paid by councils for every tonne of rubbish that goes to landfill and is meant to fund community education and other waste reduction projects. Councils in Sydney, the Hunter region, the Central Coast and Illawarra, and in the Wollondilly and Blue Mountains local government areas, currently pay the levy, and councils in coastal areas from the Hunter to the Queensland border will be paying as well.

By 2012 approximately $150 million will be collected and supposedly funnelled into "new or expanded environmental programs". But New South Wales has only budgeted to spend $10.5 million on these activities. The rest of the money will sweeten the deal for SITA Environmental Solutions, associated with the French giant Suez Environment Corporation, or Transpacific Industries, which are reportedly competing to buy Waste Services. Inside Waste Weekly stated that spending "$300 million would potentially offer its buyer an (almost) instant monopoly in the Sydney waste disposal market". Members of the crossbench were concerned when they discussed that matter. 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21687

The Government can learn from residential waste collection in Finland. Finland is one of relatively few countries to have a system of competition in the market for residential waste collection. Sixty-one per cent of municipalities in Finland have adopted a system whereby each household is obligated to contract individually with a waste collection company for waste collection and disposal services. In addition, housing cooperatives can tender privately for waste collection services. The role of the local authority is limited to a form of regulation—the local authority decides what type of waste are to be encompassed by the system, what maximum prices the largest companies can charge and in what regions companies are obliged to offer their services. I echo the concerns raised by other members regarding the economic, environmental and social costs of WSN. In principle I support the bill but I want assurance from the Government that the sale of WSN will not be to the detriment of the State's citizens.

Dr JOHN KAYE [6.32 p.m.]: This legislation talks about the transfer to the private sector of the assets, rights and liabilities of the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation, referred to as WSN to reflect the corporation's trading name, WSN Environmental Solutions. Let us be absolutely clear, "transfer to the private sector" is a euphemism for privatisation. It is time we are absolutely honest about what this bill does: it privatises WSN. My colleagues Ms Sylvia Hale and Mr Ian Cohen have made an excellent case against the privatisation of WSN. I will not reiterate their arguments but I will outline two of what I think are three key reasons for opposing the privatisation of WSN. The environmental arguments put forward by Ms Sylvia Hale and Mr Ian Cohen of themselves ought to be enough to reject privatisation, but I want to focus on two other issues. First, the consequences for the State's budget and, second, the risk of market power being concentrated and the consequences of dealing with waste from the city.

We have heard a lot of argument from the Government about why this needs to happen. The Treasurer, ably echoed by the Hon. Helen Westwood, talked about the need to invest to maintain the viability within the market. Their argument basically was that as waste services are going into a new era—and I do not think anybody argues with that—there is a great need for capital so that the way we deal with waste can be reconfigured, and that that capital cannot come from the public sector, but has to come from the private sector. Let us get a few facts into this debate.

In 2008, according to the Attorney General's report, the profit before tax for WSN was $19.4 million on a turnover of $247 million of revenue. The total net asset base of WSN was about $202 million, which was made up of gross assets of $379 million and liabilities of $177 million. To boil those figures down, that means that WSN is returning, on profits before tax, approximately 9.6 per cent of its net asset base, or about 6.3 per cent of its gross asset base. That is to say, in a mere 10 years of collecting profits from WSN one could double one's capital investment. One could entirely recapitalise WSN by collecting the profit it makes over a 10-year period.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: It cannot be spent.

Dr JOHN KAYE: It must be put to one side. That is a very good point and I will return to it shortly.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It is making all its profit by raiding its legacy fund.

Dr JOHN KAYE: No, that is certainly not the conclusion reached by the Attorney General but it may be the view of the Hon. Catherine Cusack. This says clearly that WSN has a substantial income base on which it could base reinvestment. The Government will argue with that line of reasoning that $19 million will not be available for hospitals, police, public transport and education. But the Government will give away $19 million in any case. It will disappear from the budget. It has to be understood that the cost of reinvesting in waste services will be paid by the people of New South Wales. Whether that is paid under public or private ownership, one way or another in the charges that eventually each and every household and business in New South Wales ends up paying, we will pay for that investment.

The questions are: Who collects the profits? How big are they? What is done with them? The sell-off takes the capital value and the income stream and converts them into a quick cash fix for the budget. The Treasurer admitted in his speech that part of the reason for selling WSN is to use the quick cash injection to achieve a better budget bottom line. What the Government is really doing is taking a capital asset, selling it and effectively using the proceeds to cover past and possibly future recurrent operations. The Government is effectively robbing an income stream to pay for a debt, or getting rid of a capital asset to pay for a debt. That is the opposite of responsible management. Any household that starts selling off capital assets to pay for operations costs will sooner or later go out of business. 21688 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

When the Government says it has to do that so that it can focus on core business it is really commenting more on its limited capacity and imagination than on the economic realities. Whichever way members look at it, an asset that is currently returning $19 million a year—9.6 per cent on net assets—is an asset that recapitalises itself and builds itself up. The only real reasons for selling WSN are, first, ideological, based on an ideology that comes very heavily out of Treasury. Every time I go to budget estimates hearings I am shocked at the degree to which that ideology completely controls the thinking of Treasury. The second reason is to get a quick fix on the budget bottom line, but it is an illusory fix because once the asset is sold it will not bring in future income streams. Neither of those are valid arguments for selling an asset.

The second major objection to privatisation is the risk of market dominance and its major consequences. Everybody was very concerned about the idea of a public monopoly. Public monopolies create political feedback. If a public monopoly starts behaving in an adverse fashion, pressure is brought to bear on a government, which exerts pressure on the public monopoly, and problems can largely be resolved. The Hon. Helen Westwood referred in her remarks to calls for papers and public accountability of public enterprises—the way in which they can be brought to book for their behaviour. But once an enterprise becomes private that accountability disappears entirely.

The Opposition spokesperson drew an analogy with Telstra. I agree there is a strong analogy with Telstra but I disagree that they should have been sold separately. Neither of the two parts of Telstra, neither the copper wire business nor the retailing business, should have been sold. There are profound reasons for keeping both of those businesses in public hands, but if they are going to be sold, selling them as a combined entity is absolutely crazy. What we are doing is, in effect, authorising the Treasurer to hand over the waste services business of New South Wales to the private sector in a form that he thinks appropriate. The only checks and balances will be through the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, if it authorises the transaction. I have no doubt that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will not want to see New South Wales waste services handed over to a single monopoly and will put pressure on the sale process to secure at least two players, and possibly three, in the market.

The problem is not what happens right now, the problem is how this evolves. Veolia—who no doubt will be a major player, is already a major player, and will no doubt continue to be a major player and become an even bigger player through the privatisation process—will be seeking to get complete control over the industry, or at least to get market dominance. There is a good reason why it will do that: its shareholders will demand it because that is how you maximise profit—by gaining market dominance. The problem then will be the amount we end up paying, the quality of service that we receive and the ability to innovate, all of which will be damaged by market dominance.

My colleague Mr Ian Cohen spoke eloquently about the Coalition's policy of maintaining no player in the industry with more than a 45 per cent market share. If you are going to have a private industry then that is probably the bottom line on what you should do.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: That was in the last election when you preferenced every seat against us.

Dr JOHN KAYE: We didn't preference every seat. I acknowledge the interjection.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member with the call should refrain from responding to interjections, which are disorderly at all times.

Dr JOHN KAYE: It is not true that the Greens preferenced Labor in every seat, and even if it were true I fail to see the relevance of that to a Coalition policy that talks about 45 per cent market dominance. What is disappointing is that the Coalition has rolled over on this legislation without securing the 45 per cent. In an earlier interjection the shadow Minister said, quite convincingly, "This is a financial transaction." There is some validity in saying it is not the final regulatory bill. The problem is we may never see a final regulatory bill. Perhaps what we should have done with this legislation was put caveats on the sale to make sure that there was no path available—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It's not in the scope of this bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The shadow Minister interjects that it is not within the long title. 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21689

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Catherine Cusack to order. I understand that members have very strong opinions on this issue. However, as the contributions of other members were heard in silence, so too should the contribution of Dr John Kaye.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The long title of the bill is "An Act to provide for the transfer of the business of the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation; and for other purposes". Certainly it is legislation that addresses the transfer of the business, but there is a good case to suggest that that transfer could have been modified by an amendment that required the transfer to occur in such a fashion that there would never be a risk that the industry became dominated by a single player. We are now at the mercy of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and we hope that it gets it right and continues with its vigilance over this industry, but it has a mixed track record. It is not clear that this Chamber is about to do the right thing in allowing that to happen.

I refer finally to the position of employees within the industry. The Government has made great play of the employment guarantee period. That is terrific. Employees within the industry will have a choice of being effectively transferred on to the public sector unattached list and mouldering away there, or going with the spanking new private owners. If they go with the new private owners they have the employment guarantee—but it is for three years. For a 40-year-old employee expecting to work in the sector for another 20 years, 17 of those years will be at the mercy of the private sector.

I acknowledge that the Opposition does not seem to be particularly concerned about the conditions of public sector workers. I would not have expected anything more from the Coalition, but I probably would have expected more from the Government. All we get is three years, and at the end of three years people who in good faith have accepted lower wages by working in the public sector will end up losing those conditions. I acknowledge that their superannuation will be continued, and that is probably the sole positive feature of this legislation.

I conclude by congratulating the Hon. Helen Westwood on some excellent arguments she put forward for maintaining WSN in public hands. She referred to the issue of the call for papers and considered that the way in which the Greens engage with the public sector through our persistent use of calls for papers is inconsistent. I point out to the House that the Greens do indeed demand a high level of accountability from public sector undertakings, as indeed we should—as indeed all of us should—because that is one of the key reasons for having public sector undertakings. The public sector is accountable to the public, it is accountable to the political process, and adverse behaviour, such as the construction of Tillegra Dam, such as TransGrid pushing ahead with power lines that are not needed—

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Two new power stations.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Two new power stations. One could hardly blame Delta and Macquarie for those two new power stations given that they were ordered to do it by the shareholding Ministers. Similarly, one could hardly blame Hunter Water Corporation for Tillegra Dam, given that it was issued an order by its shareholding Ministers to do so.

[Interruption]

If the Hon. Catherine Cusack has a difficulty listening she can leave the Chamber. I am not insisting she stay here and listen.

The Hon. John Ajaka: Are you calling her to order?

Dr JOHN KAYE: No, I am just making an observation.

The PRESIDENT: Order! If the member with the call continues to respond to interjections, I will not hesitate to call him to order.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Thank you, Madam President, I accept your ruling. The other argument of the Hon. Helen Westwood was that WSN had led the way in innovation in the treatment of waste, and indeed it has. That it one of the key reasons for maintaining public ownership. If one examines honestly the history of utility delivery in New South Wales and around Australia, the great advances that have maintained a quality of living came about because the public sector was prepared to innovate. The public sector had the capital and the capacity, in an environment in which it could innovate. The lack of competitive stress and the focus on servicing the community created innovative outcomes. 21690 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

I doubt very much that we will see similar innovation from the private sector. Thirdly, we heard a lot about the conflict between ownership and regulation. In every privatisation debate someone says, "You cannot be both the owner and the regulator." On that argument, I would watch out if I were the Roads and Traffic Authority, the Department of Education and Training, the Department of Health, or the trains—all of which are public sector undertakings and all of which are regulated by the Government that owns them. We have advanced a long way in our understanding of how to operate public sector undertakings. We have advanced a long way in terms of regulation and ownership structures. In some cases those advances have been regressive and in other cases they have been progressive. But to argue that one government cannot simultaneously own and regulate is absurd. It is made nonsense by the way in which we operate schools, hospitals, roads and trains.

There is an overriding ideology being pushed in Australian society—and I do not blame the Labor Government for this; it is as much a victim as the Coalition—which started with Margaret Thatcher, grew in momentum through the presidency of Ronald Reagan, was championed by discredited economists such as Frederick Hayek and Milton Friedman, and continues to permeate our society. The argument is that, somehow or other, the private sector will be superior to the public sector; that, somehow or other, competition is superior to cooperation; that, somehow or other, market forces are always superior to regulation. We are conducting an unproven experiment on society that says you shrink the size of government, retreat from things that government has done traditionally and inflict private sector ownership on essential services. Given the experience of a number of disastrous privatisations—including Telstra—there are good reasons to believe that the experiment will not be successful and that there will be long-term consequences, not only economic and social but also environmental. I urge the House to reject the legislation.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.51 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their lengthy contributions to debate on the Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation (Authorised Transaction) Bill 2010. The Government acknowledges the shadow Treasurer Mike Baird and the shadow environment spokesperson Catherine Cusack for the feedback that they provided during this process. As the House has heard, the bill reflects the position of both sides of the House. As both sides of the House agree, the case for transferring WSN to the private sector is a compelling one. As we have heard, the sale addresses the potential for a conflict of interest if the Government is both owner and regulator of this business. At the same time, it allows the Government to focus on policy and regulation to protect the environment and ensure the sustainable management of waste for the benefit of generations of Sydneysiders. We have also heard how the regulatory framework for the waste industry has been strengthened in recent years to encourage greater resource recovery.

There are a couple of issues that were raised in debate that I wish to address specifically. The first is the issue of environmental outcomes and how they will be improved. In recent years the Government has strengthened the waste and environment levy to drive resource recovery and has provided a clear regulatory gateway to enable genuine resource recovery to flourish. This initiative in turn has driven the increase in demand for alternative waste technology [AWT] facilities. The development of alternative waste technology is an essential part of the Government's strategy to divert waste from landfill because kerbside and commercial recycling programs are simply not sufficient to meet targets. The Government believes that the private sector is best placed to develop the technology and make the capital investments needed in the alternative waste technology market that will deliver the desired environmental outcomes.

It should be noted that the Government's waste reduction agenda is outlined in the New South Wales Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy, which was completed in 2007, and I encourage all members to make themselves familiar with that document. The strategy has a number of features, which together are aimed at achieving the Government's goals of preventing and avoiding waste by increasing recovery and use of secondary materials, reducing toxicity in products and materials, and reducing litter and illegal dumping. These are the issues and initiatives that the Government should focus on rather than the day-to-day operation of a business that already operates in a largely competitive commercial sector.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack raised the issue of competition. It is intended that WSN will be sold as a single package. The competition adviser has concluded that it would be impossible to structure WSN in a way that suits all potential bidders. In fact, to attempt to break up WSN for a sale process could be seen as aiding certain bidders. Accordingly, bidders will be required to satisfy Australian Competition and Consumer Commission issues during the process. This may well mean bidders teaming up to take different parts of the business. The Government recognises the role of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in ensuring that this country's waste management industry achieves competitive outcomes.

Following discussions with the Opposition, the Government agreed to set aside part of the sale proceeds sufficient to cover the provision of rehabilitation and future maintenance costs associated with the 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21691

landfill sites to be retained in government ownership. The rehabilitation and future maintenance costs will be verified by an independent technical expert. In relation to regulation, WSN will be subject to the same stringent environmental regulations that apply to each and every operator in the waste industry. These regulations, put simply, are about ensuring a healthy and clean environment, and they apply to every company that holds a contract in New South Wales. WSN operates in a highly competitive sector, with several companies involved in both waste collection and waste processing in the Sydney metropolitan area. In addition, it is important to remember that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will review the sale, as is usual practice, to ensure that competition objectives are met. I again thank members for their lengthy contributions to the debate. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 20

Mr Ajaka Mr Lynn Ms Sharpe Mr Clarke Mr Mason-Cox Ms Voltz Mr Colless Mr Moselmane Mr West Ms Cusack Reverend Nile Ms Westwood Mr Della Bosca Ms Parker Tellers, Ms Ficarra Mr Primrose Mr Donnelly Mr Khan Ms Robertson Mr Harwin

Noes, 4

Ms Hale Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Mr Cohen Dr Kaye

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [7.03 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION FILE

Ms LEE RHIANNON [7.03 p.m.]: On Tuesday I spoke about my Australian Security Intelligence Organisation [ASIO] file and the serious mistakes that that agency has made in its spying activities. The files have large blocks of text blacked out. I understand that has been done to protect the name of the ASIO spies. What was not blacked out, and what is now on the public record, are the names of the numerous people with whom I attended meetings, socialised and protested, and with whom I went to school. Why should these people 21692 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

now have their names and activities exposed to public scrutiny because of the appalling conduct of Australia's spy organisation? Why were their names not blacked out? My file is now publicly available, and anyone who wishes to look at it is welcome to do so. However, I ask that the names of other people included in my file not be publicised, leaving aside the many mistakes that ASIO has made in documenting its spying activities on me that I detailed in my earlier speech.

The question that jumps out when one reads these files is: What did Australia gain from the years of spying, following people and taking clandestine photos and movies? So many personal details have been recorded—relationships, marriages and divorces of people often only fleetingly associated with me. What for? There is no justification for the massive waste of resources—public money—and what amounted to harassment of those in our society who hold views that ASIO judges to be unacceptable. It is time ASIO came under the spotlight, its budget was revealed and the organisation made accountable.

The former President of this Chamber, Meredith Burgmann, has spoken about her ASIO files, and many other Labor politicians have been spied on. Michael Tubbs, who wrote ASIO: The Enemy Within, and who has studied many ASIO files, has noted some of the spying conducted against politicians. There are dozens of ASIO reports on former Federal Labor leader Herbert "Doc" Evatt, his secretary Alan Dalziel, staff member Mr Burton, Labor Party Deputy Leader Arthur Caldwell and Labor Senator Les Haylen. Mr Tubbs' book reveals extensive ASIO spying on Labor members. He writes:

Another ASIO telephone intercept report headed 'SECRET' records that Dalziel rang another person to tell them that 'Sam Cohen had drawn No. 2 on the Senate Ticket'. It is clear from reports like this that ASIO was highly political when it found it necessary to not only record this information, but record it in the files of five people other than Cohen. Surely the issue of who gets No. 2 on the ALP Senate team is not a matter of 'national security'.

Yet another telephone intercept report, again headed 'SECRET', records discussions ironically involving criticism of 'security'. It refers to a discussion between Caldwell and Whitlam among others, where one ALP member raised the possibility of joining the 'CP', with ASIO listening in. Another ASIO document shows that it was enough that a person had held a function in their home 'to raise funds for the ALP' for it to be reported to ASIO.

From the many ASIO reports on Dalziel, he must have been the most followed Australian citizen ever, and yet he never seems to have broken a single law! One document reports that in 1959, he met a person at 'the entrance to the Commonwealth Bank [building] ... where Dalziel is employed', showing that ASIO even had the Leader of the Opposition's Sydney office under surveillance.

Mr Tubbs queries why it is an offence to reveal the identity of an ASIO employee. He argues that this requirement ensures the secrecy of ASIO's true undemocratic functions and makes it more difficult to expose a possible abuse of power by an ASIO agent. Mr Tubbs was a publicity officer for the New South Wales Federation of Parents and Citizens and editor of a monthly journal in the 1970s. That was when ASIO was spying on him intensively. He notes:

I naturally received many calls from Federation councillors and other members of that massive public education organisation. Whenever this occurred, if the person was unidentified, ASIO would commence an 'unidentified trace', and obtain intrusive identification information like name, address, occupation, date and place of birth, previous address, date of claim (whatever that meant), name of 'witness', presumably so a secret ASIO file could be started up on the unidentified person ringing me.

To what purpose? What a disgraceful waste of public money that represents. Mr Tubbs has explained to me that few people speak publicly about their files—understandably, because of the intrusive nature of spying activities. However, I encourage other members to establish whether ASIO has a file on them. This agency needs to be put under the spotlight. ASIO is a dubious organisation. I do not think it has any role in twenty-first century Australia. At the very least, its funding should be on the public record and it should come under more public scrutiny. I challenge other members to deny that that is needed. [Time expired.]

BILL OF RIGHTS

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [7.08 p.m.]: Many of us, perhaps not all of us, have had the experience of putting down an animal that is sick, diseased or dying. It is not always easy. In fact, if you have an attachment to the animal, such as with a favourite pet, it can be pretty tough and indeed a sad occasion. Perhaps it is so difficult that you have to give the job to somebody else because you just cannot bring yourself to do it. However, you know it is the right thing to do.

It is my view that this is the precise juncture that we are at now with respect to the most recent incarnation of the charter of rights or bill of rights—call it what you will—debate in Australia. Those advocating such a radical change to our Australian polity have manifestly failed to present a persuasive case to support their 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21693

position. Indeed, I would argue, particularly looking at the evidence from a range of overseas jurisdictions including Canada and the United Kingdom examined during the recent national human rights consultation, that all the concerns and fears enunciated by the so-called nay-sayers are well and truly grounded in political and judicial reality.

Time this evening does not permit a thorough examination of the arguments both for and against a charter of rights. I suspect that most honourable members would be familiar with them. I encourage those who are not familiar with the arguments but are interested in this important debate to read the National Human Rights Consultation Report that was published in September last year. It is well worth reading, along with a number of the well-prepared submissions. Chapter 13, my favourite, outlines in much detail why going down the path of introducing a charter in Australia is not a good thing.

This debate never was and never will be a simple left versus right exchange. Friends and foes do not line up along traditional lines. Many people on the Labor side of the political divide have strong reservations about the idea of a charter of rights and what it will deliver. A number of these individuals are well-known, high-profile politicians, both past and present. I share their concerns as they expressed them and thank them for the forthright way that they prosecuted the no case. I also thank the broad range of academics, intellectuals, religious and faith leaders, community organisations and concerned citizens who also presented the no case with great vigour and enthusiasm. I also acknowledge the excellent work done by a number of politicians, both past and present, on the other side of the fence who, for as long as I can remember, have expressed scepticism and concerns about a charter of rights.

And now the time has come for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to do what needs to be done, the humane thing, and put this matter down once and for all. There are two good reasons to act, and act right now. The first is the principal reason. The case for such radical change was not made out in any way. Those advocating for such major change failed, and failed miserably. Despite what they assert, Australia is not a human rights wasteland; quite the contrary. There is always room to improve our respect for the rights of individuals; I do not argue against this proposition. However, claiming that this country is some type of human rights desert is just plain wrong.

The second reason, I admit, is political and pragmatic. It is my view that unless this matter is put down now it will become a millstone around Labor's neck in the lead-up to the Federal election later this year. My strong advice to the Prime Minister and Cabinet is that they should come out now, without delay, and kill off this whole issue once and for all. It should be stated unambiguously that Labor does not and will not support the introduction of a charter of rights, under whatever form or name, and that this matter is off the table completely. If Labor does not do this, it stands a very real chance of imperilling its electoral chances and handing government over to Tony Abbott. I say: No more.

DOWN SYNDROME

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [7.13 p.m.]: The day your child is born is supposed to be one of the happiest days of your life. It certainly was with the first three of my beautiful children but this joy was stolen away when my fourth child, Rachel, was born three and a half years ago. Rachel was born with Down syndrome, a genetic condition named after the doctor who first discovered that these special kids possess an extra chromosome. Rachel's arrival in this world was just like any other, yet my wife and I immediately sensed something was wrong. The initial rush to check vital signs, the worried glances between doctor and midwife and the long, empty and then deafening silence did not, to say the least, augur well.

When the likely diagnosis was finally pronounced we were left numb and confused. The midwife directed us to the maternity ward, careful to avoid our gaze and our questions. We felt like lepers yet our beautiful daughter slept peacefully, blissfully ignorant of the turmoil around her. Over the next few hours and days our lives rushed before us as we worried about her seemingly fragile future. Since then Rachel has grown and learnt much, as have her parents. She, like each of our children, is the light in our lives, but she more than any other provides us with perspective on what is really important in life. So, given that this Sunday, 21 March, is World Down Syndrome Day, let me share with you some of the things that people with Down syndrome and their families would like you to know about them.

Most people with Down syndrome were born before their mothers were 35. They enjoy their lives when they are well supported, just like the rest of us. Down syndrome causes disability; it is not an illness. Some people with Down syndrome do have health problems and are entitled to the same quality health care as every 21694 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

other Australian. Just as with everybody else, for children with Down syndrome learning starts at birth and does not stop. Most now learn to read: they learn much more than we ever thought possible. Children, teenagers and adults with Down syndrome have feelings, thoughts, ideas, interests, aspirations and dreams. They know what they want from life—friends, relationships, work, leisure and a measure of independence. Most live interesting, fulfilling and independent adult lives with support.

While it may be difficult to understand the speech of some people with Down syndrome, they are usually excellent communicators. Their understanding is usually better than their speech. Most, like my daughter Rachel, have a great deal to say. People with Down syndrome have an extra chromosome, number 21, along with the regular 46 chromosomes. This means that they are individuals, as alike and as different from each other as the rest of us. I trust this helps dispel some of the myths surrounding Down syndrome. Support for these often misunderstood yet important and valued members of our community is greatly appreciated. However, we can and should be doing much more, both for people with Down syndrome and for others with a disability.

My wife regularly attends a support group with other parents of kids with Down syndrome and other conditions such as autism, cerebral palsy and soft brain syndrome. I have attended a number of times and find it overwhelming to be confronted by the unmet needs of these families. The most common theme is a lack of access to State-based support services. In many parts of New South Wales, particularly in rural and regional areas, there are long waiting lists to access vital early intervention services such as speech pathology, occupational therapy and physiotherapy. There are over 12,000 people on the waiting list for respite care, with families now waiting for up to 15 months for just three hours of respite care. The dream of accessing long-term supported accommodation is even more remote.

The reality is that for many families these services exist in name only. They have no choice but to continue their daily struggle, doing the best they can to provide the care and support their children need. The greatest fear of many parents concerns is who will look after their kids when they are no longer physically able to do so themselves. These families represent one of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in our society, yet government largely ignores their desperate needs. I know of families that became so desperate for support that they moved interstate to access services, while others even moved overseas. A recent report on the ABC's Four Corners program highlighted the plight of families who moved to the United Kingdom so they could access vital support services for their children—services available as of right under the United Kingdom's National Health Service.

By contrast, in Australia many disabled people and their families have few, if any, meaningful rights to long-term support services. This will continue to be the case until governments decide to properly fund these vital services. The Commonwealth recently commissioned an inquiry by the Productivity Commission into a national disability and long-term care and support scheme. This inquiry will not report until 31 July 2011, meaning that we will probably have to wait until 2012 and beyond for State and Federal governments to even consider the findings of this report. Even then there is no guarantee that any action will be taken to address what is nothing short of a national disgrace.

TRANSGRID POWERLINE CONSTRUCTION

Dr JOHN KAYE [7.18 p.m.]: I congratulate the previous speaker on an excellent speech. The New South Wales Minister for Energy, John Robertson, revealed in question time in this House on Tuesday 16 March that an independent review will be conducted into TransGrid's plans for a $277 million powerline in northern New South Wales. The independent review will examine the methodology used to calculate the load forecasts used to justify the need for the powerline. The Greens and other opponents of the project have consistently maintained that the peak demand growth used to justify the line has been overstated. There is also evidence that TransGrid failed to adequately explore cheaper, lower-impact alternatives such as local generation and demand management.

Concerns have also been raised that the proposed line would reinforce dependence on coal-fired baseload power generation, particularly in Queensland, impact on the environment along the path of the transmission line, impede the uptake of community and household-based renewable energy generation and undermine efforts at improved demand management. The Minister has been embarrassed by ongoing questioning of the outrageous demand growth projections on the North Coast of New South Wales.

TransGrid argues the Bonshaw to Lismore high-voltage transmission line project is necessary to meet future peak load demands in the far North Coast region, despite evidence from its own data that demand is 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21695

stabilising or declining. However, TransGrid admitted in its final report that it has not modelled future generation or demand management developments on the North Coast. TransGrid's projections for future demand used to justify the construction of the line appear to be substantially inflated. TransGrid's data suggests that individuals moving to the region will be almost 40 per cent more peak load intensive than individuals presently there, despite largely being housed in new developments that should be more energy efficient and hence have lower peak demand. TransGrid's May 2009 project update claimed that:

The population of Far North New South Wales is expected to grow by at least 23 per cent, or around 60,000 people by 2031. Consequently, peak demand for electricity in the region is expected to grow by more than 40 per cent over the next 10 years, which is significantly higher than the New South Wales average.

TransGrid's figures imply a 39 per cent growth in peak demand per head of population over the next 10 years, which runs counter to existing demand trends. TransGrid's demand forecasts are straight-line estimates that show substantially greater annual growth than the historical record. The April 2008 forecasts show a four-year trend of flattening demand growth. The additional data from March 2009 demonstrates a substantial decline in demand. Given the important role maximum demand plays in determining the need for new transmission capacity, TransGrid's own data challenge its presumption of continual growth in peak demand, and its decision to proceed with the line.

Persistent questioning of the electricity forecasts for the North Coast has forced energy Minister John Robertson into an embarrassing reassessment of the justification for the $277 million Bonshaw to Lismore powerline project. Both the North Coast community and farmers and landholders along the transmission line route will welcome the recognition of the absurdity of TransGrid's obviously inflated forecasts for increases in peak demand. TransGrid was trying to pull a swifty. Its forecast could be correct only if each individual moving to the region will contribute almost 40 per cent more peak electricity demand than the average existing resident. This is clearly nonsense. Much of the population growth on the North Coast is in new housing developments that should be more energy efficient. If the Government's own efficiency propaganda is to be believed these people should contribute less, not more, to peak demand. The Minister was caught between the political power of State-owned transmission company TransGrid and the obvious errors in its demand forecast.

TransGrid's build-at-any-cost mentality will inflate household power bills and devastate employment opportunities in renewable energy across the State. It should not be allowed to deliberately inflate peak load energy forecasts to justify expensive, damaging and unnecessary projects. While TransGrid was prepared to manipulate the figures to suit its obsession with building yet another large transmission line, the Minister knew he would be deeply embarrassed if the project went ahead on the basis of a demand forecast that was clearly inflated. It is important that the inquiry is not a simple whitewashing exercise. The Minister will bear the political consequences if this project goes ahead on a forecast that is obviously pure fantasy.

KEMBLA GRANGE DIRECT FACTORY OUTLET

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [7.23 p.m.]: Today I speak on plans to build a direct factory outlet at Kembla Grange, in the Illawarra. Before I do, I stress a major problem that has plagued this southern Sydney region, a problem which has been in large part caused by 14 years of State Labor rule—14 years of Labor mismanagement and incompetence. In 2009 the Illawarra's unemployment rate had reached exponential highs, peaking at almost 10 per cent mid year, and oscillating thereabouts since December. Wollongong itself currently faces a devastating unemployment rate of almost 8 per cent. It is clear that the people of the Illawarra need jobs, and yet there are few jobs to be found. Unless something is done the livelihoods of people in the region, and their families, will continue to be at risk. It is in this context that I find the actions of this failing State Labor Government to be so flippantly careless.

Total Recycling Pty Ltd, the company behind the factory outlet, has been fighting tirelessly with New South Wales planning authorities. For what? Firstly, to immediately create over 800 construction jobs; secondly, to generate over 1,000 retail jobs over the next 24 months; thirdly, to generate an estimated $140 million in retail spending in the Illawarra; and, fourthly, to recapture $37 million in escaped spending to other regions. Despite these necessary and immediate economic benefits, in November 2009 the New South Wales planning department declined the concept plan application put forward by the Wollongong company. This was despite widespread community support for the proposal. According to an Iris Research survey commissioned by Total Recycling and published earlier this year, almost 94 per cent of the 404 Illawarra residents surveyed favoured the development. So why, given the glaring social and economic significance of the development and overwhelming support of the local community, has this Labor Government turned its back on the Illawarra and rejected this application by Total Recycling Pty Ltd? 21696 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 March 2010

The answer is the existence of an arbitrary zoning law. The project was rejected on the grounds that the proposed site fell within designated employment lands zoned industrial that could not be used for retail purposes. Given the outstanding potential benefits a direct factory outlet has for the surrounding Illawarra regions, not allowing its development at the Kembla Grange site as a victim to arbitrary zoning regulations is ludicrous. Industry relocation is possible: former planning Minister Frank Sartor negotiated an industry relocation strategy for Sandon Point so that an industry could move to allow major developments to proceed. This demonstrates that zoning rules can be reviewed in extenuating circumstances. This particular planning farce demonstrates that when those extenuating circumstances exist in safe Labor seats such as Wollongong the department is not necessarily readily inclined to instigate such reviews. Instead, this Labor Government is more content to rattle off a selection of various causes for rejection, to hide the fact that it is not that a factory outlet cannot be built but that it will not be built because Labor simply does not care.

Earlier today I asked the Minister for Planning, the Hon. Tony Kelly, why the development continues to be caught up in arbitrary zoning laws. But I received no answer. I then asked whether, following Paul McLeay's advice to review the circumstances around the request for zoning, he had commenced the review. Apparently the only answer from the Government is that it is still looking at it. This is not good enough. There is no time to beat around the bush. The residents of the Illawarra want jobs, not more spin from the Government. Almost three months have passed since the suggestion was made to review the zoning, and after three months all that this incompetent Labor Government has done is "look at it". I doubt that the residents of the Illawarra will be so glad when this State Labor Government decides to strip them of potential jobs that they so desperately need.

SYDNEY GAY AND LESBIAN MARDI GRAS

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [7.28 p.m.]: During February and March the streets of Sydney come alive with Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, which is a unique event that brings thousands of visitors to our city. At the same time, Mardi Gras provides a safe and inclusive space for members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex communities to participate, listen, learn, debate and party as part of the festival. Mardi Gras put Sydney—as well as New South Wales and Australia—on the map as a dynamic, modern city that embraces and celebrates diversity.

Tonight I congratulate the new Mardi Gras organisation and, in particular, the thousands of volunteers who continue to make the Sydney Mardi Gras such a success. As members know, Mardi Gras started as a protest march when, on Saturday 24 June 1978, about 2,000 people marched down Oxford Street to Hyde Park and then to Kings Cross as part of an international protest that stemmed from the Stonewall riots in New York. Police arrested 53 people. The violence of those arrests led the Wran Government to repeal the legislation that allowed the arrests to be made and created a new Public Assemblies Act. This meant that protesters no longer needed approval for marches; they simply needed to inform the police. The Pride History Group has noted that the "first Mardi Gras march was a major civil rights milestone that reached beyond the gay community," as a result of this legislative change. Mardi Gras grew from this protest to become the annual event we are all familiar with. There have been a few hiccups along the way but, with the support of many, Mardi Gras continues to grow and prosper.

This year, more than 100 events formed part of the festival. These events, which were extremely diverse, included the hugely popular Fair Day that brings more than 70,000 people to Victoria Park; fundraising events such as the Great Debate; Hats Off, which raised funds for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender organisations such as the AIDS Council of New South Wales and the Aurora Foundation; the Queerscreen film festival; talks and seminars by people such as the legend John Waters and author Sarah Waters; sports competitions; world-class dance parties at the Harbour Party; and, of course, the Mardi Gras parade.

These events are well known. What is less known is the myriad smaller events that occur across Sydney during Mardi Gras. The Mardi Gras parade is the catalyst and umbrella that enables many smaller events to flourish. Of particular importance, I note the events that were held and organised by youth service Twenty10—a fantastic youth support service that operates out of the inner west but that services the whole of New South Wales. I note the events held by Rainbow Babies and Rainbow Kids throughout the Mardi Gras season. Of particular importance are the forums that are held in many workplaces. Mardi Gras provides an opportunity for many corporations and public sector organisations to take time to look at what is happening to their gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex workforce, which is important for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex workers. 18 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21697

A recent survey found that 33 per cent of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender staff hid their sexual orientation from some or all of their work colleagues. Forty per cent of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender workers changed jobs, due to discrimination in the workplace. But, importantly, 50 per cent of workers would feel more committed and loyal to employers who introduced gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender diversity policies and programs. At one of the events that occurred during the Mardi Gras parade this year I was able to attend a fantastic forum hosted by the equity people in RailCorp. I commend RailCorp for organising that forum. Bringing together members of staff who are interested in issues concerning gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender workers is an important initiative. It recognised that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender staff are part of the RailCorp workforce; that they are valued; and that the corporation wants to work with them to ensure that it provides a truly inclusive workplace, free from harassment, where staff want to come to work and, importantly, be part of providing the transport system upon which the people in New South Wales rely— something towards which all workplaces should strive.

I also place on record my congratulations to RailCorp for its first-ever entry in the Mardi Gras parade, which was well received by staff in that organisation and which was well received on the night as they made their way up Oxford Street. Mardi Gras in New South Wales is a huge event. More than 20,000 visitors from interstate and overseas attend the event, which is estimated to inject almost $30 million into the New South Wales economy. The festival is supported and endorsed by all levels of government. I was particularly pleased this year to see the good wishes sent by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd after the small-minded refusal of John Howard to do so for many years.

Mardi Gras is a part of Sydney and plays a role for many thousands of people, not just in Sydney but also across Australia. Mardi Gras also provides visibility for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex community—a visibility that gives those struggling with their sexuality a demonstration of the tolerance, acceptance and celebration of difference that exists in this city and that operates in many of our communities. I place on record my thanks for the fantastic work of the staff and the board of the new Mardi Gras and, in particular, all those thousands of volunteers who turned out to make it such a success.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 7.33 p.m. until Tuesday 20 April 2010 at 2.30 p.m.

______