3583

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday 7 November 2007 ______

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

The President read the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thank them for their custodianship of this land.

ROAD TRANSPORT (SAFETY AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT) AMENDMENT (NOVICE DRIVERS) BILL 2007

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly, on behalf of the Hon. Eric Roozendaal.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

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

UNPROCLAIMED LEGISLATION

The Hon. Tony Kelly tabled a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 6 November 2007.

WATERFALL ACCIDENT

Report

The Hon. Tony Kelly tabled a report from the Independent Transport Safety and Reliability Regulator, entitled "Implementation of the NSW Government's Response to the Final Report of the Special Commission of Inquiry into the Waterfall Accident: Reporting Period July-September 2007", dated October 2007.

Report ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing Orders: Presentation of an Irregular Petition

Motion, by leave, by Mr Ian Cohen agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the presentation of an irregular petition from 1,005 citizens concerning the redevelopment of Lismore Base Hospital.

IRREGULAR PETITION

Lismore Base Hospital Redevelopment

Petition requesting that stage 2 of the Lismore Base Hospital redevelopment is completed by the first half of 2008, received from Mr Ian Cohen.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 postponed on motion by Mr Ian Cohen. 3584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 November 2007

CRIMES AMENDMENT (CONSENT—SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENCES) BILL 2007

Bill introduced, read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos.

Second Reading

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [11.06 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government is pleased to introduce the Crimes Amendment (Consent—Sexual Assault Offences) Bill 2007. This bill addresses a key element of the Government's ongoing legal reforms in the area of sexual assault prosecution: the reform of the law of consent. The Government has been relentless in its reform of all aspects of the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault.

Prior to 2006, reforms in the area of sexual assault prosecution included allowing the evidence in chief of children to be given by electronic pre-recording of evidence; prohibiting an accused from personally cross-examining the complainant; establishing remote witness facilities and allowing complainants to use closed-circuit television from these facilities to give their evidence; creating a positive duty on the court to disallow improper questions; closing the court when the victim gives evidence in sexual assault proceedings; introducing new rules governing the service of sensitive evidence; prohibiting a child complainant from being called at the committal; improving the case management of these cases by introducing pre-trial binding directions; and acknowledging the role of a support person in legislation.

In 2006 the Government, building on these earlier reforms, implemented a number of recommendations made by the Criminal Justice Sexual Offences Task Force, including reformation of jury warnings and directions concerning delay in the reporting of sexual assault by victims; expanding the circumstances in which recorded evidence given in an original trial can be used in subsequent trials to include hung juries and aborted trials; expanding and improving non-publication provisions to better protect sexual assault complainants; amending the committal procedure to reduce instances where victims must give evidence; and improving circumstances for vulnerable victims when giving evidence. This year, again in line with the task force recommendations, legislative amendments were introduced to extend the protections currently provided to children in the criminal justice system to other vulnerable witnesses, such as the intellectually impaired.

What has been the result? The New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research figures show that the cumulative effect of these ongoing reforms in relation to sexual assault prosecution is working. In 2004, 58 per cent of people appearing in higher courts for a child sex offence were found guilty of at least one child sex offence, compared with 67 per cent in 2006. For people appearing for sex offences not involving adults the percentage convicted has gone from 35 per cent in 2004 to 49 per cent in 2006. There have also been increases in convictions in the Local Court. There has been both an increase in guilty pleas and an increase in convictions at trial. These significant improvements in the rates of conviction for sexual offences show that the Government's reforms are effective and will instil greater confidence in victims to come forward.

This bill arises out of the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Sexual Offences Task Force Report. The task force report, published in April 2006, contained 70 recommendations and represented the most comprehensive review of the law in this area in the past 20 years. A broad range of government and non-government agencies was represented on the task force, including those representing women's and victims' interests such as the Rape Crisis Centre and the Women's Legal Services, members of the legal profession for the prosecution and defence, the judiciary, the courts, police, corrections, health, community services and academics.

Because these recommendations involve highly complex and significant issues, before final approval my department undertook further consultation, particularly with experts in the field. I released a discussion paper and draft consultation bill to the public in May 2007 and 21 submissions were received in response. I take this opportunity to thank the contributors for their hard work and efforts in this very important endeavour.

The task force recommendations not only highlighted the need to change laws and procedures affecting the prosecution of sexual assault matters but were also aimed at bringing about a cultural shift in the way sexual offences are investigated and prosecuted, and the attitudes of key participants within the criminal justice system. It is anticipated that addressing these issues will help further alleviate the high rates of attrition in sexual offences. 7 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3585

Modernisation of the law relating to consent, in particular, is aimed at bringing about both a cultural shift in the response to victims of sexual assault by the community and by key participants within the criminal justice system. Reform of the law of consent for those reasons is supported by a study released in August 2007 by the Australian Institute of Criminology. The results of that study show that juror judgments in rape trials are influenced more by the attitudes, beliefs and biases about rape that jurors bring with them into the courtroom than by the objective facts presented, and that stereotypical beliefs about rape and its victims still exist within the community.

The report found that some members of the community still hold the view that women often say "no" when they mean "yes", that women who are raped often ask for it, and that rape results from men not being able to control their need for sex and responsibility for rape is therefore removed. This bill reflects the views of the greater majority of the community of New South Wales who strongly reject those outdated views.

I now turn to the detail of the bill. Under the Crimes Act 1900, the offence of sexual assault is committed if a person has sexual intercourse with another person without that other person's consent and knowing or being reckless that the other person does not consent. The object of this bill is to amend the Crimes Act 1900 to define "consent" for the purposes of sexual assault offences as free and voluntary agreement to sexual intercourse; to include in cases where consent to sexual intercourse is or may be negated an incapacity to consent, intoxication, persons who are asleep or unconscious, unlawful detention, intimidatory or coercive conduct and abuse of a position of authority or trust; and to provide that a person commits sexual assault if the person has no reasonable grounds for believing that the other person consents to the sexual intercourse.

At present, section 61R of the Crimes Act 1900 provides for a number of matters relating to consent for the purposes of the offences of sexual assault, as defined in section 61I; aggravated sexual assault, section 61J; and aggravated sexual assault in company, section 61JA. To facilitate a number of changes in relation to consent, schedule 1 item [1] inserts proposed section 61HA and item [2] omits section 61R. Consent is an element in each of the offences under sections 61I, 61J and 61JA. Proposed section 61HA (2) provides a statutory definition stating that a person consents to sexual intercourse if the person freely and voluntarily agrees to the intercourse. This is consistent with the definition in the Model Criminal Code recommended by the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, "Chapter 5—Sexual Offences Against the Person".

Currently, there is no statutory definition of consent in New South Wales. A number of Australian and overseas jurisdictions have adopted a statutory definition of consent. This amendment serves a dual purpose. First, the definition will clearly articulate what does and does not amount to consent. It will have an educative function for both the community and jurors and it will ensure that standard directions are given to juries. Lack of consent is ultimately a matter of fact to be determined by a jury. It is essential that the courts give clear and consistent guidance as to what this means.

Secondly, the introduction of this statutory definition of consent provides the opportunity to enact a more contemporary and appropriate definition than is currently available under the common law. Knowledge is also an element of each of the offences under sections 61I, 61J and 61JA. Section 61R (1) provides that a person who has sexual intercourse with another person without the consent of the other person and who is reckless as to whether the other person consents to the sexual intercourse knows that the other person does not consent to the sexual intercourse.

The present common law test is subjective, requiring the Crown to prove that the accused knew the complainant was not consenting, or was reckless as to whether the complainant was consenting, solely from the point of view of the accused. The accuser's assertion that he or she had a belief that the other person had consented is difficult to refute, no matter how unreasonable in the circumstances. The law does not adequately protect victims of sexual assault when the offender has genuine but distorted views about appropriate sexual conduct. The subjective test is outdated. It reflects archaic views about sexual activity. It fails to ensure a reasonable standard of care is taken to ascertain a person is consenting before embarking on potentially damaging behaviour. An objective test is required to ensure the jury applies its common sense regarding current community standards.

Some might think that it is wrong to remove the subjective belief of the offender and criminalise a person who sincerely but unreasonably believes that another is consenting to sex. However, in New South Wales the law has already recognised that an accused person possesses the requisite intent to have 3586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 November 2007

non-consensual intercourse, or guilty mind, when they have failed to turn their mind to the issue at all. This has been most eloquently justified by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal when it was stated that:

The criminal law, in its important function of controlling behaviour, should promote standards of acceptable consensual sexual behaviour of the community … Lack of the merest advertence to consent in the case of sexual intercourse is so reckless that it is also the criminal law's business. In this, the law does no more than reflect the community's outrage at the suffering inflicted on victims of sexual violence.

Proposed section 61HA (3) retains recklessness, but offers an additional third limb for what is meant by that element of these offences "knows that the other person does not consent". It provides that the person knows that the other person does not consent to the sexual intercourse if the person has no reasonable grounds for believing that the other person consents to the sexual intercourse. The proposed subsection further provides that the trier of fact—that is, a jury or a judge disposing of a matter without a jury—must have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including any steps taken by the person to ascertain whether the other person consents to the sexual intercourse, but not including any self-induced intoxication of the person.

The reference to the exclusion of self-induced intoxication as a relevant circumstance simply replicates the current provisions in division 11A of the Crimes Act 1900 in relation to intoxication. It serves as an important reminder that self-induced intoxication cannot be taken into account in relation to the mens rea for these sexual assault offences. It also clarifies what is meant by "all the circumstances of the case" in the section.

Currently, section 61R of the Crimes Act 1900 provides a list of factors that might vitiate or negate consent, including mistaken belief as to the identity of the other person, as to marriage, or as to medical or hygienic purposes or as a result of threats or terror. The term "vitiate" is replaced with the term "negate" for ease of understanding. These amendments will extend the list of factors that negate consent. Proposed section 61HA (4) provides that a person does not consent to sexual intercourse with another person:

(a) if the person does not have the capacity to consent … including because of age or cognitive incapacity, or

(b) if the person does not have the opportunity to consent … because the person is unconscious or asleep, or

(c) if the person consents … because of threats of force or terror (whether the threats are against, or the terror is instilled in, that person or any other person), or

(d) if the person consents … because the person is unlawfully detained.

Proposed subsection (5) provides that a person who consents under a mistaken belief as to the identity of the other person or under the mistaken belief that the other person is married to the person or that the sexual intercourse is for medical or hygienic purposes—or under any other mistaken belief about the nature of the act induced by fraudulent means—does not consent to the sexual intercourse. Cognitive incapacity, referred to in paragraph (a) of proposed subsection (4), refers either to an inability to understand the sexual nature or quality of the act or an inability to understand the nature and effect of the consent. The circumstances set out in paragraph (c) of proposed subsection (4) and proposed subsection (5) replace similar provisions currently set out in section 61R (2) of the Act.

A list of factors may negate consent. The list will provide further guidance to juries when determining those factors that may be relevant to the question of consent. Of course, they are not intended in any way to reverse the onus of proof. Proposed section 61HA (6) provides that the grounds on which it may be established that a person does not consent to sexual intercourse include:

(a) if the person has sexual intercourse while substantially intoxicated by alcohol or any drug, or

(b) if the person has sexual intercourse because of intimidatory or coercive conduct, or other threat, that does not involve a threat of force, or

(c) if the person has sexual intercourse because of the abuse of a position of authority or trust.

Proposed section 61HA (7) provides that a person is not to be regarded as consenting to sexual intercourse by reason only of the fact that the person does not offer physical resistance to the sexual intercourse. This replaces a similar provision currently contained in section 61R (2) (d) of the Act. Proposed section 61HA (8) makes it clear that the above provisions do not limit the grounds on which it may be established that a person does not consent to sexual intercourse. Item [3] of schedule 1 repeals section 65A of the Crimes Act, which refers to sexual intercourse procured by intimidation, coercion and other non-violent threats, as a consequence of the amendments dealing with circumstances in which consent may be negated. As a result, if consent to sexual 7 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3587

intercourse is negated because of any such non-violent threats, the accused will be subject to prosecution for sexual assault, which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 14 years, instead of the current maximum period of six years under the separate offence in section 65A. Item [4] of schedule 1 contains a savings and transitional provision consequent on the enactment of the proposed Act. 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.

CRIMES AMENDMENT (SEXUAL PROCUREMENT OR GROOMING OF CHILDREN) BILL 2007

Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos.

Second Reading

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [11.24 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government is pleased to introduce the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Procurement or Grooming of Children) Bill 2007. Very few issues have gained such worldwide support as the right of all children to be free from sexual abuse. Australia is a signatory to the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 34 of which creates an obligation to protect children from "all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse". For this purpose, signatories are required to take all necessary steps to prevent the "inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity". This bill brings New South Wales in line with the convention and goes a step further than existing Commonwealth legislation by capturing a wider range of predatory procurement and grooming practices.

The introduction of new technologies has unfortunately resulted in an increase of predatory sexual behaviour towards children. Adult offenders exploit the anonymity of the Internet to win the trust of a child as a first step towards sexual abuse. Paedophiles do this through a process called grooming, which is undertaken with a view to procuring the child to meet with an adult and engage in unlawful sexual activity. However, the process is not solely confined to the Internet. This is why, unlike existing Commonwealth legislation, this bill does not limit grooming or procuring offences to those undertaken using electronic communications. Other practices used by paedophiles include befriending a potential child victim and introducing the child to explicit or inappropriate sexual concepts as part of a manipulation process to entice children into so-called "positive" sexual encounters with adults. Such activities make the child desensitised to sexual talk and behaviour, and therefore more vulnerable to abuse. The New South Wales offence will therefore have a wider application than the Commonwealth offence.

This bill makes it an offence for an adult to procure or groom a child for any unlawful sexual activity. It aims to capture the kinds of grooming activities commonly engaged in by paedophiles, whether online, through electronic communications or through any other means or activities. The offences of procuring and grooming have been drafted as separate offences in this bill, which is appropriate given that grooming is a preparatory offence and procuring involves more substantial acts. The offences are directed against people who are actively engaging with children in ways that make the children more likely to participate in sexual activity. Grooming can include a wide range of behaviour including conduct that encourages a child to believe they have romantic feelings for the adult or desensitising the child to the thought of engaging in sexual activity with the adult. Procuring a person to engage in sexual activity includes encouraging, enticing, recruiting or inducing— whether by threat, promises or otherwise—in relation to that activity. For example, procuring offences would apply when a person offered money to a child to engage in sexual acts or promised them gifts or some other form of benefit. The Government is committed to ensuring that such activities are outlawed and offenders punished in line with community expectations.

I now turn to the detail of the bill. Item [1] inserts a section into the Crimes Act to make it an offence for an adult to procure or groom a child under 16 for unlawful sexual activity. An adult is defined in this section as being a person who is of, or over, the age of 18, and a child is defined as a person who is under the age of 16. The proposed section makes it an offence for an adult person to intentionally procure a child for unlawful sexual activity. The maximum penalty for procuring a child under the age of 14 is imprisonment for 15 years. For procuring a child under the age of 16, the maximum penalty is 12 years imprisonment. The proposed section 3588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 November 2007

further makes it an offence for any adult person to engage in grooming a child. The maximum penalty for grooming a child under the age of 14 is imprisonment for 12 years. For grooming a child under the age of 16, the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment.

Subsection (4) of proposed section 66EB contained in item [1] states that it is not necessary to specify or to prove the unlawful sexual activity for which the child was to be procured. This means that a person can still be charged with a procuring or grooming offence even if no specific sexual activity had been suggested or planned with the child. Subsection (5) clarifies that the child does not have to exist for an offence to have been committed under this section. A reference in the bill to a child includes a reference to any person who pretends to be a child, as long as the accused person believes that the person was a child. This provision captures investigations where law enforcement officers assume false identities to catch potential offenders.

Item [1], which inserts a new section 66EB (7), and item [2] provide that it is a defence in proceedings for an offence against this section if the accused reasonably believed that the other person was not a child. However, consent is not a defence to an offence under this section. Item [1] inserts a new section 66EB (8) to provide for an alternative verdict in such cases where a person is charged with a procuring offence but the jury is not satisfied that the offence is proven but is satisfied that a grooming offence is proven. In such cases the jury has the option to acquit the person of the procuring offence but find them guilty of a grooming offence. These legislative amendments will bring New South Wales penalties in line with penalties in other States and the Commonwealth, and form part of the Government's strong and detailed plan for child protection in New South Wales. 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.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 99 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to an extension of the reporting date for General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1, be called on forthwith.

Order of Business

Motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 99 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 1

Extension of Reporting Date

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.31 a.m.]: I move:

That the reporting date for the reference to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 relating to the budget estimates and related papers be extended to the first sitting Thursday in March 2008.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [11.32 a.m.]: The Government opposes the motion. This is the only moment in the sun for those who wish to question the Government. We have already had extensive questioning of agency heads and Ministers in the estimates process, and that has led to significant wastage of time and resources, at a time when there has been a lot of attention and focus on the resources that are being used by this Parliament. Very often during hearings Opposition members have run out of questions, and when they do have questions they are of a banal nature. For these reasons the Government cannot support the motion.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.33 a.m.]: The Minister's comments are completely unbelievable. Reporting dates for general purpose standing committees on references relating to budget estimates have been extended into the following calendar year, with the exception of those in a year preceding a general election, every year I have been a member of this House. This year the case for reporting dates to be extended is even 7 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3589

more compelling because, unusually, the estimates process started later than in virtually any year I can remember in the eight years that I have been in this House. In fact, the estimates process was in progress in October, which is very unusual. As crossbench, Opposition and indeed Government members who were at proceedings in general purpose standing committees Nos 1 and 4 and voted for these extensions were aware at the time, the reason that the extensions are being sought is that in the case of a number of the estimates hearings that were held during the second week of the estimates period the expiry of the 45-day period for the return of answers to questions on notice lodged following budget estimate hearings in fact will not have expired before the reporting dates.

So the committees will not be able to deliberate upon the answers received from Ministers lodged immediately following those budget estimates hearings in response to the concerns that were raised. It is an absolute joke that the Government opposes the motion. This is the first time in recent years that I can recall the Government having done so. The Opposition fully supports the motion of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile in relation to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1. I anticipate that the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner, following the determination of this motion, will move an identical motion regarding General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4. It would not surprise me if several of the other general purpose standing committees, when they considered the responses to questions taken on notice, will do similarly.

I would make an additional point, which is that most of the general purpose standing committees have taken a policy view that they will consider the issue of whether they will have supplementary hearings after they have received answers to the questions taken on notice at the hearings by the Ministers. In most cases those answers have not yet been received, so the committees have not been able to meet to consider the issue of supplementary hearings. Despite that, the Government is now trying to choke off the issue of an extension to the reporting date—when such extensions have been granted by this House year after year, other than in the year preceding State elections. This House should regard the Minister's remarks with considerable scepticism and support the motion moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.37 a.m.], in reply: I am not sure what is happening in the Government ranks, but the extension which is the subject of the motion was agreed to unanimously by the committee members, including Government members. I had thought the extension motion would be dealt with merely as a formality. I have been advised that the motion I have moved is the only procedure available to allow the committee to move forward. The only purpose of the extension is to allow committee members time to consider the answers to questions taken on notice. It is really a technical issue that we are confronting. There is no other agenda behind the motion.

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. Jennifer Gardiner agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 98 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to an extension of the reporting date for General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4, be called on forthwith.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 98 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 4

Extension of Reporting Date

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [11.39 a.m.]: I move:

That the reporting date for the reference to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 relating to the budget estimates and related papers be extended to the first sitting Thursday in March 2008.

3590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 7 November 2007

As was the case regarding General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1, chaired by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 agreed to seek an extension of time for the reporting date on the reference to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 relating to its consideration of the budget estimates. As was the case with the committee chaired by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, Government members of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 supported the extension motion. Obviously, they now have to recant, on direction from their union bosses.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: And proud of it, Jenny.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: I am happy to put that on the record from the Hon. Greg Donnelly. Thanks, that is terrific. We have had a lot of focus on the Government's attempts to muzzle the committees of this Parliament. We would be entitled to think that this is part of the Government's agenda and that this is about inhibiting the role of this House, which is a House of review. The general purpose standing committees are asked by this House to examine the budget papers, and we do that with our best endeavours, in detail. All we are asking—

[Interruption]

The Hon. Amanda Fazio can speak for herself. In the case of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4, one of the Ministers whose administration is inquired into is the Minister for Planning, the Hon. Frank Sartor. Guess what? Mr Sartor has written to the committee asking for an extension of time. He wants an extension of time in which to answer the questions that have been placed on notice. It is interesting that I, as the committee chairman, was quite happy to grant the Minister an extension of time to get his act together and answer the questions. But this poor old Government—which cannot even figure out enough legislation to keep the Government going in 2008, let alone in 2007—now attempts to truncate the committee's deliberations.

It is a very bad look on the part of the Executive Government, and it is certainly a very bad look on the part of the Labor members of this House. In the case of two standing committees they have supported a motion to extend the reporting dates. Yet Ministers themselves cannot answer the questions in the allotted time. Mr Sartor indicated to the committee that he was happy to try to provide answers to the questions within 21 days. I was quite reasonable in saying to the Minister, "If you cannot do that I will give you an extension of time", and I have advised the committee of my support for that motion.

This is an extraordinary situation. I believe it fits with the Government's overall agenda to close down the committees and to try to stop any proper scrutiny of a failing government—a government that has not got back on its feet after the State election. I urge members to reconsider their attitude in relation to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's committee and to support the extension of the reporting date for General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 as well.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Justice) [11.43 a.m.]: Interestingly, when I first became a member of this place budget estimates committee hearings were of two hours duration and the number of questions that were put on notice was relatively modest. Over the last couple of years estimates committee hearings have been extended to four hours duration. The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner said that it is about the scrutiny of the budget estimates. If only it were about the budget estimates. I can tell members that the budget estimates committee hearings I have attended—and I have attended them for a number of years now—have hardly anything to do with the budget estimates. In fact, the budget papers might as well not exist. Agencies and the Parliament spend significant resources on the estimates committee process at a time when resources are under careful scrutiny. I do not know how long the process should continue. People ought to judge where the process should start and finish. Resources should be used effectively and efficiently rather than just having the process go on endlessly while achieving very little.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.44 a.m.]: I am pleased that the Minister has made a few obiter dicta remarks about the motion because he has expressed some frustrations about the budget estimates process. The current budget estimates process, including the sessional orders that provide for it, is the result of a resolution of this House moved by the Government on several occasions. The Opposition and some crossbench members attempted to amend the resolution to make it more meaningful, but the Government always resisted the amendments. Therefore, if Government members are unhappy with the budget estimates process they should think about joining the Opposition and the crossbench members in making some worthwhile reforms to the budget estimates process. 7 November 2007 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3591

As the motion moved by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner is almost identical to the motion the House has just passed I will not repeat my comments in relation to the 35-day reporting period. With regard to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4, there are answers to questions on notice that will not be provided to the committee until after the reporting date, if the full 35 days are taken. That is why this motion should be passed.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [11.46 a.m.], in reply: I simply want to underscore the point that it seems to me that the Government is in some disarray on this. As the Opposition Whip has pointed out, the committees