3581

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday 4 August 2011

______

The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.

SOLOMON ISLANDS AND BOUGAINVILLE PARLIAMENTARY INSTITUTIONS PROJECT

The PRESIDENT: Order! I announce that, under the twinning arrangement with the Solomon Islands Parliament, two officers from the National Parliament of Solomon Islands, Ms Florence Naesol, Deputy Clerk, and Ms Lisi Vave, Human Resources and Strategy Support Manager, will be attending in the Chamber today as part of their attachment program to the New South Wales Parliament.

PETITIONS

The PRESIDENT: Order! In accordance with precedent set by former President Sir Harry Budd, I propose today to present a petition. I will ask the Hon. John Ajaka to move that it be received.

La Perouse Museum

Petition requesting that the House seek a review of the proposed Kawai-La Perouse draft plan, in particular, in regard to the proposed changes to the La Perouse Museum by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, received from the President, the Hon. Don Harwin.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.10 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. 138 outside the Order of Precedence relating to an order for papers concerning the Industrial Relations Amendment (Public Sector Conditions of Employment) Bill 2011 be called on forthwith.

I believe there is agreement for this matter to be dealt with now. It involves an important, but very limited, call for papers. The documents either exist or they do not: they are either available or they are not. The issue concerns a number of the matters raised during debate on the disallowance motion yesterday and in the second reading debate on the Industrial Relations Amendment (Public Sector Conditions of Employment) Bill 2011. Legal validity is a matter of public importance and the motion should be supported.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [11.12 a.m.]: The Greens support the motion. As I understand it, the Government also supports the motion and some openness on the matter, which is good to see.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE (Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra) [11.12 a.m.]: The Government has no objection to the motion. We have indicated our commitment to transparency and accountability and this is part of that.

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

Motion agreed to.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Adam Searle agreed to:

That Private Members' Business No. 138 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

3582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AMENDMENT (PUBLIC SECTOR CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT) BILL 2011

Production of Documents: Order

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.12 a.m.]: I move:

That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Premier, the Minister for Finance and Services, the Attorney General, the Department of Premier and Cabinet, the Department of Finance and Services, or the Department of Attorney General and Justice:

(a) all legal advice provided in relation to the Industrial Relations Amendment (Public Sector Conditions of Employment) Bill 2011, and

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

In light of the previous contribution by the Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra I do not think it will be necessary for me to speak further.

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

Motion agreed to.

GOVERNOR'S SPEECH: ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

Tenth Day's Debate

Debate resumed from 3 August 2011.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [11.14 a.m.]: Some time has passed since the Governor delivered her Address. Consistent with what the Governor said, the Government is now in full flight in achieving the reforms so necessary to move this State forward. In that time—I am sure the Governor has kept a close eye on this— there has been constant carping and negativity from members opposite trying to cover up for their failures over their 16 years of inept and indeed corrupt government. As foreshadowed in the Governor's Address, the Government has taken a number of significant steps in improving transparency and accountability. For example, we are sitting four days a week to ensure that the people of New South Wales can see this Government in action. This sitting pattern provides four question times a week, rather than the previous three, during which Ministers of the Crown can be asked questions. And they are giving thoughtful and considered answers to those questions.

No longer do we have the likes of Minister Macdonald or Treasurer Michael Costa ranting and raving from the Government benches. Now Ministers in this House provide considered and thoughtful information to the people of New South Wales about what is going on. Lobbyists have been regulated, which was long overdue: we saw the power that lobbyists had with the former Government. Corrupt deals were done in coffee shops by the former Government. Whistleblower legislation was strengthened, which also was long overdue. We remember how the previous Government dealt with whistleblowers.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: Mr President, I am trying to listen to the very interesting and valuable contribution about the real issues in New South Wales. All I am getting from those around me is a wall of noise. Members opposite are uninterested: they do not care about the real issues. I ask that you direct them to listen with silence and respect.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot direct Opposition members to respect the member with the call. I remind the House that interjections are disorderly at all times.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: I am sure the Governor looked on in horror at times during the former Parliament at the way that whistleblowers were treated. There was no better example than the case of Gillian Sneddon and Labor's refusal to allow an open and transparent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding her treatment. How many times were motions brought to this House to establish such an inquiry and how many times did those opposite take the opportunity to use every trick they could possibly think of to defeat those motions? It was a shameful and inept attempt to try to protect Labor members from scrutiny. Sadly, they now hypocritically keep talking about openness and transparency, yet they spent so much time preventing 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3583

transparency on such a matter. Only now is legislation being introduced to improve the whistleblower protections that were so long overdue. Legislation has also been introduced to improve the operation of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. In the lead-up to the election the Coalition made certain commitments and they are now being delivered. That is consistent with our 100 Day Plan.

I turn now to another subject referred to by the Governor: the rebuilding of the New South Wales economy, which had been allowed to slide so badly under the inept former treasurers in this place. We have delivered payroll tax rebates for some 40,000 new regional jobs. Members opposite constantly talk about their concern for the workers of this State, but they allowed this State's performance to slide so badly compared even to that of Victoria, which for many decades was the basket case of the Australian economy. It is now moving well ahead of New South Wales. It is a shameful indictment of the former Government that it allowed this State's performance to slip so far. Payroll tax rebates have been introduced by this Government to address that problem. Members will remember that when former Labor Treasurers, including the Hon. Michael Costa, were repeatedly asked about the difference in payroll tax rates between New South Wales and the other States, they simply dismissed the lack of competitiveness out of hand.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Arrogance.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Yes, that was a demonstration of the arrogance that had overtaken the Labor Government. The new Coalition Government is delivering even more, including the $7,000 grant program designed to assist families to relocate from the greater Sydney Basin to rebuild regional New South Wales. We again hear the catcalls and squawking from members opposite. They never had a plan to assist regional New South Wales because they did not care about anyone beyond Marrickville and Balmain and those who visit coffee shops for their latte sipping. They did not even care about western Sydney, and that was reflected in the polls. Sadly, it has taken 16 years for us to see the return of a Coalition government and for it to introduce the $7,000 rebate program to assist people from the greater Sydney Basin to move to regional areas. That program will benefit not only regional areas but also Sydney: the concentration of population in Sydney is placing huge pressure on the delivery of services in the city. We know that even though members opposite referred to various policies and announced plan after plan they did nothing to deal with the congestion, pollution and other problems that have impacted on the people of Sydney.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I appreciate that the Hon. Trevor Khan's contribution is being received with great appreciation and enthusiasm. However, I am finding it difficult to hear him. I know other members are experiencing the same difficulty. I ask members to either converse in a way that is not audible or leave the Chamber.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Of course, it is a sad indictment that members opposite are maintaining their lack of concern for the interests of the people of New South Wales. All that Labor members have been interested in for far too long is pointless navel-gazing in relation to their own party, which has led to their failing to address the problems facing the people of New South Wales as well as those within their party.

In the Government's efforts to rebuild the New South Wales economy it has appointed a small business commissioner, who will ensure that the Government pays its accounts within 30 days. How many times during the term of the previous Government were questions asked of Ministers about the Government's failure pay its accounts in a reasonable time frame? The health department's sad and sorry record is a good example of suppliers being left unpaid for up to 90 days. Members repeatedly gave the House examples of the former Government's failure to pay accounts on time, but Ministers constantly denied it was happening despite the fact that they were provided with incontrovertible evidence. That is yet another demonstration of how the former Government was out of touch with the people of New South Wales and its own bureaucracy. It was incapable of managing any part of the public service. Sadly, the former Government was entirely out of control.

The new Coalition Government also has moved to extend the empty-nester transfer duty concession to people aged over 55. Again, that is a practical and reasonable policy designed to ensure that people are able to effectively downsize. These policies, which mean something to the people of New South Wales, have been announced and delivered. The Labor Government unfortunately lost the capacity to think of such policies let alone to deliver them. Importantly, we also have repealed the hated Labor home buyers' tax, which was introduced to fill yet another budget hole caused by the Labor Government's inability to manage its budget. The former Government was warned when the tax was introduced that it would cause all sorts of problems. Once again, it was unable to organise its financial affairs and it refused to listen to the people of New South Wales. Only the Coalition Government is in a position to see policies delivered. 3584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

Her Excellency's Address importantly dealt with the need to invest in infrastructure. People have been waiting too long for that investment. It has been heartbreaking for them to watch vital infrastructure neglected for so long. This Government has introduced legislation to ensure, for instance, that resources in the Restart NSW infrastructure fund are directed to regional areas. The former Government failed to deliver infrastructure not only in Sydney but also, and just as importantly, across regional New South Wales. The people of New South Wales, and particularly those in regional areas, were very aware of that failure, and that was demonstrated in the election results for that mythical creature known as Country Labor. The electorate of Bathurst was delivered to The Nationals because—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Was it a big swing or a little swing?

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: It was a swing of 36 per cent. Of course, the seat of Monaro was delivered to The Nationals notwithstanding all the attempts to avoid that in the lead-up to the election. We heard squawking from members opposite about the need to protect so-called jobs in New South Wales. The Labor Party's concern for regional unemployment was demonstrated by the Hon. Steve Whan's appointment to this House. That is the only regional job members opposite have been interested in, both before and after the election. Labor members are interested only in placing their own bums on their own seats. They are not concerned about the true working people of New South Wales. That is why Country Labor was decimated across New South Wales.

The Labor Party's failure to attract voter support was so egregious that it had a problem not only winning seats but also getting people to man polling booths. We know that Labor's branch structure across regional New South Wales has collapsed and will never recover because it has lost the faith of country people in New South Wales. Sadly, again, this is an example of how Labor members have turned into latte-sipping crews in Marrickville and Balmain who are not interested in the true workers in regional New South Wales. But perhaps I digress: I was talking about Infrastructure NSW.

We have seen also important practical exercises to improve things such as speed limits in areas where the public service had taken full control and where we had ridiculous multiple speed limit changes in a relatively short time. In a practical sense we have seen the introduction of an audit to smooth out the driving experiences of drivers in the city and in regional New South Wales to ensure that they do not have to spend all their time looking at the speedometer and that they have more time to concentrate on the road. People have been calling for such a practical outcome for a long time but those opposite failed to listen. In addition, we have begun an economic assessment of mining-affected communities with a view to assisting them with their infrastructure needs—something that was promised in the lead-up to the last election. As a result we saw the delivery of seats in places such as Maitland where the former member, Frank Terenzini, was tossed out on his ear because of his lack of concern for critical infrastructure. What did we see in areas such as Newcastle, the so-called heartland of Labor?

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: They were swept away.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: The Labor member was swept away—a sad indictment on Labor and its failure to provide appropriate infrastructure. The economic assessment for mining-affected communities will deliver further infrastructure to areas such as Newcastle and across the State—areas such as Gunnedah and Lithgow—which for so long were ignored by the former Labor Government. In addition, we have seen the creation of Infrastructure NSW.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps that he took a point of order in relation to interjections earlier. I am finding it impossible to hear the Hon. Trevor Khan. I remind all members, particularly Opposition members—who have been engaging in a wall of sound throughout most of the member's contribution—that interjections are disorderly at all times.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: When speaking of centres such as Lithgow and Gunnedah which will benefit from the assessment of mining-affected communities, I forgot to mention Broken Hill, the seat occupied by Mr John Williams, and one of the great mining centres of New South Wales for many decades.

The Hon. Rick Colless: How many booths did they win in Broken Hill?

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: I understand that they won none. No booths were won by the Australian Labor Party in Broken Hill. The fact that Labor cannot even win a seat is a reflection of the loss of faith that has 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3585

occurred in Labor heartland. In the seat of Broken Hill the former grand Australian Labor Party was unable to man its booths—in a sense, a destruction of political infrastructure in what was formerly Labor heartland. But I digress: I was speaking about the creation of Infrastructure NSW.

Infrastructure NSW had to be created because of a failure in planning by the former Labor Government. Plans were announced time and again for the building of railways, roads and other infrastructure, and the former Government failed to deliver them. I refer to politically motivated examples of infrastructure such as the Sydney Metro which cost the people of New South Wales of the order of $500 million and nothing was delivered. Under one former Labor Premier. a project essentially was planned on the back of a coaster. When former Premier Kristina Keneally turned up at a press conference—and I will say nothing more on that front—that project was cancelled. As a result, $500 million was wasted and lost to the people of New South Wales—$500 million that could have built hospitals and roads and assisted in building railways—and no apology or explanation was received from those opposite.

Infrastructure planning in New South Wales had moved from a considered and deliberate approach to an exercise in which money was spent in an attempt to win seats. Money was spent simply for the corrupt purpose of propping up a destitute Labor Government. Money was spent because it seemed like a good idea at the time—nothing more and nothing less. It was a clear indication that New South Wales had plumbed the depths and the former Government failed in every sense of the word to govern for the benefit of the people of New South Wales. In the lead-up to the election Infrastructure NSW was promised and it has been delivered. That body will provide a thoughtful, considered and reasoned approach to the delivery of infrastructure in New South Wales, stripped of the destructive politics that the Australian Labor Party allowed to invade the process. I hope that the Federal Government adopts a cooperative approach in dealing with these matters and that Ministers at a Federal level do not seek to play unnecessary and inappropriate games in the lead-up to the Federal election.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: They tried to get rid of Albo the Good.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: We will see how Albo the Good goes. In light of the last State election results in certain booths in his own electorate, I am sure he is as worried as everyone else. Significant steps have been taken with regard to transparency and accountability, investment in infrastructure, and rebuilding the economy of New South Wales. Steps have been taken also to protect our local communities. In that respect, we are seeing a strengthening of police powers and a cracking down on drunk and disorderly behaviour and graffiti. Legislation to control such behaviour is currently being debated in the other place—a necessary step to ensure that confidence is restored and that the people of New South Wales can go out on the streets without being subjected to inappropriate behaviour and gross amounts of graffiti. The incidence of vandalism and graffiti has increased on our streets simply because the Labor Government did not care about aesthetics or the expense that had to be incurred to clean our trains and other public facilities.

The Government introduced the Liquor Amendment (3 Strikes) Bill 2011 to ensure that people are able to go into hotels and clubs without being threatened with violence, to clamp down on underage drinking and to ensure that drugs are not traded in those institutions. This legislation, which is now the subject of consultation, will ensure the safety of those who lawfully and properly manage and operate hotels and clubs. They are satisfied with the consultation and the approach that is being taken by the Government—another demonstration of the accountability and transparency of this Government.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: Have you read your contribution on time limits?

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Of course. In the short term of this Government one of the most important pieces of legislation to be introduced was the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Part 3A Repeal) Bill 2011 which resulted in the scrapping of part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. At the core of the loss of confidence in the former Government was this previous legislation. Time and again—even up to the very dying days of the former Government—we saw the use of part 3A to do deals for mates. Part 3A clearly was used inappropriately against the wishes of local communities. Clearly it was used for mates who were making massive donations to the Labor Party. This Government has now fixed those problems by scrapping the legislation. The O'Farrell Government has engaged in a process of consultation in the drafting of a new planning Act and, importantly, the introduction of measures to protect prime agricultural land in New South Wales. A commitment was given in the lead-up to the last election that such steps would be taken and the O'Farrell Government is delivering on that commitment. I turn now to the provision of quality services. 3586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

Mr David Shoebridge: Point of order: I am sure there is an overarching principle in the standing orders that a member may not engage in rank hypocrisy within 24 hours of delivering a speech allegedly against filibuster. In that speech the Hon. Trevor Khan praised Napoleon Bonaparte's Farewell to the Old Guard speech totalling only 153 words as best practice in this House. Yet the member is engaging in nothing other than extended filibuster because the Government has not got its ducks in a row to put some legislation before this House. It is outrageous.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I am not prepared to set a precedent and suggest that a particular standing order should exist. There is no point of order.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Consistent with commitments given in the lead-up to the last election was the establishment of local district health boards. This important step forward will ensure that local communities are engaged in the provision of health services. This step was demanded by communities across New South Wales and was a policy that engendered great confidence when the people of New South Wales so resoundingly voted for the Liberal-Nationals Coalition at the last election. Our $3 billion Better Hospitals and Healthcare Plan has been commenced. The failure to consistently deliver better hospitals across New South Wales caused loss of faith in the former Government, but confidence in our health system is now being restored with the announced plans of this Government.

Clear and explicit commitments have been given and building has commenced on hospitals such as the one at Tamworth. In the lead-up to the 2007 election, at Tamworth, Morris Iemma made an announcement that a hospital would be built during the term of the former Government, yet at the end of that term nothing had been delivered and Independent Peter Draper lost the seat of Tamworth as a result. He placed his faith in the honesty of those sitting opposite and, to his credit, he held on for far too long believing the promises that had been made to him would be honoured.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Everyone else had given up believing in them.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: That is true. Peter Draper was prepared to believe that the commitment he had been given would be honoured. Peter Draper, like the people of New South Wales, found out that anything the former Government said it would do was simply hot air and he, in a slightly different way to the people of New South Wales, suffered. Tamworth hospital will proceed in the current term of this Government, which is a matter of great warmth to me and to the people of the Tamworth region. Interestingly, in the last election the former Government's vote sunk to something of the order of 6 per cent—

The Hon. Rick Colless: That's the combined vote, Labor and The Greens.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: That might be right. The Greens were very interesting as they trumpeted around. Lee Rhiannon visited Tamworth time and again. She would jet in on the plane, fly off in the aircraft—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Producing CO2.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps is quite correct; it would produce much CO2. She would then head down to the Liverpool Plains to make one of her hysterical speeches. The Hon. Cate Faehrmann visited us and Mr David Shoebridge also turned up on the Liverpool Plains. They had great expectations that their presence would produce a remarkable result but they did not get any votes at all on the Liverpool Plains—quite a remarkable result. One would have thought that the amount of money and time that were spent in going to Tamworth to produce no votes would have told them something.

As people who hold themselves out as great supporters of farmers they are in some form of weird self-delusion about their capacity to appear beyond the town councillors of Marrickville. It is an unfortunate reality that they get up in the morning and induce a hypnotic state of self-belief that someone likes them beyond the poodle owners of Marrickville and inner-city Sydney. One wonders what makes their clocks tick. One of them, for reasons best known to him, has decided to support a former member of Lashkar-e-Taiba. It is beyond me what that will do to improve his electability and what the moral basis is for supporting a former member of Lashkar-e-Taiba. But far be it for me to wonder what makes Mr David Shoebridge's clock tick.

Another important commitment given in the lead-up to the election was the establishment of a mental health task force to start the Mental Health Commission and the Office of Medical Research. For far too long the former Government failed to address these sorts of programs and policies, not only in Sydney but also across 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3587

New South Wales. Mental health issues touch so many families and cause so much distress, yet they were ignored by the former Government. In concluding my contribution I note in the Governor's Speech that the Government promised to address a great many problems. No doubt Her Excellency would be heartened by the fact that the Government has already delivered on many of those promises.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.49 a.m.]: I speak in the Address-in-Reply to the Governor's Speech. In the lead-up to the election I, like many Government members, was doorknocking throughout New South Wales. I must have doorknocked thousands of homes in western Sydney, in the electorates of East Hills, Granville, Wollondilly, Blue Mountains, Riverstone, Smithfield and Mulgoa. While visiting thousands of homes in Labor's heartland, I became aware of the anger of voters to members opposite and what the Labor Government had unleashed against the people of New South Wales over the past 16 years. I did not see many Labor members doorknocking; I think they had given up. If they had doorknocked they would not have liked the message they received—it would have been like scratching fingernails on a blackboard. They did not want to hear the message; they simply closed themselves off and closeted themselves away. They were not prepared to face electors in Wollondilly, Riverstone and Smithfield.

I met many Labor voters. They had unadulterated and unlimited anger with the dead-beat Labor Government that had made a mess of New South Wales over the past 16 years. They were fed up with Kristina Keneally, the alliance between Keneally and Gillard, the Australian Labor Party, The Greens' takeover of the Labor Party—The Greens wagging the tail of the Labor Party dog. All of that will come back to haunt members opposite. Yesterday it was the Labor Government in New South Wales; tomorrow it will be the Labor Government in Canberra. Voters were fed up with 16 years of corruption, such as Wollongong; they were fed up with the sleaze—members will remember the Orkopoulos stuff—and they were fed up with the scandals.

So many matters were being referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption that it almost got to the stage that the daily newspapers would issue a separate daily supplement, the ICAC supplement, to deal with the Labor scandals and so forth. Australian Labor Party backbenchers were bagging their own Ministers. They were trying to bail out. They were looking for jobs—some of them are still looking for jobs— because they knew the Armageddon they would face at the election. We saw a revolving door of Labor Government resignations and Labor's incompetence. As we doorknocked on tens of thousands of homes people were angry about the lack of infrastructure.

The people felt betrayed. They had had enough of the Labor Government's political correctness. They had had it up to their ears. They were angry about everything, for instance, graffiti. In Blacktown or Rooty Hill there is graffiti from one end of the business district and the shopping complexes to the other. Indeed, graffiti is splashed across the front fence of the property of my parents-in-law. People had no hope and felt like giving up. For years they had been crying out for help, attention and hope, but the Labor Government gave them nothing. Members opposite did not provide any hope. Then we had the hospital fiasco. It was shameful that women were sent from the Blue Mountains to Penrith to give birth. In some instances a taxi carrying a pregnant woman had to pull to the kerb where she gave birth. The Labor Government fiddled with the hospital waiting lists.

All the Labor corruption behind the scenes, including the fiddling of lists, will seep out. Members opposite can no longer hold it back. The whole truth about what Labor did over those 16 tragic years will come out. We had problems with and horror stories about the trains. Labor fiddled with the classification so that an increasing number of late trains were made to look like an improvement in the situation. The North West Rail Link was delayed time and again. Labor would announce the North West Rail Link but there would be no action for years. Then it would regurgitate the same plan as if it were a new plan. Labor must have announced the North West Rail Link probably half a dozen times over the past 16 years; not 1¢ was spent on it and no action was taken. The people of north-west Sydney were betrayed. The Labor Government had become the laughing stock of this country. It was the rotten borough of Australia. As I was doorknocking I also found that people were sick to their back teeth with Labor's support for the carbon tax, Julia Gillard's sellout of the people. She misled the people of Australia when she said there would be no carbon tax under her Government. That was a misrepresentation.

The Hon. Rick Colless: It was a lie.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: It was an absolute lie to the people of Australia. What happened? There was a massive swing against Labor. The Hon. Trevor Khan talked about the massive gains by The Nationals. The Nationals made wonderful gains in country and rural areas, where ordinary, hardworking men and women had had a gutful of the Labor Government. It is wonderful to have Andrew Stoner as the Deputy Premier of 3588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

New South Wales. It is wonderful to have such a fine, decent family man with good values as the Deputy Premier of New South Wales. Who was the last Labor Deputy Premier? I must admit I cannot remember who it was. It is as though it was 1,000 years ago. We saw the results in the seats.

Kevin Conolly had a great victory in the seat of Riverstone, with a swing of nearly 31 per cent. I understand that that is the greatest swing ever received by a Liberal candidate in the history of the Liberal Party. The seat of Wollondilly fell to Jai Rowell. Labor support in the seat of Campbelltown, which was the heart of the Labor machine, collapsed and Bryan Doyle had a great victory. Labor's stack of cards collapsed one after another. Tanya Davies won the seat of Mulgoa, and Roza Sage won the seat of Blue Mountains. Roza Sage will be a great member for Blue Mountains. Andy Rohan had a wonderful victory in Smithfield, as did Bart Bassett in Londonderry and Tony Issa in Granville. Who would have thought that the seat of Granville would fall? But it did; Labor could not retain it. Tony Issa, Mr Granville himself, won that seat.

Geoff Lee won in Parramatta and Glen Brookes won in East Hills. In Blacktown the Labor candidate— he is now the Leader of the Opposition in the other place—had to bring in his union troops. Labor poured a fortune into the campaign to hold the seat of Blacktown. Labor members now find themselves in a terrible situation. Voters in Labor heartland—the young, the old and the in-between—across the board turned against the Labor Government. No matter what their ethnic diversity or background, they all had complaints about Labor. I remember when Bob Carr was the Premier. He was talented, articulate and intelligent. But things went downhill after him. Morris Iemma and Nathan Rees are decent men but Labor was not up to the job. They did the best they could but they were betrayed. They were stabbed in the back, which is how the Labor Party works. When Labor changes its leader the former leader gets stabbed in the back. Labor did it federally and in New South Wales. Then we had Kristina Keneally as Premier. She was pitiful.

Today Barry O'Farrell is the Premier of New South Wales and rules the other place. Labor members throw spears in a pitiful attempt to undermine the Premier, but they hit like matchsticks. Barry O'Farrell rules in the other place supremely and confidently. He is obviously enjoying his position, as well he might—especially when he looks across the Chamber at the pitiful performance of the Opposition.

What a pitifully shabby situation the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales finds itself in. We are moving out of the Dark Ages in New South Wales and progressing towards a new era characterised by the delivery of infrastructure, the elimination of hospital waiting lists, the provision of proper policing throughout the State, additional funding being made available for education, cleaning up graffiti, and making the streets of Sydney and other parts of New South Wales safe for ordinary men and women. There are great days ahead for the State of New South Wales, the Coalition, the Liberal Party and The Nationals. Government members look ahead with confidence and a desire to bring the State back on track. There is only one direction in which the Coalition Government is heading, and that is onwards and upwards.

[The President left the chair at 12.03 p.m. The House resumed at 12.30 p.m.]

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

SUMMARY OFFENCES AMENDMENT (INTOXICATED AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT) BILL 2011

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher 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

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [12.32 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Government is pleased to introduce the Summary Offences Amendment (Intoxicated and Disorderly Conduct) Bill 2011. The first stage of the Government's election commitment to address alcohol-related 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3589

violence and antisocial behaviour by extending police move-on powers to intoxicated individuals is now available to police as a low-cost and effective enforcement tool. This bill represents the implementation of the second stage of the Making Our Streets Safe Again policy. It provides that intoxicated individuals who engage in disorderly conduct in any public place after being given a move-on direction will be committing an offence.

We have said that people are entitled to enjoy a night out without fear of having their evening ruined by drunken and violent hooligans. This bill maintains the commitments we made in the lead-up to the election earlier this year. Police in New South Wales conducted Operation Unite on the weekend of 14 and 15 May 2011. In their crackdown on alcohol-fuelled crime and antisocial behaviour, police arrested 563 people and charged them with a total of 830 offences. It is clear that more needs to be done to make the streets of New South Wales safe again. Sadly, there are individuals who are determined to drink to excess or party hard on their drug of choice and then choose not to obey reasonable directions given by police to go home before trouble starts.

At the outset I indicate that this policy is not about targeting the homeless, the mentally ill, the Aboriginal community or the disadvantaged in our society. It is to manage the excessive intoxicated behaviour seen in entertainment districts on weekends. People are entitled to have fun, but not to the detriment of other people's night out. Those people are the reason that police need additional enforcement tools in the form of the new intoxicated and disorderly conduct offence. This State bears the cost of that type of behaviour every day through a burden on the health system. Every weekend emergency departments across New South Wales see the impact of intoxicated and disorderly behaviour, and the cost of dealing with the resulting injuries represents a burden to the State for which taxpayers should not have to pay.

Let me make it clear that this bill provides police with further tools to give a measured but escalating response to intoxicated and disorderly conduct. As a result of measures introduced to Parliament by this Government, the police may now issue move-on directions to individuals and will be able to prosecute, should the offending behaviour continue in any public place. If a person is given a move-on direction for intoxicated and disorderly conduct, they will be committing an offence if they resume or continue in that disorderly conduct while intoxicated and within six hours of the move-on direction being given. The offence will not be limited to the area that is subject to the move-on direction, but will apply to any public place in which disorderly conduct takes place. I now turn to the details of the bill.

In schedule 1 item [2] to the bill, new section 9 (1), which will be inserted into the Summary Offences Act, provides that a person who is given a move-on direction for intoxicated and disorderly conduct in a public place and, at any time within six hours after the move-on direction is given, is intoxicated and disorderly in the same or another public place has committed an offence. The maximum penalty applicable to the new offence is six penalty units, which is equivalent to $660. There is no definition of "disorderly" in the bill. The intention of the Government is to impose sanctions against behaviour that contravenes community standards to the extent that it warrants the intervention of the criminal law.

Disorderly behaviour can vary according to time, place and the context in which it is conducted. Behaviour that may not disturb or annoy others in one instance could amount to a criminal offence in another. For example, an intoxicated individual who is yelling loudly and persistently to the extent that it annoys others, and who does not cease his or her behaviour when asked to move on by police, could be committing an offence of intoxicated and disorderly conduct. It will be for police to determine the appropriate response according to the context in which the behaviour occurs.

New section 9 (2) provides that a move-on direction is a direction given to a person by a police officer under section 198 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. The bill also amends section 198 of that Act to allow a move-on direction to be given for intoxicated and disorderly behaviour. I will deal with that amendment shortly. The bill provides that the maximum period for which a person can be directed not to return to a public place is six hours. New section 9 (3) states that in proceedings for an offence against that section, it is necessary to prove that a person was given a move-on direction within six hours before a person is found to be intoxicated and disorderly in a public place.

However, it makes it clear that it is not necessary to prove that the person contravened the move-on direction by being so intoxicated and disorderly in a public place that was the subject of the move-on direction at the time concerned. In other words, it will not be necessary to prove either, first, that the person was subsequently intoxicated and disorderly in the same place as the place from where the person was directed to 3590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

leave or, secondly, that the initial move-on direction was for a maximum of six hours. This means that police will have the tools to respond in any public place within six hours of an intoxicated and disorderly move-on direction having been made.

An example is police identifying an intoxicated person who is behaving in a disorderly manner at Circular Quay. The person is given an intoxicated and disorderly conduct move-on direction. The person might comply with the direction and walk to Town Hall. However, if the person is still intoxicated and disorderly or resumes such behaviour in that new place within six hours he or she will be liable to prosecution. Similarly, if a person is given a move-on direction for a period of an hour and returns to the same spot and is again intoxicated and disorderly two hours later that person will be guilty of an offence. Police are sick of repeatedly dealing with drunks on city streets. Giving a person one opportunity to behave should be enough.

Currently, if an intoxicated person does not comply with the move-on direction he or she can be charged with failing to comply with the direction under section 199 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. A person can still be charged with failing to comply. However, new section 9 (4) provides that a person cannot be proceeded against or convicted for both an offence under new section 9 that will be inserted into the Summary Offences Act and under section 199 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 in relation to the same conduct. This allows police to make decisions in the field about how to respond appropriately when confronted with that behaviour.

New section 9 (5) provides a defence to prosecution for the new offence if the defendant satisfies the court that the defendant had reasonable excuse for conducting himself or herself in the manner alleged. It may be that the person's behaviour is the result of an unanticipated side effect of legally prescribed drugs. In such circumstances people should be able to defend themselves against the possibility of prosecution. To ensure consistency with section 198 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, the definition of "intoxicated" contained in that section is replicated in new section 9 (6). For the purpose of new section 9, a person is intoxicated if:

(a) the person's speech, balance, co-ordination or behaviour is noticeably affected, and

(b) it is reasonable in the circumstances to believe that the affected speech, balance, co-ordination or behaviour is the result of the consumption of alcohol or any drug.

Police will be able to respond by issuing a criminal infringement notice, which we have referred to as an on-the-spot fine. The notice will carry a $200 fine that can be paid by the individual without the need to go to court. Of course, if that person believes that he or she is not guilty and wishes to contest the matter, he or she will always have the right to take the matter to court and defend it. On the one hand, by paying the fine as prescribed in the penalty notice, that person does not need to get further caught up in the criminal justice system. On the other hand, if the disorderly conduct is of sufficient seriousness that police believe the matter cannot adequately be dealt with by a penalty notice, the police can issue a court attendance notice.

Police will develop comprehensive standard operating procedures to guide them in whether to deal with matters by an on-the-spot fine or court attendance notice and will retain discretion to deal with situations involving intoxicated individuals as they see fit. To facilitate the operation of move-on directions for the new offence, section 198 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 will be amended to ensure that police will be able to issue a move-on direction to intoxicated people conducting themselves in a disorderly manner. Section 198 currently covers behaviour that is likely to cause injury to any other person or persons, damage to property, or otherwise give rise to a risk to public safety.

Directions given by police officers under the section for disorderly conduct must be reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of preventing the continuance of the disorderly behaviour. New section 201 (2D) will be inserted into the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to provide that if a police officer issues a move-on direction order under section 198 on the grounds that a person is intoxicated and disorderly in a public place the police officer must provide the person who is the subject of the direction with a warning that it is an offence to be intoxicated and disorderly in that or any other public place at any time within six hours after the direction is given. As a result, those who become subject to the offence will be given clear warning that their behaviour must change or they will face serious sanction.

Police retain their ability to use part 16 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act to detain an intoxicated person behaving in a disorderly manner for their own protection and release them into the care of a responsible person if willing and available. In its current form, this power is not available if the 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3591

behaviour constitutes the commission of an offence. To preserve the power of detention, section 206 (2A) will be amended to allow a police officer to detain an intoxicated person even if the behaviour constitutes an offence under new section 9 of the Summary Offences Act if the detention is not for the purpose of taking proceedings for an offence. In other words, if police detain an intoxicated individual according to their powers in part 16, they detain them for the purpose of making sure they are safe and not for the purpose of charging them with the offence.

These amendments reflect that when police are charged with keeping the streets of New South Wales safe, they will face a myriad different circumstances. This bill gives police the maximum flexibility to allow the nature and gravity of the behaviour to guide and determine the appropriate process for dealing with intoxicated and disorderly behaviour. In addition to the safeguards built into this legislation, new section 36 (1) of the Summary Offences Act provides that as soon as practicable after the end of 12 months from the date of commencement of the new offence the Ombudsman must prepare a report on the operation of section 9 and the issue of penalty notices in relation to it. This will ensure that the powers are being used appropriately and consistently with the Government's commitment to address problem social drinking and not the homeless and disadvantaged in our society.

To facilitate the preparation of the report, section 36 (2) provides that the Commissioner of Police is to ensure that that Ombudsman is provided with information about any prosecutions brought under section 9 and the issue of penalty notices in respect of offences against section 9. Section 36 (3) provides that the Ombudsman may at any time require the Commissioner of Police or any public authority to provide any information or further information the Ombudsman requires for the purposes of preparing the report. The report must be given to the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Police, and the Attorney General must lay, or cause to be laid, the report before both Houses of Parliament.

This bill represents the next step towards making the streets of New South Wales safe again. Police will be able to make sure that intoxicated persons are told in no uncertain terms that their behaviour is unacceptable and that they are to move on before trouble starts. In giving those move on directions to intoxicated individuals police are making it clear that there will be sanctions for continuing with disorderly, antisocial behaviour. This bill gives a clear signal to the people of New South Wales that this Government remains committed to ensuring that intoxicated and disorderly behaviour on our streets will not be tolerated. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.48 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Summary Offences Amendment (Intoxicated and Disorderly Conduct) Bill 2011, which the Opposition opposes. This bill represents another failure by this Coalition Government to deliver on an election promise. Before the election the Coalition somewhat grandly proclaimed a policy in a document entitled "Making Our Streets Safe Again". On the first page, in bold type, was the then Opposition's commitment to "introduce the new offence of 'drunk and disorderly' under the Summary Offences Act …" The Coalition further stated in that election document:

In government, the NSW Liberals & Nationals will bring back the offence of 'drunk and disorderly'—under the Summary Offences Act 1988.

While there are existing offences for offensive behaviour, there is currently no provision for an offence of drunk and disorderly behaviour under NSW laws.

The meaning of 'drunk and disorderly' is pretty clear. You're drunk, your behaviour is offensive, threatening or just plain obnoxious.

The Coalition Government will introduce a new category of offence called drunk and disorderly, with a maximum penalty of six penalty units or a new on-the-spot fine of $200. That is not what this bill does. This bill clearly does not introduce a new category of offence called drunk and disorderly.

Mr David Shoebridge: That is the worst criticism. It is not as formal as they said it would be.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Your coalition partner.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: No, not our coalition partner. I acknowledge the interjection of Mr David Shoebridge. He will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate. This bill fiddles with the existing move-on powers under section 198 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibility) Act by increasing the fine and tweaking the nature of the behaviour that can provoke the issue of a move-on direction. The Coalition Government committed to policy that flew in the face of recommendations of the Royal Commission into 3592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which was stupid. It also broke an election promise. It is not the first broken election promise. There is a trend in the behaviour of this Government of promising one thing to the electorate and delivering something quite different.

The Government proposed laws to make mandatory life imprisonment the penalty for the offence of murdering a police officer. However, the bill that the Government introduced did not do that. The Government promised great things on anti-corruption laws, but the amending legislation affected only the Independent Commission Against Corruption and public disclosures. Many of the amendments emanated from the unanimous recommendations of a cross-party committee. Although those amendments were worthy, in the scheme of things they were relatively minor. The Government said that it would get tough on public drunkenness and it moved amendments to section 198 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act, the move-on powers. In substance the amendments replicated existing provisions in section 197 of the same legislation. It really is a pea and thimble trick. It is building up hopes and expectations, playing on the fears of people in the community and then not delivering. That is bad practice and it is compounded by the fact that it was a stupid and a bad policy proposal in the first place.

Criminal provisions dealing with public drunkenness have a long history in New South Wales. Academic Chris Cunneen points out that arrests for public drunkenness form a large proportion of arrests made by police in New South Wales. For many years they were a fundamental part of police practice. I note the Hon. Trevor Khan seems to be nodding sagely. Obviously, he has a much greater practical experience of those matters than I do.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Is he drunk and disorderly?

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I did not say that.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: But I did.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Amanda Fazio. I note that she will have an opportunity to speak on this legislation. Mr Cunneen produces evidence that of all arrests in New South Wales for offences other than traffic offences, 31.9 per cent were for drunkenness in 1943, 47.7 per cent in 1947, 54.4 per cent in 1951, 39.1 per cent in 1960, 32.4 per cent in 1965 and 31.6 per cent in 1970. If the Government were reintroducing a drunk and disorderly offence, it may have a significant impact on a dramatically broader section of our community than is currently the case and it would do a great deal more than simply stopping someone from spoiling someone else's night out.

In 1979 legislation was introduced in this State to remove the offence of drunk and disorderly. It stemmed from research carried out in 1973 by the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, which pointed out the high recidivist rates of those arrested, suggesting the futility of using a penal approach to deter alcoholics from drinking. One of the central developments in this policy area occurred with the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in custody, which was established in October 1987 by agreement between the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories. The royal commission inquired into the deaths of 99 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people Australia-wide. In April 1991 the royal commission completed its final report. On 9 May 1991 the Commonwealth Minister for Aboriginal Affairs tabled in Federal Parliament the final report comprising 11 volumes, with 5,000 pages and 339 recommendations. The report was overwhelmingly accepted in this State by the then Government. I note, in particular, speeches by Ministers Griffiths and Collins in the other place in 1992.

The report followed decades of Aboriginal deaths in custody. Two of those deaths included John Pat in Western Australia and the appalling case in Eddie Murray in Wee Waa, a young Aboriginal man who died in suspicious circumstances in a police cell. The report highlighted the discriminatory approach of the laws relating to public drunkenness for Aboriginal people. Some 35 per cent of the cases for which data was available included Aboriginal people being in jail just for public drunkenness. The report referred to the crucial importance that detention for public drunkenness occupies in Aboriginal custodial over representation, and it also referred to the heavy involvement of public drunkenness as a reason for police custody. In this context I have to say it is no surprise the Government has broken the election promise it made. The promise was ridiculous and would have reduced to absolute mockery the Attorney General's rhetoric about reducing Aboriginal incarceration rates.

The bill inserts a new section 9 into the Summary Offences Act, making it an offence for a person who is given a move-on direction under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act for being intoxicated and disorderly to be found intoxicated and disorderly within that or another public place within six hours of that direction. A statutory defence is established if a person can satisfy the court that he or she has a 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3593

reasonable excuse for the behaviour. The bill also makes changes to section 198 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act, which was recently amended by legislation that made no substantial difference to the law.

It is theoretically possible to imagine behaviour that is disorderly that is not already caught by the existing sections 197 and 198 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act. However, in practical terms I share the scepticism of the shadow Attorney General in the other place. Indeed, more than 10 years ago an Ombudsman's report referred to police using then existing section 197 powers to give move-on directions to people affected by alcohol. The amendments now proposed by the Government make no practical change to the existing sections 197 and 198.

The Government, having decided not to implement its election promise—it did not have a new offence to introduce—has introduced nonsense of the kind that is before this House. It will clutter up the statute book with unnecessary legislation. I note that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and the Deputy Premier have been claiming in the media that the bill is intended for use only in entertainment precincts, but this is a misrepresentation of the bill. There is nothing in the bill that limits its application in this way.

The other curious feature of the legislation is the introduction of a prescribed penalty for the offence of an on-the-spot fine mechanism. The Government has been trumpeting that as a very effective deterrent. When the former Government introduced on-the-spot fines for various offences in October 2007, the now Attorney General and the now Minister for Police and Emergency Services expressed the opposite view. They said that on-the-spot fines would simply decriminalise offences and let perpetrators off the hook. Following a road to Damascus conversion, they seem to have changed their point of view.

Mr David Shoebridge: That is still not a basis for criticism.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: The basis for criticism is the Government preying on community fears before an election simply to win an election and then breaching the faith placed in it. It was a bad commitment that should not have been made.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: What is that called? Two bob each way?

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: We are opposing the legislation. The Chief Executive Office of the Aboriginal Legal Service, Mr Moore, has also written:

The proposed section 9(1)(b)of the Summary Offences Act provides that the offence committed if "at any time within six hours after the move-on direction is given" the person is intoxicated and disorderly. That construction has the consequence that the person literally commits the offence immediately upon being given the move on direction and continuing to be drunk and disorderly, even if they are complying with the move on direction.

This is a vice in the legislation. People are not given an adequate or reasonable opportunity to comply with the move-on direction before they technically will become liable to the on-the-spot fine. With the current drafting of this legislation some categories of people will be unfairly targeted by the legislation, even if they are intending to comply with it. Homeless people, by definition, do not have a home to go to because they often live in a public space. The legislation will impact harshly upon them, not because police are being unfair but because homeless people live in public places. The Law Society also refers to recommendations 70, 80, 81 and 85 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody by pointing out that Aboriginal people represent just over 1 per cent of the New South Wales population, yet account for 28 per cent of the adult population in custody.

[The President left the chair at 1.00 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 2.30 p.m. for questions.

Item of business set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______

GOVERNMENT PROGRAM

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: My question is directed to the Leader of the Government. Given the shutdown of this House earlier today requiring the use of the long bell, has the Government's legislative agenda ground to a halt? 3594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Mr President—

[Interruption]

I will wait because this is important. If members opposite want to keep prattling on they can. I am happy to answer this predictable question. Unlike the Opposition, the Government understands that democracy and debate are not predictable. We are prepared today to discuss Government legislation upon its passage through the other place. It is important legislation and a number of members of the other place took the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate. At the conclusion of the debate on that legislation there was a slight hiatus of about 16 minutes—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Greg Donnelly to order for the first time. I call the Hon. Marie Ficarra to order for the first time.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: There was live debate in this Chamber on the Address-in-Reply but members opposite indicated that they had no desire to make any further contribution. To avoid dealing with private members' business for only 16 minutes we decided to adjourn until the ringing of the long bell, when the legislation was passed by the other place. Government members see no great problem with that. I thank all members on this side of the Chamber who appreciate the importance of speaking in the debate on the Address-in-Reply and of showing respect for Her Excellency the Governor. Debate was alive then and at the conclusion of question time we move on to live debate on another important piece of legislation.

TECHNOLOGY TRAFFIC INFORMATION

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on how the New South Wales Government is providing motorists with innovative technology to make travel easier?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Finally I have been asked a sensible question. It is about time members opposite appointed a question time committee. They bowled up to our strength with their first question today. I could not believe it; it is the dumbest thing they have done for a long time. I will now provide some rational answers. I am pleased to report that I recently unveiled new technology to give motorists better access to real-time information about traffic conditions in New South Wales. A free Live Traffic NSW mobile app will now give iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad users up-to-the-minute details and advice about the road network. A separate mobile site will also be available for users of the latest smart phones.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Do you have it on your phone?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I do not have an iPhone.

The Hon. John Ajaka: Point of order: I cannot hear the Minister's answer due to the continual interjections from members opposite. They may not be interested but members on the Government benches are.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members that interjections are disorderly at all times.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: These apps have been especially developed for our motorists so that they can look up information about incidents, roadworks and major events. Motorists will also be able to see images from 66 live traffic cameras that are updated every 60 seconds. This new service is part of the Government's plan to focus on improving customer service. Unlike the former Labor Government, this Government is focused on making life easier for motorists. We want them to be able to make an educated decision about the best possible route to take.

In addition, the Live Traffic NSW app for iPhones has a built-in GPS function that can quickly pinpoint a person's location and identify any traffic incidents nearby. From Friday of last week the latest traffic information has also been available on Facebook and Twitter. A free data licence has also been created to let members of the public use the live traffic data to develop apps in other formats for Android and BlackBerry phones. These initiatives are designed to make travel as hassle free as possible by giving road users the latest information in convenient ways. They are great tools for planning a trip—but before one sets out—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Greg Donnelly to order for the second time. 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3595

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Members should remember that it is illegal to use a phone while driving unless it is set to hands-free mode. Given that, anyone who wants to use the app will have to agree to a road safety pledge before being able to access data. The new technology, which is designed to give motorists better access to real-time information about traffic conditions, is in addition to the Government's commitment to further expand real-time information about travel on Sydney's motorways. The Government is listening to motorists and is getting a better understanding of what they want and, most importantly, it is delivering. [Time expired.]

PUBLIC SECTOR WAGES POLICY

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Given that the Government has cut the real wages of public servants and is cutting the budget of almost every department, how can the Minister justify handing back $300 million to poker machine operators and $400 million in tax breaks to big business?

The Hon. Luke Foley: The big bully is rattled for once.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Who is rattled?

The Hon. Luke Foley: You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

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

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Government has not cut public sector wages; in fact, it has a policy to increase them.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING

The Hon. JAN BARHAM: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services representing the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality and Racing. Will the Minister advise whether a new funding source will be made available to local government authorities in popular tourism areas to assist with infrastructure upgrades and maintenance in recognition of councils' role in maintaining facilities used by both residents and visitors and given their constrained budgets and the fact that they do not receive funding for tourism?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. I am sure the Hon. Greg Donnelly would be able to give a detailed answer if he was a Minister, but, sadly, he never will be. I will, however, get an answer from the appropriate Minister and provide it to the member.

AUTOMATIC NUMBER PLATE RECOGNITION

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform the House of the success of automatic number plate recognition systems?

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: Is there an acronym?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Yes, there is an acronym for it—ANPR. I thank the member for his question and interest in this important issue. I inform the House, as members already know, that we are committed to improving road safety. We are working with police the Department of Transport to reduce the road toll and reduce crime on the State's roads. That is why we support police by funding technologies such as automatic number plate recognition [ANPR]. We remain committed to installing automatic number plate recognition into an additional 100 highway patrol vehicles across the State. Police are currently making arrangements to ensure that as new highway patrol vehicles are rolled out to the police fleet they will have automatic number plate recognition installed. Automatic number plate recognition works via cameras and computer systems fitted to police vehicles. The system automatically scans the road for unregistered or stolen vehicles and when it finds one it automatically alerts police and the police can then take appropriate action.

Getting unregistered vehicles off the road is not just an exercise in nabbing people who have not paid their bills or handing out traffic tickets to raise revenue; unregistered vehicles are overrepresented in motor 3596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

vehicle crashes. They also have not been subjected to the mechanical tests that occur at registration to ensure a vehicle's roadworthiness. Because they are uninsured they also push up the cost of comprehensive third party [CTP] insurance premiums for everyone. The automatic number plate recognition system undertakes its checks automatically in the background and frees up highway patrol officers to perform other duties. Police can go about their routine business knowing that they will be alerted when a vehicle of interest is spotted. The results that automatic number plate recognition has produced speak for themselves. It is an excellent piece of technology that police are making the most of.

Between 1 November 2009 and 30 June 2011 automatic number plate recognition resulted in more than 38,000 registration and licence related infringements being issued. They included 21,368 for driving an unregistered vehicle, 9,486 for driving an uninsured vehicle, 1,787 for unpaid road taxes, 3,285 for number plate offences and 2,323 for unlicensed driving. Automatic number plate recognition is also useful in locating stolen cars or identifying vehicles of interest to a police investigation or counterterrorism activity. During the same period the technology has resulted in 6,149 traffic charges, 45,108 traffic infringements and 706 charges for other criminal offences. This might include occasions where, for example, a vehicle search revealed drugs or stolen properly, or the vehicle was involved in an armed robbery and was stopped after being detected via automatic number plate recognition. It is clear that automatic number plate recognition is effective and I congratulate police on putting this new technology to good use. The Government will continue to support the rollout of this technology.

HUNTER HIGH-SPEED RAIL

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for the Hunter. The Minister will be aware that Newcastle Mayor John Tate has said that high-speed rail would make a huge difference to many people living in his city, especially given the impact on families and children of long and sometimes dangerous commutes to Sydney. As Minister for the Hunter, will he personally advocate, within Cabinet and publicly, for the Government to seriously support a high-speed rail network for New South Wales and to sit at the table with the Commonwealth to talk about dollars and timelines?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. It is fair to say that she probably has not kept up to speed with a lot of the comments and focus of the previous Opposition—now the Government—in relation to the Hunter. We most certainly have made our position very well known in relation to the high-speed rail link for the Hunter and beyond. In the last couple of days there has been a lot of debate in the media about its going between Sydney and Brisbane.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: And Newcastle is one of the stops.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Those opposite have just worked out that Newcastle is one of the stops. That is really good. Let me remind them of something else. It is a Liberal member who holds the seat of Newcastle, a Liberal member who holds the seat of Charlestown and a Liberal member who holds the seat of Swansea.

The Hon. John Ajaka: Don't forget Maitland.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I am talking about the eastern side, right along the coast— areas that those opposite have sadly neglected for so long. They should not utter "Newcastle" until they start to admit that they did the people of that region a disservice. That being the case, the fact is that the Federal Government is due to release its feasibility study into high-speed rail between Sydney and Newcastle and high-speed rail from Sydney to Canberra.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: It has released it today.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: There you go. It is yet to be discussed thoroughly through the Hunter community and to be examined in terms of what benefits are there. The guys opposite denied the people of Newcastle in particular the opportunity to be part of the debate. When that happens at a Federal level they will find that the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals are already participating in the debate. There is no doubt that the high-speed rail link is one of the options. I suspect everybody would be concerned about the full funding aspects of it. One question would be whether it would go into Newcastle itself or would stop further out and what therefore would be the knock-on effect for Newcastle and the upper Hunter. There are quite a number 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3597

of questions in relation to it. One thing that the honourable member can be sure of is that, unlike the previous mob when they were in government, this Government will ensure that there is healthy public debate on the issue.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL SITTING ARRANGEMENTS

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is directed to the Deputy Leader of the Government and Leader of the House. What action will he take to ensure that there will be no repeat of today's earlier incident resulting in the shutdown of this House on a long bell?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for his question. I appreciate the chance to talk about this. It is one of the most positive things to happen in a long time.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Don't get angry.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: There is no reason to get angry. If you do not let people talk, it is pretty hard. The interjections keep coming and no-one wants to listen. The fact is that the only embarrassment that we have—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Peter Primrose has asked his question. He will listen to the Minister's answer in silence.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: I would like to hear the answer.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Peter Primrose to order for the first time.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The only embarrassment we have is that we have too many members in the lower House. It is an embarrassment that we have a huge number, all of them keen and enthusiastic and wanting to speak on a bill. The bill took two days to go through and it was the first legislation of the session. We got two days into the debate and we had a choice. The luncheon break was 15 minutes away. Do we go to private members for 15 minutes, in and out—a convoluted process—or do we go to a proper process, a process that those opposite have used in the past quite often?

The Hon. Rick Colless: For six months.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: For six months, or when Eric—thank you Eric—prorogued the Parliament for several months.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: I remember that.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We all remember that. We thank Eric and Steve Whan from Monaro every day. The Address-in-Reply to the Governor's Speech was being debated, something that should have been of interest to a hardworking Opposition. The Hon. Luke Foley complained that there was nothing to be debated in the House, yet not one of his members spoke in that debate—not even the wall of sound. They had no thought on it.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The question was very specific as to why the Government was incapable of maintaining the business of the House, which forced the President to leave the chair until the ringing of the long bell. I apologise to the President for the Government's incompetence in allowing that to occur; however, it is not an issue for the Opposition to make—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have the gist of the member's point of order. The Minister's answer is in order.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The reason for the 15-minute delay was that we are the best-organised Government to have been in this Parliament for a very long time. We do it on time and we do it appropriately—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Eric Roozendaal to order for the first time.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Thank you, Eric. Every moment we say thank you to Eric. The Government has so many members in the lower House and we thank Eric for proroguing the Parliament. This 3598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

Parliament is being run properly and the Government has put in place appropriate procedures. Had those opposite used their chance to speak in the appropriate way to the Address-in-Reply and put up a case as to whether or not they considered what the Government was doing was a good idea or not— [Time expired.]

HOME OWNERSHIP

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister outline to the House what the Government has done in its first 100 days in office to make home ownership a reality for the people of New South Wales?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I am very pleased to have been asked that question by the Hon. Niall Blair. Government backbenchers are always working extraordinarily hard to assist the people of New South Wales in getting the services they deserve. Unlike the backbenchers on the other side—for example, look at Walt Secord. I forgot to bring it with me but I have been reading Walt's Twitter—because it is so good.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. I listened carefully to the question asked by the Hon. Niall Blair. Twitter was not mentioned in that question. The Minister is being irrelevant in his answer and he should be directed back to the leave of the question he was asked by one of his new backbench members.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister of the need for him to be generally relevant in his answers.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I was referring to the Hon. Walter Secord's Twitter because on Twitter he made some very significant comments about home ownership and what is happening around the State. For example, on Walt's Twitter of 29 July he talked about housing and the other sorts of services available. I quote:

Had the best crocodile meat pie at Freddy's Pies in the mid-North Coast today.

While looking at housing opportunities on the mid-North Coast he dropped in for one of Freddy's pies. That is the level of consultation that those opposite have when it comes to asking about housing opportunities across the State. Matt Thistlethwaite responded, and said:

Yes, they are delicious. A local gem!

Walt also tweeted on 29 July:

On my way back from my first tour of New England and the North Coast as a MLC, a beautiful part of the world.

The Hon. Steve Whan: Point of order: I understand that the Government has trouble informing the House as to how it has helped home ownership but I draw the attention of the House to Standing Order 65, which states that an answer must be relevant to the question. The Minister's answer should be at least vaguely relevant to housing. Last time I looked meat pies did not have a lot to do with that.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The question asked what the Government has done in its first 100 days in office to make home ownership a reality. I remind the Minister of the need for him to be relevant in his answers.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I have actually addressed this matter on numerous occasions, including in our legislation—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to order for the first time.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I want to be able to tell you at length about what the Government is doing— [Time expired.]

MOTHERSAFE PROGRAM

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Health. The MotherSafe program provides evidence-based and non-directive telephone counselling for women and healthcare providers concerning the potential risks of exposures during pregnancy and breast-feeding. Since the year 2000 calls to the service have increased tenfold: 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3599

from 2,000 to well over 23,000 per year, and they continue to grow despite the fact that staff numbers have not increased. On average only two councillors handle this enormous workload. Given these findings, will the Minister indicate how much funding has been allocated to the MotherSafe Program, and will the Government increase funding to allow staffing levels to meet the growing community demand?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: A comprehensive answer will be forthcoming for such a comprehensive question.

URANIUM TRANSPORTATION

The Hon. WALT SECORD: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister rule out allowing the transportation of uranium on New South Wales roads?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I will refer that question in part to the Minister for Resources and Energy because currently uranium is not mined in New South Wales. The Minister has indicated that we will not be mining any uranium in New South Wales, nor do we have any plans to—not even for you, Shenhua. As far as I am concerned that answers the question.

NATURAL DISASTER RELIEF

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister inform the Chamber of measures to boost the State's disaster relief recipients?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: In recent months communities around Australia have endured tragic and terrifying natural disasters, including major floods in Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales, Tropical Cyclone Yasi and bushfires in Western Australia. I recently announced 12 projects to help New South Wales to prepare for such natural disasters. The projects are funded under a program to boost the State's disaster resilience, the Auxiliary Disaster Resilience Grants Scheme. The Commonwealth and New South Wales governments have contributed more than $760,000 in 12 successful New South Wales projects. Those projects include initiatives to: develop strategies to manage the risks of coastal flooding, erosion and other hazards; educate the community about the need to prune trees to reduce the risk of storm damage; and produce detailed local maps for emergency workers and volunteers.

The Hunter New England Local Health District is leading an initiative to ensure that patients in its community are better prepared to face natural disasters. An increasing number of people have their health needs met at home by out-of-hospital community health services. This project aims to ensure that these patients and their healthcare providers are able to prepare and respond quickly to natural disasters when they occur. Forbes, Wakool and Weddin councils will receive a total of $87,000 to upgrade the equipment in their local emergency operations centres. These facilities play an important role in coordinating the local response to natural disasters. Goulburn Mulwaree Council will undertake two projects to ensure that local emergency services personnel and the community are better prepared for disasters.

Council will sponsor a study that will examine how well local emergency services are communicating with each other and the community. The results of this study will inform the development of a community education booklet that will contain information on the hazards the Goulburn-Mulwaree community faces and the actions local residents can take to be better prepared. Gosford City Council will receive $480,000 to undertake road stabilisation works at two sites to reduce the risk of road failure and closure and isolation of communities. The Government is committed to working with our local councils and emergency services to ensure that they have the funding and resources necessary to continue to help their communities in times of crisis.

HELICOPTER RETRIEVAL SERVICE

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Health. With regard to helicopter retrieval services in the Central West, will the Minister tell the House how many after-dark retrievals are occurring out of Sydney and Wollongong to the area? What is the total cost of that service?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. He did give my office a heads-up about the question. At this stage I do not have an answer to the question, but I hope— 3600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

The Hon. Luke Foley: It is not a question without notice.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: It is because I did not know about it. This is the first time he has put the question to me personally. I will try to get Dr John Kaye an answer before the conclusion of question time.

REGIONAL SALEYARDS

The Hon. STEVE WHAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries. Given that council saleyards across regional New South Wales are being forced to closed due to lack of viability, does the Government have a regional strategy in place to ensure the availability of stock for primary producers in this State?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Some mornings when I get up I cannot believe how lucky I am to be asked questions by the bloke who was responsible for much of the mayhem currently being experience by people in regional New South Wales. Farmers relied on him to be their friend but he sold them out in Cabinet; whatever the Treasurer wanted he did, whatever cuts were to be made, they happened in his portfolio—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: The Minister is clearly debating the question and the questioner; he is not attempting to answer the question. He was asked an important question about the problems facing stockyards in regional New South Wales, and the Minister should answer it.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: To the point of order: The member's question was about the problems in regional New South Wales and I was addressing the causes of many of those problems.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister had commenced his answer. However, it is too early for the Chair to judge whether he was being relevant to the question asked.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Hon. Steve Whan was rejected by the people of Monaro; he lived in the shadow of the Canberra media—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: It is the same point of order. Clearly, the Minister has taken no direction from you, subtle as it was so as not to embarrass him, that he should answer the question. He is continuing to debate the question and the questioner.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: To the point of order: The Minister is not debating the question; he is welcoming the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.

[Interruption]

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I have been to a few saleyards. They operate much more effectively than the Labor Government operated. The Hon. Steve Whan asked me what the Government is doing to fix the decline in saleyards in New South Wales. First, we must re-agenda the kick into regional New South Wales. After 16 years of Labor, the people in regional New South Wales are desperate. The person they relied on the most at that time was the Minister for Primary Industries, and no-one let them down more than the Hon. Steve Whan. Even the Hon. Ian Macdonald was lauded over the Hon. Steve Whan. To the people of regional New South Wales, the Hon. Ian Macdonald is a hero compared to the Hon. Steve Whan. The only thing they are happy about is that the reign of the Hon. Steve Whan was relatively short.

The Hon. Steve Whan: Point of order: After 3½ minutes the Minister has failed to mention saleyards. He had a lot to say when he was in Opposition; clearly he has nothing to say in government. Mr President, I draw your attention to the fact that the Minister's answer is not relevant to the question.

[Interruption]

I am happy to listen to Government members interject while I take a point of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have the gist of the member's point of order. The Hon. Steve Whan will resume his seat. The Minister mentioned saleyards. I remind the Minister of the need for him to be generally relevant in his responses. 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3601

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I will refer the matter to the Minister for Primary Industries. If I had had more time and fewer interjections, I would have answered the question.

WINDSOR BRIDGE UPGRADE

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister inform the House of the preferred option for the upgrade of the Windsor Bridge?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the Hon. Catherine Cusack for this important question. I am pleased that the Hon. Eric Roozendaal is in the Chamber to hear this answer. I am also pleased to announce today that the preferred option for the upgrade of the Windsor Bridge over the Hawkesbury River in Windsor will go on display for community comment next week. The Roads and Traffic Authority has identified option one—a high-level bridge 35 metres downstream of the existing bridge—as the preferred option. This is the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Government delivering on another commitment after years of delay from the previous Government. In 2008 the former Labor Government announced that construction on a new Windsor Bridge would commence in 2009. So in 2008 Labor announced that construction would start in 2009. It is a fact that in 2008 someone who is present in the House today—the Hon. Eric Roozendaal—joined with John Aquilina to announce funding of $25 million for the project. It was one of his many fibs to the people of New South Wales.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: I draw attention to Standing Order 65 (2) (b), which states that questions must not ask for a statement or announcement of the Government's policy. The Minister clearly said, "I am happy to announce". I believe that he is out of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I direct the attention of members to a ruling by President Burgmann, which has been frequently upheld by subsequent Presidents, ruled that no sessional order provides that answers to questions should not contain an announcement of Government policy; however, standing and sessional orders provide that questions may not ask for such an announcement. The Minister is in order.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am sure the people of Windsor will be alerted to the fact that the Labor Party did not want them to hear this good news. On 24 June 2008 the former member for Riverstone, John Aquilina, stood in the other place and said, "I am delighted to advise the House that the Iemma Government will spend $25 million to replace the Windsor Bridge across the Hawkesbury River." The only thing that makes me happy today is that the Hon. Steve Whan is in this Chamber after being turfed out of Monaro. That also makes the people of Monaro very happy. The former member for Riverstone went on to say:

A call for tenders is expected during the first half of 2009 with construction getting underway before the end of that year.

The reality is that Labor failed even to lodge a planning application. For years on end Labor misled the people of Riverstone, Londonderry and Hawkesbury and did nothing. Ultimately, on 26 March, they were punished at the ballot box. Unlike members opposite, the Government will deliver the long-needed Windsor Bridge. Labor members were making announcements when they had not even submitted a planning application. Can members believe that? The preferred option selected is a high-level bridge with two lanes that could be upgraded to three lanes in the future if needed. It also will provide flood protection. With this option Windsor would have a central crossing connecting the northern side of the Hawkesbury River directly to the town. It also would allow coaches to travel underneath the bridge, along the terrace.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister please elucidate his answer?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The existing bridge and road through Thompson Square would be removed and a new approach road and bridge would be built on the eastern side of Thompson Square, following Old Bridge Street. Windsor Bridge is the oldest existing crossing of the Hawkesbury River. This project is important to the community, but one that presents considerable challenges in achieving a balance between transport needs and the social and heritage impacts of building a new bridge in this important historical precinct. We recognise that changing the bridge approach raises significant heritage questions. To ensure that any impacts are managed appropriately, the Roads and Traffic Authority will continue to work with the Office of Environment and Heritage and the local community.

The Roads and Traffic Authority will hold two staffed shopping centre displays at the Windsor Riverview Shopping Centre on Thursday 11 August and Saturday 13 August And a community information 3602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

session will be held on Saturday 20 August at Windsor Central Library. A community workshop is scheduled for Wednesday 31 August in the Windsor Function Centre. These workshops are important because comments raised will be considered during the next stages of the project, including the development of a concept design and the preparation of a detailed environmental impact statement. The preferred option for the project will be displayed until Friday 9 September at Hawkesbury City Council, Windsor Central Library and the Richmond Motor Registry

COAL AND COAL SEAM GAS EXPLORATION

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: In directing my question to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, I refer to the Government's announcements about tough new conditions for coal and coal seam gas.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Trevor Khan to order for the first time.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Will the Government guarantee that no hydraulic fracturing will occur in New South Wales between now and the expiration of the moratorium?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for acknowledging the tough new procedures that have been implemented. I am very proud of the fact that this Government has introduced the toughest regime of any State in the Commonwealth

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: That's not hard.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Greens are never satisfied. One of them said, "That's not enough." Well, it is a darn good start considering the position this State was in. Quite often we stand back and say nothing instead of being proud of what we have achieved. We in New South Wales have come a long way—

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: Point of order: My interjection actually was, "That's not hard"—

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. If the member wishes to make a personal explanation, she may seek the call to do so at the conclusion of question time.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I appreciate the point taken by the member. I apologise if I misheard her interjection. I agree it was not difficult to go further, but this Government has gone a lot further than the former Government did, and we are ahead of any other government in Australia. I am proud of that, but it does not mean that we will stop there. It means that we must make sure that whatever we do is balanced between protecting the environment and the rights of the farmers and ensuring the continual expansion of the New South Wales economy. We have a responsibility to establish the correct balance. The changes initiated by the Government will go a long way towards achieving that goal.

As for guarantees, the only guarantee that really can be given is that we will try our best to do the right thing. Currently we are making the situation better and we are doing that with the best will in the world. As for a specific answer to the question, I will refer the question to the appropriate Minister for a response.

PORTS PRIVATISATION

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Can he assure the people of New South Wales that the State's ports infrastructure will remain in public hands and not be privatised?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Can members believe that? Each day we come into this Chamber and say, "Thank you, Eric: Thank you for selling the power assets of the State. Thank you for proroguing Parliament." Now he wants a guarantee that we will not privatise.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Point of order: I understand that the Hon. Duncan Gay spent 23 years waiting in this place to occupy a place on the Government front bench, but I would have thought that after 23 years he would know what a question is.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Eric Roozendaal will state his point of order or resume his seat. 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3603

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: My point of order relates to relevance. I am not particularly interested in what he has to say about me.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have the gist of the member's point of order. There is no point of order.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We just love this. We have had questions from two former Ministers today. There they are—sitting on the losers' lounge, checking their watches.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Where you sat for 23 years.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: But we moved and improved. It is fabulous here on the Government side of the Chamber. We are really enjoying it while we fix up the State. Can members believe that the Hon. Eric Roozendaal would ask a question on privatisation? And that is from a man who did not see anything in the State that he did not want to privatise. Only one person was more interested in privatisation than Eric was, and that was the present Leader of the Opposition, John Robertson.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Point of order: New South Wales people are very concerned about port facilities and what will happen to them.

The PRESIDENT: Order! What is the member's point of order?

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Up to this point, the Minister has not come within a bull's roar of discussing the issue of ports infrastructure in this State. He continues with his attacks on me instead.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have the gist of the member's point of order. In accordance with past rulings, I remind members that some generality is permitted when a Minister provides an answer. Nevertheless, a Minister's answer must be relevant to the question asked. The Minister was in order.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am moving very quickly to provide an answer. The most incredible privatiser in the State is the hypocrite—the Leader of the Opposition in the lower House. He is the missing person of the Parliament. Talk about Where's Wally? Throughout the recent parliamentary break no-one saw him. The last time we saw him, he was privatising. I have no plans to privatise New South Wales ports.

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister update the House on the development of the New South Wales information and communication technologies framework?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: What an excellent question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Eric Roozendaal to order for the first time.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: This is a very important question and I thank the member for her interest. Members on this side of the House have taken a great interest in this important area of public policy. Members are already aware that, with the Deputy Premier and the Treasurer, I hosted a strategic information and communication technologies industry forum at Parliament House only six weeks ago to mark the beginning of a new direction in information and communication technologies in New South Wales. Many members may remember the positive reaction that the information and communication technologies strategic forum received in the media and other public forums.

No doubt a part of this overwhelmingly positive response was a big sigh of relief from industry and, for that matter, from the community that information and communication technologies were being put to the front and centre of the Government's agenda after 16 years of inaction by those on the opposite side of the Chamber. I inform the House that on 7 July, just three weeks later, I announced that the Government had taken the next step in reforming the New South Wales information and communication technologies sector with the establishment of a new governance framework. The framework is underpinned by this Government's commitment to make New South Wales the leader in information and communication technologies. It is led by a new ICT board consisting of the directors general of the key agencies heavily reliant on information and communication technologies, chaired by the Director General of the Department of Finance and Services, Mr Michael Coutts-Trotter. 3604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

The board met for the first time last Thursday, 28 July, and has already started the process of reforming information and communication technologies in New South Wales, including developing the information and communication technologies strategy that will set the tone for information and communication technologies policy and investment over the coming years. The board is supported by two groups. First, the ICT Advisory Panel consisting of industry experts charged with ensuring that prevailing and emerging technologies are effectively aligned with agency and whole-of-government objectives.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: Where is that picture of you and Malcolm Turnbull?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Your leader has the picture. Has he not circulated it?

The Hon. Luke Foley: I have it; I am waiting for a rainy day.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Leader of the Opposition has a copy of it. The panel's independent chair will report to the ICT board. The second group, the ICT Leadership Group, comprising the chief information officers and a deputy director general of each of the nine cluster agencies tasked with implementing the information and communication technologies strategy across government. The Leader of the Opposition can tell members how handsome I was when I was a young man. And that is confirmed by my appearance now.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to order for the second time.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: On Monday an expression of interest document was issued seeking nominations for the ICT Advisory Panel. This will provide a pool of expertise to draw on to ensure that the Government and the people of New South Wales can benefit from the latest innovations and emerging technologies. To ensure diverse and active input from members it is intended that any appointments would be refreshed at least every 12 months. The call for expressions of interest is available online on the website of the Department of Finance and Services. The closing date for the expressions of interest is 12 August 2011.

The new New South Wales governance structure is unique. We are the only jurisdiction in New South Wales to have a seat at the highest industry table in the information and communication technologies reform and implementation program. We believe that is absolutely necessary to drive the reforms needed and to get industry and government all working towards the same goal. The calibre of the interested parties involved thus far is an indication of the appetite for reform of information and communication technologies in New South Wales and that industry wants to make New South Wales the leader in this field.

EDUCATION QUALIFICATIONS

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Education, who left school at 15 years of age. Will the Government provide an academic document indicating the ability of students who, through family pressures or the desire to start paid employment, leave school at the end of year 10 that they may show to future employers after the School Certificate is scrapped?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile for that important question.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: You thank him for everything.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am nice, unlike you.

The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: No, you are not nice.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am mostly nice, except when I am a bit crabby. We are a bit crabby today. We all have days when we are crabby—except perhaps the Hon. Amanda Fazio, who does not have days when she is happy.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: If she smiles, it is wind.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I will not pick up that interjection.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Does the Minister want to put her over his shoulder and give her a pat? 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3605

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: This is a serious question.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is a serious question, and I am sure it is in the mind of many people. I think the answer to the question is yes, but I do not know for certain. I will refer the question to the Minister for Education for a detailed response.

ROAD SAFETY

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Given that the Minister has committed to improve road safety in areas from which speed cameras are being removed, will he support calls to hypothecate fines from speed camera revenue to fund these programs?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is a pity that the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane did not learn to read the budget papers. Very few members on that side read budget papers.

The Hon. Luke Foley: We are waiting for yours.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Leader of the Opposition does not need to look at ours. Even the magical documents that were produced by the former Treasurer would show that over the past five years we spent $800 million—

The Hon. Steve Whan: We did.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I mean "we" as in "the State". The Whan-star thinks it is his money, as did all the members of the former Government. That is why the people of Monaro kicked him out. He regarded the State's money as his own, not the people's. The question about hypothecating the money from speed cameras—

[Interruption]

The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane did not use the word "hypothecate", but that was what he meant.

The Hon. Luke Foley: He did use that word.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Okay, he did.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: It is just that you cannot pronounce it.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I cannot help that I have a lisp. We all have shortcomings, but I will not identify those of the Hon. Amanda Fazio. An amount of $800 million was spent in the past five years on road safety. Speed cameras brought in approximately $600 million. If the revenue that is raised from the speed cameras is used for that purpose, we will only have to find another $200 million to match that spent by the former Government.

NSW POLICE MARINE AREA COMMAND

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. What is happening with the New South Wales Police Marine Area Command to improve safety on our waterways?

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: As a State with a large and busy coastline we need a large water-going police force to fight marine crime and protect our livelihoods. The Marine Area Command is a very important part of the New South Wales Police Force and has a long and distinguished history. Our Water Police started off as an independent Water Police Force in 1830, and it merged with all other police units into the New South Wales Police Department in 1862. In 1999 the Water Police were rebadged as the current Marine Area Command, which today consists of approximately 120 personnel including operational water police, intelligence and crime prevention officers, divers, detectives and the marine operational support team.

The responsibility of the Marine Area Command extends from all coastal areas of New South Wales to 200 nautical miles out to sea, taking on a number of roles. These include policing waterways to reduce crime, 3606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

protecting life and property, overseeing aquatic events and controlling spectator craft, coordinating marine search and rescue, carrying out diving operations and underwater searches for missing persons and evidence, addressing marine crime prevention issues, and reinforcing safety and compliance.

The Government has committed to support the valuable work carried out by the Marine Area Command by purchasing a new $16 million police helicopter to perform an enhanced search and rescue and counterterrorism function. The Marine Area Command has made valuable contributions to major policing operations. For example, Operation Bergonia, which was conducted in October 2010, involved the Marine Area Command, Australian Federal Police and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service intercepting a yacht carrying cocaine from South America to Australia. Operation Bergonia, which deployed the New South Wales Police Force vessel Nemesis, resulted in four arrests and the seizure of 464 kilograms of cocaine. This stands as the third largest seizure of cocaine in Australia's history.

In November 2010 the Marine Area Command ran Operation Vibe in conjunction with the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, Queensland Police and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to target organised crime and black market activities. Operation Vibe resulted in the boarding of 150 commercial vessels and 10 arrests for drug-related offences. In January and April 2011 Operation Vikings Marine was conducted to provide a high visibility presence on New South Wales waterways. This operation, led by the Marine Area Command and involving NSW Maritime and the Department of Primary Industries, Fisheries and Aquaculture, resulted in the execution of 1,696 random breath tests.

Operation Fusion, another Marine Area Command-led operation, targeted the illegal trafficking of abalone with the assistance of Fisheries. Operation Fusion resulted in the arrest of two offenders in February 2011 and stands as the largest operation into illegal trafficking of abalone in New South Wales history. In addition to these large-scale operations, the Marine Area Command continues to deliver outstanding results from its day-to-day policing duties. I speak on behalf of all members of this Chamber when I say that we are most pleased with the work that it performs, which I hope will continue in the future.

I suggest that if members have further questions, they place them on notice.

URANIUM TRANSPORTATION

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I have a supplementary answer to a question relating to uranium asked by the Hon. Walt Secord. I am informed that the transport of uranium is governed by the transport code. The mine operator, who is not in New South Wales, is required to develop a detailed plan for transporting and shipping uranium. This plan, which must be approved by both the Federal and the State governments, is under the control of the Minister for the Environment under the Dangerous Goods (Road and Rail Transport) Act which was implemented and refined by the former Labor Government.

Questions without notice concluded.

SUMMARY OFFENCES AMENDMENT (INTOXICATED AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT) BILL 2011

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.35 p.m.]: As I alluded to earlier, the most revealing part of the Summary Offences Amendment (Intoxicated and Disorderly Conduct) Bill 2011 is proposed section 9 (4), which provides:

A person cannot be proceeded against or convicted for both an offence against this section and an offence against section 199 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2022.

That is reasonable and appropriate as the two provisions are almost completely identical. We have a ridiculous situation in which the Government proposes, completely unnecessarily, to include pre-existing provisions by replicating further enactments, which will clutter up the statute book. This point was picked up by the Law Society's Criminal Law Committee, which states:

The Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 already contains an offence provision which is more than adequate to deal with people who do not obey move on directions; this also covers people who return to a public place after having been directed to leave and not return for a certain period of time (sections 198 and 199).

4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3607

However, part 16 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 contains adequate powers for police to remove and detain intoxicated persons without the need to criminalise them. This bill provides that further behaviour, which can lead to the imposition of a fine, can occur in the same place or another public place. The Law Society's committees queried where a homeless, intoxicated or mentally ill person could conceivably go to enable him or her to avoid committing an offence. As a consequence of the drafting of this bill, a homeless person will move from one place to another and still commit an offence even though he or she will be attempting to comply with such a direction. That replicates an existing provision and will result in a situation where even those who attempt to comply unwittingly will commit an offence which provides for the imposition of a monetary penalty. Such an unreasonable or nonsensical objective should not be embraced by this House.

New South Wales history has shown that criminalising the intoxicated ultimately is detrimental to the goal of reducing crime rates as it tends to entrench people in the criminal justice system—people who might not otherwise have entered it. It has been proved that it discriminates also against those groups that are already disadvantaged in our society. I referred earlier to homeless and mentally ill people but it discriminates also against Indigenous people. History has shown that when drunk and disorderly provisions were included in any legislation, Indigenous people disproportionately were the victims of such legislation as its provisions were most often used against them. In the past that led to all sorts of difficulties in the Indigenous community. Since 1979 no drunk and disorderly provisions have been included in the legislation and they should not be reintroduced. The Law Society points to two further problems with the legislation and states:

… the likelihood of increasing tension between particular police and the community leading to an increase in other offences such as offensive language, resist arrest and assault police— in criminal legal practice this is known as the trifecta—

[and] longer term consequences of potential over policing of the Aboriginal community.

The Law Society's letter, which was written by its president, concludes by stating:

The offence of drunk and disorderly was removed from the statute book many years ago and should not be reintroduced.

These proposed laws, which are bad, will prey on people's fears in the community and replicate what is already on the statute book. This legislation still takes us in the wrong direction as it sets up an unworkable and unfair regime. Even when people attempt to comply with the move-on direction they will immediately commit an offence whether or not they are in the same place or another place. Given the history of legislation dealing with drunk and disorderly offences, clearly the most disadvantaged people in society will bear the brunt of provisions such as these if they are enacted. As history has indicated, it will impact on homeless people, mentally ill people, those with nowhere else to go and Indigenous people, which would be unfair. This legislation is unnecessary as sufficient provisions already exist in law to deal with issues of this kind. Opposition members utterly reject the premise of the legislation and the form in which it has been introduced in this House.

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY (Leader of the Opposition) [3.40 p.m.]: I oppose the Summary Offences Amendment (Intoxicated and Disorderly Conduct) Bill 2011 and note the comments the Premier made in May when he said to members in the other place:

We intend to put meaning back into the Summary Offices Act ... A new offence of drunk and disorderly will include drunk under the influence of alcohol or intoxicated under the influence of drugs.

This is the latest move in a long history of moves by the Liberal Party to include an offence of drunk and disorderly conduct on our statute books. One of the Wran Labor Government's law reform initiatives was to repeal the Summary Offences Act 1970. In 1979 it introduced the cognate crimes bills and the cognate summary offences bills, which proposed to repeal the Summary Offences Act and amend 16 pieces of legislation. I will briefly remind members of the history of offences relating to drunk and disorderly conduct on our statute books.

Changes to the legislation hark from the 1970 Georges River by-election. In an act of blatant electioneering, the then Premier—the notoriously corrupt Robert Askin—went to the by-election seeking a mandate for the introduction of the Summary Offences Bill. The Askin Government was humiliatingly defeated and lost what was until then a blue-ribbon Liberal Party seat. Despite that defeat, the Government proceeded to enact the Summary Offences Act. The Labor Party received a mandate at the 1976 and 1978 elections to repeal that repressive and unfortunate piece of legislation. 3608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Pause—for effect.

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: I am happy to wait. There are now time limits so I will use the entire 20 minutes available to me. When the then Attorney General and Minister for Justice moved to repeal the Summary Offences Act 1970 he said:

The Askin Government was unable to see beyond its own immediate political ends. This Government intends to remedy that completely unsatisfactory situation by implementing provisions which will ensure that the law is placed on a rational and humane basis. Rationality and humanity are two attributes to which that previous Government in its rush to the ballot boxes paid not the slightest heed.

I believe that once again today, 41 years after the Georges River by-election of 1970 and 32 years after the repeal of the Summary Offences Act in 1979, we have another Liberal Premier engaged in electioneering at the expense of rational and humane law. An examination of how the Summary Offences Act and the Inebriates Act operated in the past indicates that they were very regressive pieces of legislation. Public drunkenness was punishable as a crime in this State and a drunken person suffered the stigma of being labelled a criminal. That was the impact of that punitive legislation.

The first specific English enactment dealing with public drunkenness was passed in 1606 and had the long title of "An Act for repressing the odious and loathsome sin of drunkenness." It provided for a fine of five shillings or six hours in the stocks if the fine was not paid. It was a punitive measure and the law continued in that vein until the enlightened reforms implemented by the Wran Government in 1979 that removed it from the statute books. I draw members' attention to how the legislation operated when it was on the statute books. Its history is very instructive. In 1979 the maximum penalty was a fine of $10. However, approximately 80 per cent of cases were disposed of by the offenders forfeiting bail of $1 and no further action was taken to bring them back to court.

Most of the offenders who could not raise bail of $1 and who appeared before a court were released without any penalty being imposed. However, some were invariably imprisoned in default. They were arrested, brought before the courts, fined and imprisoned, often repeatedly. I submit that nothing positive was ever achieved in those cases. People with a drinking problem were simply imprisoned, and we know what happens to many people who are incarcerated. From 1972 to 1976, there was an increase in the number of arrests for public drunkenness culminating in 54,928 arrests in 1976. That is an extraordinary number. Dr Tony Vinson, who has been an eminent figure in the field of social policy for many decades, delivered a paper to the Wran Labor Government on victimless crime in which he stated:

Our present social response to public drunkenness helps to stigmatise the individual and thereby maintain his socially unacceptable behaviour. The arrest and incarceration of the drunk worsens his social maladjustment by further demoralising him and reducing any chance he may have had of putting his life on a better footing. The repeated experience of arrest, detention and appearance in court labels someone a "drunk" and minor criminal, and thereby encourages the individual to see himself in these roles.

Even more compelling evidence has been revealed since then about what happens when people are locked up simply for being drunk. That is the report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in 1991. The interim report of that royal commission strongly advocated sobering-up shelters not associated with police or custodial agencies to which a person who became drunk in public could be taken. That was because Aboriginal people were dying while locked up simply for being drunk. In 38 of the 99 Aboriginal deaths in custody investigated by the royal commission the reason that the person was in custody was drunkenness.

The figure was even more dramatic for women. For seven of the 11 deceased Aboriginal women investigated by the royal commission, drunkenness was the most frequent offence. The royal commission taught us that by far the largest number of Aboriginal people in police lockups are those detained for what often is called protective custody, that is, those who are found drunk in a public place and are detained, taken to police cells and kept there for a number of hours until they are thought to be sufficiently sober to be released. When the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody did its work, in some States people were still being arrested for the offence of public drunkenness. I believe that the work of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody is compelling when we enter into this debate. In many ways it endorsed the humane and rational reforms of the Wran Labor Government in 1979 in repealing the Summary Offences Act and taking a far more enlightened view on how society should respond to people who become drunk in public.

Many people have a problem with alcohol and with drugs. Many private agencies, a number of them faith-based, do the most magnificent work in treating and assisting those people. It would be far more 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3609

appropriate for the Government to fund those organisations, many of whom are faith-based, to provide shelter, food and assistance to people who have an addiction to drink or drugs. Since the offence of drunk and disorderly has existed on our statute books in New South Wales, or in other States of this country, it has impacted on and had a particularly dramatic effect on Indigenous Australians. The commitments made by Mr O'Farrell and his colleagues in the election campaign and since have been about populist electioneering rather than a rational and humane public policy approach to the problem of drunkenness. I therefore oppose the bill.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [3.54 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I oppose the Summary Offences Amendment (Intoxicated and Disorderly Conduct) Bill and commend the comments made earlier by the Hon. Adam Searle and the Hon. Luke Foley. They referred to the history of these bad laws and how they found their way into the statute books of New South Wales at the behest of conservative governments. Those laws resulted in a substantial degree of unfairness and unjust outcomes on the most disadvantaged people in New South Wales, in particular, homeless people, Aboriginal citizens in New South Wales, people with a mental illness and those with a chronic illness, such as alcoholism. Those are the people who have been targeted by these types of laws.

I note the comments of the Hon. Adam Searle who chastised the Government for not ensuring that the legislation referred to a blanket drunk and disorderly offence, but I do not echo such criticism. I am glad that this legislation does not provide for a blanket drunk and disorderly offence in New South Wales as that would have created even more unjust outcomes than the present law. If that is perceived by some as a broken promise I am glad that the Government has broken its election promise. After examining this Government's promises in greater detail it has been established that they will result in substantial unfairness to several sectors in our community. I hope that this legislation is reviewed and amended and that some of the unnecessarily harsh edges are smoothed away. This legislation, which is deeply unfair, is a direct throwback to the 1970s when the offence of drunk and disorderly was regularly criticised in New South Wales. The people who suffered the brunt of that criminalised conduct were Aboriginal citizens, our homeless citizens and the mentally ill.

In the election campaign the Liberal-Nationals Coalition made another promise—one that has since been made by the Attorney General and that has repeatedly been broken. It promised to break the law and order auction in New South Wales, to do things differently, and to ensure that the number of juveniles in our prisons did not increase. What have we seen? Seventy members in the Legislative Assembly have contributed to debate on the Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. This Government is vociferously supporting these new graffiti laws which will bring more kids before the courts in New South Wales and further criminalise kids engaged in graffiti, contrary to some of the statements that were made in the election campaign.

Contrary to the promise made by the Attorney General to break the law and order auction, we have also seen mandatory sentences of life imprisonment for people who murder police—another sop to the right-wing shock jocks and the like who support a law and order auction, not good public policy, yet further increasing the prison population. It is disappointing that that kind of one-size-fits-all criminal justice approach is becoming the norm for this Government, which said it would do otherwise.

The Government is in breach of its promise to increase the move-on powers given to police, to turn things around and to do them differently from the way in which they were done by the former Government. Not satisfied with where Labor had taken it this new Government, blind to the commitment that it made to do things differently and to break the law and order auction, introduced another piece of legislation that will increase the move-on powers that are given to police. Police now can move on individuals whereas previously they could only break up and move on rowdy groups. Police have been given more and more discretionary powers—and this is yet another—which historically have been used against the most marginal members of our community.

Effectively, this is the fourth piece in the jigsaw of increased police powers and the beating of the law-and-order drum by a Government that promised to do things differently. It is deeply disappointing and a real breach of one of its core commitments in the election campaign to take a different approach to law and order from the approach taken by Labor in its 16 years in government. I am grateful for a submission I received from the Aboriginal Legal Service—I know that Government members also received it—which goes into the history of this legislation in some detail. It points out that recommendation 79 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, a very clear recommendation, has been openly breached by this Government. The recommendation states:

In jurisdictions where drunkenness has not been decriminalised, governments should legislate to abolish the offence of public drunkenness.

3610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

We are now 20 years past that very clear recommendation from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Instead of putting in place the hundreds of recommendations from that royal commission that have not been put in place, this Government has moved to go backwards on one of the key recommendations that has been put in place. The offence of drunk and disorderly was removed from the statute books in legislation that passed this House in 1979, but it was put on the statute books in 1980. In 1979 when then Attorney General Frank Walker—a genuine reformist Attorney General—moved the legislation to remove it from the statute books he said:

The Government is concerned that the Summary Offences Act operates in a repressive way against the most vulnerable in our society—the poor, the downtrodden, the homeless and chronic alcoholic ... it is felt that such draconian measures are unnecessary for what are relatively minor offences in most instances—

I see the dragon has flown the coop—

Public drunkenness as such will cease to be an offence.

In doing so he had strong statistical support. The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR] statistical bulletin No. 8 of August 1980—the year when the law came into effect—reported on the impact of the offence of drunk and disorderly being on the statute books. Page 7 of that bulletin said:

For example ... inspection of the forms submitted by the bureau to the courts indicated that a disproportionately high number of persons arrested gave an aboriginal reserve as their address.

The relationship between being aboriginal and being arrested for drunkenness has been reported previously. The Bureau in analysis trends in the number of drunkenness arrests for different areas of the State has also documented a higher rate of arrests and the imposition of more punitive penalties in "aboriginal towns".

Further in comparisons between aboriginal and non-aboriginal male admissions to an alcohol withdrawal unit ... [it was] found that the aboriginal patients were significantly more likely to have been arrested for public drunkenness than the non-aboriginal patients.

Those 1980 statistics are compelling: that is the outcome of these laws on the statute books in the 1970s. Despite one aspect of law reform improving the situation marginally in that regard for Aboriginal people, they are still massively overrepresented in our prison population. The New South Wales Judicial Commission Benchbook: Equality before the Law states:

Over 138,500 (2.1%) of the 6.55 million residents of NSW are Indigenous.

14.9% of Aboriginal people appearing before the NSW Local Court appear on at least one offensive language or behaviour charge - this represents almost 26% of such charges.

To the extent that the offensive language and behaviour charge remains on the statute books Aboriginal people are already massively overrepresented, this will be furthered if this legislation gets onto the statute book. I continue the quote:

Aboriginal women account for 29.6% of the female prison population. Aboriginal men account for 20.4% of the male prison population. Overall, Indigenous people remain grossly overrepresented in NSW prisons. In 2008, the full-time Indigenous prisoner population was 21.1% of the prison population or 2,080 out of a total of 9,859 full-time inmates. This means that Indigenous people are 10 times more likely to be incarcerated in NSW than non-Indigenous people.

Between 2001-2008 in NSW, the Indigenous imprisonment rates rose by 28 per cent, from approximately 1,400 Indigenous persons per 100,000 to 2,000 Indigenous persons per 100,000.

That compares to 170 non-Indigenous persons per 100,000 for the same period. Why would we introduce legislation that further criminalises this kind of offence when the statistics show that it will have a significant and severe impact on one of the most marginalised groups in our society? This aggressive, conservative agenda is blind to the commitment to step aside from the law and order auction. The Government does not care what the impact will be on those vulnerable groups. The New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council knows something about the experience of being an Aboriginal citizen in New South Wales and it knows something about how the current law operates. The council had this to say about the bill:

The Attorney-General, in his 'Agreement in Principle' speech on the 22 June 2011, noted that: 'This policy is not about targeting the homeless, the mentally ill, the Aboriginal community or the disadvantaged in our society. It is to manage the excessive intoxicated behaviour seen in the entertainment districts on weekends.'

While the Attorney-General has stated that the intention of this legislation is not to disproportionately affect Aboriginal peoples, the published research and data, as well as anecdotal reports indicate that: Aboriginal people continue to be disproportionately affected—

4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3611

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Anecdotal.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I note the continual interjections by the Government Whip and his absolute disregard for what the Aboriginal Legal Service and the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council have to say about this matter.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Anecdotal, you said it yourself.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: He is clearly not listening because he did not hear the reference to published research data or the reference to the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research report. I again note the irrational interjections by the Government Whip. I continue the quote:

Aboriginal people continue to be disproportionately affected by and represented in the criminal justice system; that 'move on' powers disproportionately affect indigenous people; and that broad ranging 'move on' powers have been misused by police.

The council also provided a substantial body of research evidence from Ombudsman reports, various reports from Australian parliamentary committees and from Australian Legal Information Institute [AustLII] journals, including the report entitled "Indigenous Australians, Incarceration and the Criminal Justice System" of March 2010, despite the rather rampant objections by the Government Whip.

Law Society of New South Wales members have day-to-day experience with these kinds of laws. The Criminal Law Committee and the Juvenile Justice Committee of that society are both strongly opposed to it. Those committees hold serious concerns about the implications of the new provisions especially in relation to vulnerable people in the community, including homeless people, people with a mental illness and Aboriginal people. I advise the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps that the repeating theme here should not be simply batted away by the Government as though those people are not important. The Law Society said:

The Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 already contains an offence provision which is more than adequate to deal with people who do not obey move on directions; this also covers people who return to a public place after having been directed to leave and not return for a certain period of time (sections 198 and 199). Part 16 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 also contains adequate powers for police to remove and detain intoxicated persons without the need to criminalise them.

Giving the police power to detain people who are intoxicated and disorderly and who are creating substantial disturbance until such time as they are sober, or until they can be released to the care of another responsible adult, is something that is reasonably considered and is already a power under the Act, but this Government wants to criminalise it. By criminalising it, the Government will turn us back to the 1970s. I turn now to the specific provisions of the bill, which is not overly long. Section 9, which contains the nuts and bolts of the bill, provides:

9 Continuation of intoxicated and disorderly behaviour following move on direction

(1) A person who:

(a) is given a move on direction for being intoxicated and disorderly in a public place, and

(b) at any time within 6 hours after the move on direction is given, is intoxicated and disorderly in the same or another public place, is guilty of an offence.

How can a homeless person move out of the public? They cannot, and if they continue to be considered loud, noisy or rowdy by the police they will inevitably be criminalised by this Act. By being criminalised they will receive a fine, which they will not be able to pay. They will then be caught up in the criminal justice system for failure to pay the fine, which will result in repeat appearances before a court. In doing so, it will cost the State a significant amount of money. It will not improve the conduct; it will simply target marginalised people. One substantial concern is the definition of "intoxicated" in section 9 (6) in schedule 1 to the bill:

For the purposes of this section, a person is intoxicated if:

(a) the person's speech, balance, co-ordination or behaviour is noticeably affected, and

(b) it is reasonable in the circumstances to believe that the affected speech, balance, co-ordination or behaviour is the result of the consumption of alcohol or any drug.

It does not provide for a person who is not intoxicated or affected by a drug but has a disability such as cerebral palsy or another disability that affects the person's speech, balance, coordination or behaviour. Those people are liable to be charged under this legislation simply if they behave in a rowdy fashion. 3612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

The Hon. John Ajaka: That's not right. You are saying that those people are disorderly. Is that what you are saying? Are you saying that people with a disability are disorderly? That's outrageous.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I acknowledge the Hon. John Ajaka's interjection. The bill provides that people with a disability can be found to have committed an offence under the Act simply because they were being disorderly. That is what this legislation does.

The Hon. John Ajaka: Both elements have to be satisfied.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: No, the definition of "intoxicated", which I read out, needs to be applied. That is the way the legislation will operate. It is not well thought out. The Government tends not to think about how its laws will impact on marginal or vulnerable groups. Whether they are people with a disability, homeless people or Aboriginal citizens, they are not considered at all. The Government is not interested in that. It is only interested in satisfying the shock jocks by banging the law and order drum, with no regard for what the laws will do on the street to some of the most vulnerable people in New South Wales.

The Greens have another concern—it was raised directly by the Law Society—which I will address further during debate on the amendments in Committee. Essentially, this legislation will break down certain relationships between the police and the community. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, it is likely to lead to the usual traditional trifecta: a move-on direction is given, some lip is given to police and then there is assault police, resist arrest and breach of a move-on direction. What was a modest public disturbance will result in marginal and vulnerable people being churned and engaged through the criminal justice system. This bill is rushing back to the 1970s; it is not forward-thinking legislation. If the Government wants to deal with the impacts of alcohol on our streets it should deal with the people profiting from it. It should deal with the problem at the source; it should not deal with the victims and the symptoms.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [4.14 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party, I support the Summary Offences Amendment (Intoxicated and Disorderly Conduct) Bill 2011. One object of the bill is:

(a) to amend the Summary Offences Act 1988:

(i) to make it an offence for a person who has been given a move on direction by a police officer for being intoxicated and disorderly in a public place to be intoxicated and disorderly in that or another public place at any time within 6 hours after the direction is given …

Before I address the bill I will make some general comments about what I learnt when I was a counsellor. First, bad cases make bad law. Secondly, police must be given credit because they do a great job. They have common sense and they go out of their way to use their discretion. I have not seen many cases—although I am sure such cases exist—in which police do not go out of their way to help a person out of trouble rather than help them into a situation in which they are booked.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Absolutely, but The Greens wouldn't acknowledge that.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I acknowledge the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps acknowledging my point. I acknowledge that The Greens could acknowledge that point, given that they have some legal experience.

Mr David Shoebridge: I wasn't listening to you.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I acknowledge that point, too. Police move-on powers exist in most Australian States and Territories. Police may use a move-on direction to keep the peace when people are behaving in a disruptive manner to themselves or others but otherwise present no serious public danger. We acknowledge that move-on powers give police an effective enforcement tool to address drunk and disorderly behaviour before it becomes a public safety issue. These move-on powers are most commonly used in streets, parks, malls and railway stations and—I learnt this during my time in local government—at community events. Increasingly at the grassroots of government we are seeing disorderly conducting disrupting community events.

We are trying to encourage the social capital of our society and our community—mums and dads and the elderly—to play, communicate and connect. However, opportunities to do so are being stolen by individuals who become intoxicated and behave in a disorderly manner. These powers are generally justified as being necessary to enable public spaces to be enjoyed peacefully by everyone and to act as an alternative to arrest in 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3613

circumstances where the situation could be effectively diffused without charges being laid. While most jurisdictions provide a general power to order people to move away from or leave a particular area, some prescribe an amount of time that a person can be moved away from an area.

In Queensland and Western Australia a person can be moved away from an area for up to 24 hours, while in the Australian Capital Territory a person can be moved away from an area for a maximum of six hours only. In Tasmania a minimum period of four hours is prescribed. This change will allow police to give move-on directions to an individual who is intoxicated, not just a group of three or more, as under the current law, for six hours. The experience in coastal areas is that the power is used not only when people have enjoyed a good night in the pub celebrating but also at beach parties and other such events. To break this down to an individual or groups will be incredibly beneficial to police at the scene.

The New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research reported a 25 per cent increase in the level of alcohol-related offensive behaviour in the Sydney local government area between 2005 and 2009. This is about making our streets safer. People in towns and villages are afraid to go out at night. That is certainly the case in my local government area. As I have travelled throughout the State during many election campaigns I have found that it is the same everywhere. At two or three in the morning people who have a bit under their belt go on their sing-song down the street and sometimes end up in unfavourable situations. The problem exists in coastal areas as well. For example, Huskisson, which is a lovely area with the jewel in the crown at Jervis Bay, has one policeman, and potentially two if another officer comes to lend a hand.

Police in the Shoalhaven can be called across the city, which is two hours from one boundary to another. Where is the ability to take control of circumstances in the area with the highest number of overnight tourists outside Sydney? Many people come into the area and relieve their stress in our towns and villages. They want a good holiday. However, on occasions some people have too much to drink and refuse to move on as directed. So the police need the power to deal with these issues when they are able to be present.

On top of that, little places, such as Huskisson, for example, have a lot of aged people who live in the town's central business district. When little old ladies hear heavily intoxicated riffraff in the street knocking over mailboxes, damaging the windows of business premises, vomiting and urinating in the street instead of in appropriate public amenities—the type of unacceptable behaviour that is the reality and occurs often—they fear that that intoxicated person is about to enter their home.

I urge members to think seriously about this issue because many of us have parents or grandparents who are in that very situation. Our mum and dad or our grandparents could be the ones who are behind the front door, not knowing what the intoxicated person is doing or intends to do. Intoxicated people are loud and their behaviour is boisterous. Quite often a great deal of environmental noise is created when intoxicated persons tear things apart and kick garbage bins, and the thought enters the minds of elderly people that intoxicated persons are about to come inside their home. We should be mindful that that fear factor is robbing elderly residents in small towns and villages of their quality of life. That type of behaviour is inappropriate and it ought to be addressed whenever possible.

Obviously, if police officers are available they can issue move-on directions and ensure that intoxicated people remove themselves and desist from creating a public nuisance. If the intoxicated person is one of the more marginalised people in our society, they may be able to be placed in a sobering-up centre—if those resources are available. But let us not forget the other side of the story. This bill is not intended to simply create more red tape in the system. This legislation is about addressing the issues raised by aged people who constantly ring in to talkback radio and call for police to do something about unacceptable behaviour. In my view, this legislation addresses the enormous number of calls on the Government by local authorities to address the misbehaviour of intoxicated people. People in our community should be entitled to a safe place in which to work, rest, stay and play. Public safety must be our highest priority.

Mr David Shoebridge: There was public drunkenness legislation in 1978. Those laws did not fix it. There really was public drunkenness legislation in 1978, and these types of laws do not fix the problem. That was when worse public drunkenness occurred.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: This legislation may not be a total solution, but it is certainly part of the solution. The Christian Democratic Party applauds the introduction of this bill as an attempt to address the problems. 3614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

Mr David Shoebridge: There was a substantial incidence of public drunkenness in 1978 when there were harsher laws. They did not fix it, and this legislation will not fix it.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I have already said that this legislation may not be the total solution, but it is part of the solution. I take on board some of the comments that have been made by members opposite. They are very good arguments, and I am not trying to rule them out. But what I am saying is that the spirit of this law is about the misbehaviour of people who are not marginalised people in our society and who are doing the wrong thing. The police know that those people are doing the wrong thing, and those people need to be held to account. In holding them to account, the boundaries must be made very clear.

The message from my community is that enough is enough, and I am sure that is the message that is being sent by many communities right throughout New South Wales. People should not have to become prisoners in their own homes in the late hours of the night. I acknowledge that police are able to demonstrate the exercise of discretion. This legislation will provide maximum flexibility for the police when addressing these issues and enable them to decide whether to detain offenders or release them into the care of others. I am sure police officers will not detain people if that is not necessary, especially when in many areas there are scant facilities in which to detain them.

The Hon. Luke Foley: What will the impact of this legislation be on the Indigenous population in the Shoalhaven?

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: I thank the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Luke Foley, for his interjection because it presages the exact point I was about to make. The police know their precinct and they know people who struggle with intoxication. They know the homeless people and they know people who are around, and the police are not about to give those people a kick in the pants when they know that they need help. That is the point we are trying to reach in our society.

Mr David Shoebridge: They are very intensive. The police are not the best social workers.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: The police know their precinct. I am absolutely confident of the ability of police in the Shoalhaven to show compassion and mercy. It is my experience that they deal with those issues very well, even though we have some significant problems in the area. I know that from personal experience because I speak with them about it as Mayor of the Shoalhaven City Council. Showing compassion and exercising discretion are very important. I assure the House that the police in the Shoalhaven have not locked up every Indigenous person. We know that there are issues right throughout the marginalised sectors of our community, and I know that the police manage those issues really well. While dealing with those issues, we also must try to regain lost ground. This legislation is about reclaiming ground on behalf of our communities and reclaiming community events. The Shoalhaven has alcohol-free zones and alcohol-prohibited zones.

Mr David Shoebridge: That is a good thing.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: That is right. While some of these zones existed before I joined the council, the council has moved to declare approximately 34 parks in the Shoalhaven alcohol free. That was not done in response to an issue about whether or not police had sufficient powers. It was about sending a clear message that our parks are for the enjoyment of the community. We do not want intoxicated persons being around those parks. If they are there, they will have been pre-empted: They will be dealt with and moved on if they are consuming inappropriate quantities of alcohol. Parks are a classic example of areas in which the police will be able to exercise their discretion when people are merely enjoying a chardonnay with their barbecue. In that circumstance, police will not kick people off the park; they will exercise their discretion. I have firm confidence and faith in the ability of officers of our Police Force to exercise that discretion.

Businesses have taken quite a hit from disorderly and drunken behaviour. I already have mentioned broken windows of business premises as an example of misbehaviour caused by intoxication. Most businesses find it very difficult to obtain insurance when the windows of their business premises are constantly being broken as a result of drunken and disorderly conduct. I take on board some of the comments that have been expressed by the Opposition and The Greens in relation to this legislation and acknowledge that this legislation may not be the total solution. But, at the end of the day, the Shoalhaven City Council wants action, and that is what this legislation provides. The Christian Democratic Party believes this legislation represents a great step forward. I commend the bill to the House. 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3615

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [4.26 p.m.]: I oppose the Summary Offences Amendment (Intoxicated and Disorderly Conduct) Bill 2011 for a number of reasons. At the outset I refer to the submission made by the Law Society of New South Wales to the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice, the Hon. Greg Smith, in relation to this bill. The Law Society sent the Minister quite a detailed submission expressing concerns about the offence relating to intoxicated and disorderly behaviour. The Law Society's submission states that the two most concerning aspects of the proposed offence are, firstly, proposed section 9 (1) (b) of the Summary Offences Act 1988, which provides that the offence is committed if "at any time within six hours after the move-on direction is given", the person is intoxicated and disorderly. That construction has the consequence that the person literally commits the offence immediately upon being given the move-on direction and continuing to be drunk and disorderly. People do not sober up within six hours. Even if they are actually complying with the move-on direction, they will still be guilty.

The Law Society's submission also points out that if the person walked away, presumably still intoxicated, and told the police officer what they thought about them, they would commit the offence despite substantively complying with the direction and not committing any other offence. That circumvents the purpose of a move-on power, which is to give a person an opportunity to leave the area before they commit an offence. Secondly, the last words of proposed section 9 (1) (b) provide that the further behaviour can happen in "the same or another public place". The Law Society queries where a homeless, intoxicated, mentally ill person could conceivably go that would enable him or her to avoid committing this offence. The consequence of this legislation's drafting is that homeless people move from one place to another and still commit the offence, although they are substantively complying with the move-on direction given by police.

Another major concern raised by the Law Society is the likelihood of a significant impact of this legislation on Aboriginal people. It is well-known that Aboriginal people are overrepresented in full-time custody. Aboriginal people represent just over 2 per cent of the New South Wales population, yet account for 23 per cent of the New South Wales adult custody population. The two biggest problems with the proposed legislation for the Aboriginal community, beyond increasing the lockup rate, are, firstly, the likelihood of increased tension between particular police and the community, resulting in an increase in the number of offensive language, resisting arrest and assaulting a police offer matters—which are known as trifecta matters— and, secondly, the downstream consequences of potential over-policing of Aboriginal communities.

The more coercive powers given to the police are, the more the police tend to use them. To illustrate that point, I invite members to consider the introduction of capsicum spray and tasers and their increasing use by the police. Powers of the type set out in the legislation increase the potential for arbitrary use and abuse. As earlier Opposition speakers mentioned—

The proposed legislation is contrary to the recommendations of the 'Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody' in relation to arresting, detaining and criminalising people for public drunkenness and, in particular:

Recommendation 79: That, in jurisdictions where drunkenness has not been decriminalised, government should legislate to abolish the offence of public drunkenness.

Recommendation 80: That the abolition of the offences of drunkenness should be accompanied by adequately funded programs to establish and maintain non-custodial facilities for the care and treatment of intoxicated persons.

Recommendation 81: That legislation decriminalising drunkenness should place a statutory duty upon police to consider and utilise alternatives to the detention of intoxicated persons in police cells. Alternatives should include the options of taking the intoxicated person home or to a facility established for the care of intoxicated persons.

Recommendation 85: That:

(a) Police Services should monitor the effect of legislation which decriminalises drunkenness with a view to ensuring that people detained by police officers are not being detained in police cells when they should more appropriately have been taken to alternative places of care;

(b) The effect of such legislation should be monitored to ensure that persons who would otherwise have been apprehended for drunkenness are not, instead, being arrested and charged with other minor offences. Such monitoring should also assess differences in police practices between urban and rural areas; and

(c) The results of such monitoring of the implementation of the decriminalisation of drunkenness should be made public.

The offence of drunk and disorderly was removed from the statute books many years ago and should not be reintroduced.

I fully support those comments from the Law Society of New South Wales. I think they go to the nub of the issue in relation to why this is bad law. I am also opposed to this legislation because it is simply classic O'Farrell 3616 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

Government policy making: they talk tough in opposition and deliver weak results in government. The Coalition said it would "bring back the offence of drunk and disorderly" in its Making Our Streets Safe Again policy before the March election. But the O'Farrell Government's new law will only apply to people given a move-on direction by a police officer. The new bill does not reintroduce the offence of drunk and disorderly. This bill merely tinkers with move-on powers. The only offence in this bill is failing to obey a move-on direction—an offence that already exists. This is a clear breach of an election promise. As recently as 9 May this year the Premier told Parliament:

We intend to put meaning back into the Summary Offences Act. A new offence of drunk and disorderly will include drunk under the influence of alcohol or intoxicated under the influence of drugs.

However, the intoxicated and disorderly conduct bill only allows police to issue $200 fines to people found to be drunk and disorderly in a public place within six hours of being given a move on direction. This bill simply fiddles with currently existing move-on powers by increasing the fine and tweaking the nature of the behaviour that can provoke the issue of a move-on direction. Either the Government has softened these laws because it made a mistake or it never intended to introduce them in the first place and simply wanted to sound tough on dealing with drunks. The Premier talked a big game on law and order prior to the last election and has fallen at the first hurdle. A policy Barry O'Farrell was roaring about in March has turned into a squeak just a few months later.

Now that this lot is in Government it has had to backflip, it has had to break yet another election promise. It is obvious that once they made it to government some brighter minds who are not interested in scoring cheap headlines persuaded the Government to see sense. It is absurd to make public intoxication a criminal offence. As I said earlier, it should be remembered that in 1991 the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommended that public intoxication be decriminalised because of the huge impact it had on the detention of Aboriginal people and consequent deaths in custody. Since that time governments across Australia of all persuasions have taken a better approach by giving police powers to either move on drunk and disorderly persons or release them into the care of organisations such as St Vincent de Paul.

New South Wales already has laws that give police broad powers to detain people who are intoxicated and either behaving in a disorderly manner or likely to cause injury to themselves or others or to damage property. They can be detained in a police station or a declared juvenile detention centre. Intoxicated people can then be released into the care of organisations such as St Vincent de Paul after being picked up by police. These laws provide that such people are to be released once they sober up or released into the care of a responsible person. The new bill does not reintroduce the offence of drunk and disorderly; that is simply a myth. Instead of wasting the Parliament's time by amending the Summary Offences Act with powers that already exist the Government should withdraw this bill and simply admit that it got it wrong.

When the Leader of the Government introduced this bill he talked about drunken people who might be continually shouting throughout the night. I wondered who he was talking about and then I realised it probably explains why the O'Farrell Government makes quite sure that Parliament does not sit after dinner, because it has to manage its quite unruly backbench. But what we really need to look at here is the issue—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: We were going to call it the Peter Black legislation.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I thought it was going to be the Andrew Fraser legislation. This is not just silly legislation that can be put in place to try to comply with some hare-brained election commitment made by the Government. The issues of what happens when drunkenness is criminalised and what happens to Aboriginal people when they are not popular with the local police has to be really considered. Introducing this type of legislation is a green light to people to do what they want to do in terms of persecuting people in the community with whom they do not agree. The Hon. Paul Green raised the concerns of elderly people about public drunkenness that may occur in their areas. It is a simple fact that if one lives near entertainment venues one has to accept the noise and some of the inconvenience that comes from living in centrally located areas. People just have to come to terms with that. I will conclude by quoting a member of the Legislative Assembly on the cognate Summary Offences Bill on 23 April 1979. The member said:

No-one with any sense of compassion or humanity could argue with what is properly called the decriminalisation of public drunkenness. It is high time that criminal sanctions were dispensed with as long as satisfactory procedures are available to take the place of these criminal sanctions.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Who was that person? 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3617

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: The Hon. John Maddison, who was the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General under a Coalition Government in New South Wales from May 1965 to May 1976. That level of commonsense does not exist anymore in this place on the Government benches because Government members just do not care. They do not believe in anything. They believe in anything that will get them a few extra votes. They will trash anybody's rights—whether it is the rights of workers or chipping away at the death and disability pensions of police. That is the Coalition approach. It is a very cheap political stunt to try to vilify and persecute people in our community who have substance problems, people who occasionally are drunk and disorderly in public places.

I note members seeking to make inane interjections from the Government benches. This simply shows how out of touch they are with the general public. They are too busy: they have been too busy during the break running all of their large Liberal Party fundraising benefits with Nick Greiner and other people. They have been doing all of that but if they had been talking to the people in their communities who assist people who have drug and alcohol dependency problems, who have substance abuse problems, they would know that they think this is bad legislation and their actions are appalling. They do not support this measure. I believe that this legislation is bad. It is unnecessary. It does not achieve anything and for that reason it should be opposed.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.40 p.m.]: I support the Summary Offences Amendment (Intoxicated and Disorderly Conduct) Bill 2011. With this bill the Liberal and Nationals Government delivers another promise from the Make Our Streets Safe Again policy. The changes in the Summary Offences Amendment (Intoxicated and Disorderly Conduct) Bill are closely linked to those we made recently to police move-on powers in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act. It is this link that takes the sting out of the scaremongering that The Greens and their friends will try to whip up over this issue.

According to them, police vans, police cells and our prisons will soon be overflowing with the poor, the homeless, the mentally ill, and Aboriginal people, rounded up on the pretext of their being intoxicated and disorderly. This is utter nonsense. This is absolute rubbish. The same reasons were trotted out a few weeks ago when we made a small but important change to police move-on powers. During that debate speakers on this side exhaustively documented the safeguards, the protocols and the accountability mechanisms in place to ensure that police interactions with vulnerable people are careful and respectful. All of those points apply equally in the case of the reforms introduced by this bill.

If further reassurance is needed, this bill provides that the Ombudsman will report to Parliament on how the legislation has been used in the first 12 months. The strongest guard against possible abuse or overuse is that the new offence of being intoxicated and disorderly can only be committed if someone has already received a move-on direction from police up to six hours previously: the person has already been warned and given a chance to leave the area and stop acting like an idiot but has continued or resumed offensive conduct. I would hope that even The Greens might agree that such behaviour deserves a criminal infringement notice. This involves an on-the-spot fine but, as with any such notice, there is always the option to have the matter heard in court and to challenge the police account of events.

The bill also provides that the same act does not constitute both a failure to comply with a move-on direction and intoxicated and disorderly conduct. I do not see how a system could be any fairer. While there is a requirement for a person to have received a move-on direction, it is not necessary that the offending conduct occur within the place they were told to leave. This means that if the police give an intoxicated person a direction to leave Kings Cross and they stagger down to Oxford Street and behave in a disorderly manner there the person still commits the offence, even though they have complied with the direction to move out of Kings Cross. Without this provision police could theoretically be giving move-on directions all night to the same person and never be able to issue an intoxicated and disorderly infringement notice. The move-on direction serves as a warning.

The bill introduces into the Summary Offences Act a definition of "intoxicated" which is the same as that contained in both the Liquor Act and the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act. This is very helpful for police and it means that they have a single standard to apply when using all three Acts, which they will often do when patrolling areas with licensed premises. By contrast, the other element of the new offence, "disorderly conduct", is not defined in the bill. This is not an oversight. Unlike "intoxicated", what constitutes "disorderly conduct" will depend on the circumstances: the place, the time and who else is present. Behaviour and language that are disorderly in a restaurant may not be disorderly in a sports bar. The same principle applies to the offensive conduct provision already found in the Summary Offences Act. The Act has no definition for "offensive." This will depend on the circumstances, prevailing community standards and ultimately determination by the courts. The bill gets the balance right. 3618 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

There is more to come in this Government's response to alcohol-fuelled violence and antisocial behaviour. I hope I speak for all honourable members when I say I look forward to the forthcoming "three strikes and you are out" legislation to deal with repeat offenders, licensed premises and the trial of sobering-up centres in three locations. There is much more to do in respect of alcohol abuse in our society, but this bill represents an important, and hopefully a highly successful, reform. Accordingly, I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [4.46 p.m.]: I hope the Minister can clarify some issues for me in regard to the Summary Offences Amendment (Intoxicated and Disorderly Conduct) Bill 2011. I am concerned that the bill may do the Police Force a disservice. People who have experience with the Summary Offences Act will expect police to arrive at the scene and undertake certain actions. The way I read the bill—this is an issue that has been raised by a number of people—it provides for a move-on direction followed by a six-hour period during which, if the person does not move on, a fine can be issued. It is not clear to me what happens after that point: how the new provision is different from the existing move-on legislation.

I had experience with the previous legislation: my uncle Keith was a returned soldier who had been imprisoned in Changi Prison. He was Aboriginal, he was a boxer, and he was a fairly notorious drinker. Under the previous legislation uncle Keith was constantly picked up by police. The expectation of the community was that the police would arrive and action would occur. I am wondering whether people think this Summary Offences Amendment (Intoxicated and Disorderly Conduct) Bill will function in the same way that the previous legislation functioned. What happens when police turn up and people in the community ask the question: You have been given new powers for people who are drunk and disorderly, what are the police going to do? The response from the police will be to say they will issue a move-on notice. I know that there has been much debate concerning the differences between the proposed bill and the existing Act. I do want to understand how this legislation differs. What is going to be the expectation of the community when the police arrive, and how the police are going to explain the different response to incidents to the community?

What will be the effect of the change to the meaning of "disorderly conduct"? What happens once the person has been asked to move on? The police have six hours within which to issue the fine. What happens at the point after the fine has been issued? What will be the expectation of the community once the police have turned up? At the end of the day it is the police who will be responding to what is happening on the streets and the community's concern about what is happening on the streets. I do agree with my colleagues about the drunk and disorderly legislation. I hope that these days people will recognise the problems of people such as uncle Keith and the possible issue—after having been locked up in Changi prison—that a person may have with someone in uniform. I hope that these days we deal with people who have had horrific experiences a little better. I ask that the Minister clarify these matters in his reply.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.49 p.m.]: I support the Summary Offences Amendment (Intoxicated and Disorderly Conduct) Bill 2011. I congratulate the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and the Attorney General for introducing this important bill. It implements one of the key initiatives of the Making Our Streets Safe Again platform. It is interesting that members from The Greens party jumped up and stated that this bill should never proceed, it goes too far, it is horrific, it is an outrageous bill. On the other hand, members of the Labor Party criticised this Government for introducing a bill that did not go far enough.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: It is weak.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: Yes, they said that it was weak and inappropriate and that it does not fulfil the Government's promise that it would make our streets safer.

The Hon. Adam Searle: That is misleading.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: A number of members of the Labor Party said that. The Hon. Amanda Fazio in the same speech said that the bill was weak, that it did not go far enough, that the Government did not honour its commitment and that it was outrageous, wrong and went too far. I can only conclude that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Attorney General have got it spot on. When The Greens say that a piece of legislation goes too far and the Labor Party says that it does not go far enough, we must have achieved the right balance.

Mr David Shoebridge: Point of order: The honourable member—I think perhaps accidentally—is misrepresenting my position. I commended the Government for the concessions it made between making an 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3619

election commitment and introducing the legislation. I then explicitly disendorsed The Greens from the critique offered by the Labor Party about the changes to the policy that were ultimately introduced. The honourable member is misleading the House.

The ASSISTANT-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: Mr Shoebridge failed to point out that he also went on to criticise the bill and gave examples of where it was inappropriate. If one accepts what he says, he obviously believes that our police officers will do nothing other than arrest people with a disability because they appear to be drunk. I found that comment outrageous.

Mr David Shoebridge: Point of order: The member is now deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I did not make those allegations about the Police Force; I made the allegations about this poorly crafted and poorly thought-out law. I ask the member to withdraw his imputation.

The ASSISTANT-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! The member has been asked to withdraw his imputation.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: No, I will not withdraw, because that is exactly what Mr Shoebridge stated by implication.

The ASSISTANT-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! Is the Hon. John Ajaka interpreting the words of Mr David Shoebridge?

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: Yes, to that effect; and I believe many others will do likewise.

The ASSISTANT-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! It was not an accurate interpretation.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I will abide by your ruling, Mr Assistant-President.

The ASSISTANT-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! I ask the Hon. John Ajaka to withdraw his comments. It was not an accurate repetition of Mr Shoebridge's words.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I am happy to abide by your ruling, Mr Assistant-President. I withdraw. The only departure from the Government's election commitment is that the new offence uses the term "intoxicated and disorderly" rather than "drunk and disorderly". Members opposite fail to understand that for this offence to occur three very specific elements must be satisfied: first, the person must be intoxicated, whether by alcohol or drugs; secondly, the person must be disorderly; and, thirdly and most importantly, the person must have first received a notice to move on—that is, a warning from a police officer—and then disregarded it within six hours. Then, and only then, will the police be empowered to act.

Of course, we must also keep in mind that we have faith in our police officers. We have the best police force in this country, if not the world. Our police officers are well trained and they understand their duties and obligations. They will not arrest and imprison everyone they believe is drunk as soon as they see them. This law is designed to achieve one thing and one thing only, that is, to protect the right of average citizens to go into the streets and venues of Sydney with their family and friends and to enjoy themselves in safety. We should not be subjected to louts who are drunk, intoxicated or disorderly and who refuse to move on when given a lawful direction to do so. We should not have to put up with people who want to ruin things for everyone else and who want to endanger other people. Why should a member of my family be prevented from walking down George Street, which is now apparently unsafe after midnight because it is full of intoxicated and disorderly people who refuse to listen to and obey directions given by the police? That is unacceptable.

I congratulate the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, who in my four plus years in this place has repeatedly spoken about policies that should have been introduced by the previous Government. The Labor Government was too weak to introduce these policies. Members opposite are now saying that the Government has gone too far and also that it has not gone far enough. To those who say we did not go far enough I say: Shame on you. The former Government should have introduced legislation like this years ago when this problem first emerged. For 16 years the previous Government allowed these problems to escalate because it did not take sufficient or appropriate action. By failing to provide our police officers with appropriate resources the 3620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

former Government tied their hands and as a result made their job more difficult. It is not sufficient simply to give police officers a gun, a taser, a bulletproof vest and a badge; they must also be given appropriate legislation under which they can act to undertake their duties. That is imperative and it is what this legislation will achieve.

Only recently I had to go to Wollongong to resolve a conflict involving the relocation of a taxi rank. Members might wonder why a Parliamentary Secretary would be required to speak to Roads and Traffic Authority officers and other stakeholders about relocating a taxi rank. The local police made it clear that the rank had to be relocated because it was opposite a pub that had a long history of problems with intoxicated and disorderly patrons. As soon as the police arrived and asked problematic patrons to move on the patrons said that they were waiting for a taxi and refused to do so. Police were powerless. That will not occur when this legislation is enacted. The police will have the power to give a clear direction and those patrons will be required to move on. They will no longer be able to use the fact that they are waiting for a taxi as an excuse to remain when they clearly intend to continue creating problems.

We often hear tragic stories about innocent families being beaten up by intoxicated and disorderly people on trains and in the streets. That is not the type of society in which we want to live. Members opposite who feel this legislation does not go far enough can be assured that the Government will monitor and review the impact of this legislation. However, I have confidence that giving the police these powers will make our streets safer. Our police officers have better things to do than to arrest disabled people because they appear to be intoxicated. What a sad indictment of members opposite that they honestly believe that will happen.

It is ridiculous for someone to say that a police officer would not be able to tell the difference between someone who may have a disability and someone who is intoxicated and disorderly and refuses to move on. For that reason I am pleased to support this bill. I am pleased to support the police and to provide them with the necessary resources to enable them to do the job that they want and need to do and that we, as a law-abiding society, want them to undertake.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [5.00 p.m.]: I support the Summary Offences Amendment (Intoxicated and Disorderly Conduct) Bill 2011 which has as its objects:

(a) to amend the Summary Offences Act 1988:

(i) to make it an offence for a person who has been given a move on direction by a police officer for being intoxicated and disorderly in a public place to be intoxicated and disorderly in that or another public place at any time within 6 hours after the direction is given, and

(ii) to require the Ombudsman to prepare a report on the operation of, and the issue of any penalty notices in connection with, the offence after the offence has been in operation for 12 months,

(b) to amend the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to allow police to issue move on directions for disorderly behaviour and to detain an intoxicated person otherwise than for the purpose of taking proceedings for an offence,

(c) to amend the Criminal Procedure Regulation 2010 to provide for the issuing of penalty notices in connection with the offence.

If one were to ask police officers from any State or Territory in Australia, from commissioner to probationary constable, what was their biggest challenge, almost invariably they would tell one that it was the violence and antisocial behaviour that came from binge drinking. If one were to ask a similar question of social workers or those who work in hospital emergency departments, such as at the nearby St Vincent's Hospital, inevitably the answer that one would receive would be that alcohol abuse was the prime cause of their concerns and problems. Australians have had a long affair with alcohol that goes back essentially to the start of the colony. No-one would claim that all our problems with public drunkenness stemmed from the abolition of the old drunk and disorderly offence back in the 1970s. At the same time, it is obvious from crime statistics that alcohol-related crime and violence have steadily worsened over recent decades, although I must concede that there has been a small dip over recent years.

This is an Australia-wide problem. I commend the Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency [ANZPAA] for driving the national and indeed trans-Tasman Operation Unite initiative. Operation Unite demonstrates the determination of police to challenge alcohol misuse and associated crime, violence and antisocial behaviour, and to achieve significant change across all jurisdictions. Operation Unite highlights the broader implications associated with alcohol abuse in public locations, including crime and antisocial behaviour, health and injury problems, and the impact on policing public safety and amenity. But tackling this issue is not 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3621

something that police can do alone. As a number of speakers have said in this debate and in debate on the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Amendment (Move On Directions) Bill 2011, a profound change is needed in culture and acceptable standards of behaviour. We, as a community, must take responsibility for this issue and not leave it all to police or to liquor licensees.

Responsible service of alcohol must be matched by responsible consumption. Friends must take responsibility for the behaviour of their mates. Family members must take some responsibility for the drinking habits of their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. Let me say in that regard, as it has been something that has touched my family, I am not talking simply about the effect of alcohol-fuelled violence and disorderly conduct. One of the great tragedies that many of us have witnessed is people with severe alcohol problems losing their lives in motor traffic accidents and motor traffic pedestrian accidents, which happened to my grandfather after consuming too much alcohol, wandering out onto the road and being killed. That is what we are dealing with. We can make all the speeches in the world in this place but we have to accept that this real problem affects us all. It affects our families and it affects us individually. It is worthwhile taking a moment to pause and think because we need to drive down the consumption of alcohol.

We must make the world safer for us all, including those who drink. Sometimes that will involve moderating our own alcohol consumption as a demonstration to us and to other family members, in particular, our children. Even if we do not have a drinking problem we must help those who do and those who are young by showing them that we can stop drinking. Most importantly, it is up to the individual to take responsibility for his or her alcohol intake and his or her behaviour. Only when we recreate acceptable standards of behaviour for ourselves and reinforce personal responsibility will we be able to effect lasting change in patterns of antisocial behaviour, as well as the more hidden costs of alcohol abuse such as family violence and long-term disease.

Personal responsibility and acceptable standards of behaviour are what this bill is about. If one gets tanked and behaves like an offensive idiot in public there will be consequences. These provisions will inform the weekend yobbo, the weekend fool who loads himself up with drink, and those who make life a misery for so many others that being drunk is not an excuse for disorderly conduct. In fact, put them all together and it is a crime. The new regime differs significantly from the old drunk and disorderly offence in that any intoxicated person in a public place will have the chance to avoid a charge or a criminal infringement notice. We all know how the old offence operated. Somebody who was drunk in a public place was tossed into the back of a wagon and taken to the old prison cells. That was one of the fundamental problems with the old legislation.

This legislation is no way similar to the old legislation. Under this new legislation people can simply fix the problem by complying with a police direction to move on: they simply have to leave the area. Only if a person continues or resumes his or her disorderly behaviour within six hours of receiving the warning, he or she can be penalised for committing the new offence. Let us say, for example, that police are called by residents in a small block of units in the early hours of the morning because some drunks are sitting on their front fence, arguing loudly and using offensive language.

The first response of the police would be to direct those people to move somewhere else where they do not disturb people who are trying to sleep. If they refuse to do so the police may charge them with a refusal to obey a move-on direction. If they continue to cause a disturbance they could receive an on-the-spot fine for being intoxicated and disorderly. However, they cannot also be charged with a failure to comply with the move-on direction. The beauty of this legislation is that if, later that night, the police come across the same drunks making a ruckus somewhere else they can be fined under the new offence even though, strictly speaking, they have complied with the earlier move-on direction.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: What, again—after they have already been fined?

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Yes. The fine for this offence is $200. It is not so large as to cause significant hardship but it is large enough to make people think about their actions. In essence, it makes it a very expensive night. As I mentioned earlier, Operation Unite is a fabulous nationwide operation targeting public alcohol abuse. But this high-profile event takes place only two weekends per year, whereas police, ambulance officers, hospital staff, cabbies, bus drivers and all those who work in the late night economy have to deal with drunken violence and abuse all year round.

As parliamentarians we must support these hardworking and generally uncomplaining men and women by passing a bill that at last puts personal responsibility for drinking behaviour in public back onto the statute book. As I have said, after the Act has been in operation for 12 months the bill requires the Ombudsman to 3622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

prepare a report on the operation and the issue of any penalty notices in connection with an offence. No doubt when the Ombudsman's report is laid upon the table of the House we will find that many of the forebodings that The Greens in particular have raised will be shown to have been entirely misplaced. This is a long overdue reform. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. JAN BARHAM [5.10 p.m.]: I speak in debate on the Summary Offences (Intoxicated and Disorderly Conduct) Bill 2011 and state that The Greens oppose the bill. This object of the bill is to give police new powers to move on intoxicated and disorderly persons in public places, but those powers are not needed. The police already have sufficient powers to do that. The bill proposes to reintroduce draconian powers that were removed from the statute book in 1979. We are going backwards. We are ignoring the outcomes of the 2003 Alcohol Summit, which closely looked at the impact of alcohol on society. If the Government and the Opposition, the two major parties, were to stand up to the alcohol industry these sorts of measures might not be necessary. Greater responsibility should be put on those who profit from the sale of alcohol and less responsibility should be put on the police to deal with these issues. At a future stage The Greens will be lobbying for another alcohol summit to see how far we have come in the past eight years and to establish the current situation.

In my regional area I see a lot of problems associated with alcohol misuse and the stress it places on society. I am concerned that the bill is proposing to deal with things that the Ombudsman and others have already investigated. It will have a negative impact on those who are the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our society: our youth, the homeless and Aboriginal people. Whilst it looks good for police to be seen to be cracking down on those intoxicated people causing disturbances on the street, the source of the problem should be looked at. As I have said, those who profit from the sale of alcohol should bear more responsibility. The Government is not standing up to them and by failing to do so it is putting vulnerable people at risk. The Hon. Trevor Khan spoke about individual responsibility and acknowledged that alcohol abuse is a problem. But it is naive not to recognise and support those people who suffer from alcohol-related problems.

Evidence has not been provided to substantiate the necessity for these new powers, or to substantiate that the bill will reduce public drunkenness or levels of alcoholism. What will happen when the Ombudsman's report is laid upon the table of the House in 12 months time? Will this legislation be overturned if it is shown that it has had no impact? Will the Government take real action about what is already known from various reports, including the findings of the Alcohol Summit that action needs to be taken at the source? The Christian Democratic Party and The Greens share common ground on how alcohol has impacted on our social way of life. We believe it should be constrained. Alcohol consumption is open to abuse. It can cause people to take action they would not normally take if they were not under its influence.

The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody found that move-on powers should not be put in place and that their removal in 1979 was appropriate. These types of laws will capture those who are vulnerable and they are the ones that we should be looking after. They should not be put at risk by moving them out of sight when they have upset people in public places. They may be homeless. People with problems need support. This legislation is misplaced. I am concerned also about its regional impact. I have previously raised with the Minister for Police the lack of resources for police in taking on additional responsibilities in regional areas. The money would be better spent on early intervention, placing more control on alcohol distribution and supporting the vulnerable. The Government committed to putting more money into supporting the vulnerable during its recent election campaign which is what it should do rather than introducing this type of legislation.

This week we celebrate National Homeless Persons Week. Homelessness is an ever-increasing problem in our society; it is a difficult problem to deal with. It is ironic that in National Homeless Persons Week we are considering a bill that will impact on those who are most vulnerable. Where are homeless people supposed to move? Are we to provide the facilities to which they should be moved? Often such people are safer on the streets rather than off them. More thought and care should be given to the homeless. Young people are also vulnerable.

In my hometown young people are often out on the streets. They may be a little too loud, as the Hon. Trevor Khan said, but we should stop and reflect on what might be going on in their lives. Why are they out and about late at night? Why are they playing up and being a bit loud? That should be a signal to us that more needs to be done and we are not showing any compassion. Perhaps they are experiencing problems at home or perhaps they are disadvantaged. I intend to make similar comments to these when we are debating the graffiti bill. We have lost the capacity to recognise the signals rather than embarking on law and order control. One appears to be an easier approach than the other but that is not the case in the long term. 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3623

As Mr David Shoebridge said, The Greens are concerned about the unintended consequences of the legislation; in a year's time we will be talking about those unintended consequences. The benefits from going hard and looking tough will be lost when we realise that unintended consequences are impacting on those most vulnerable people in our community. New South Wales incarcerates a higher percentage of Aboriginal people than it did when the royal commission was held, and that includes juveniles. The number of prisoners in New South Wales has increased by 30 per cent since 2009 and the percentage of Indigenous prisoners has increased from 14 per cent to 21 per cent over the past decade or so.

A recent report by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research found that the increase in Aboriginal incarceration was due to tougher sentencing and bail conditions, not increased offending. That has been sourced from the Parliamentary Library's regional profiles. Significantly more investment in diversionary and rehabilitation programs is needed if New South Wales is to reduce its imprisonment rate and reduce reoffending. As I said, one implication of the bill is that homeless people who are moved on will still be guilty of an offence if they are found in another public place within six hours. So where will they go? If the Government introduces such measures it should ensure that it has back-up provisions in place. We are not seeing a bill to establish homeless centres, and no legislation or budget is being created to ensure that we deal with the consequences for those who will be most affected.

I am sure the Daily Telegraph will love it: The Government is moving people on and getting rid of disadvantaged people from the streets. I imagine that the legislation will be hailed in certain publications. However, we will see the consequences in a year's time. Although the penalty is a fine, low-income people are unable to pay a fine. They may have other unpaid fines, which can eventually result in detention. Aboriginal people are likely to be disproportionately imprisoned as a result of not paying a fine, and many poor people in our society may be disadvantaged. Will police move on people who have other health problems or vulnerabilities? Those concerns have not been addressed and there is insufficient justification for this bill.

In light of the reasons given by The Greens—I am being generous here; I am talking about unintended consequences that may arise—the Government has not justified the introduction of this legislation. However, I am sure that in a year's time the Ombudsman will report that the vulnerable, Aboriginal people, the homeless and youths have been captured by the legislation. If the Government does not make significant moves to address those disadvantaged groups it will be a shame on this House that we are passing legislation that will impact on the young, Aboriginal people, the homeless and others who are already disadvantaged, instead of standing up to the alcohol industry, which is the source of the problem.

The Hon. Trevor Khan is back in the Chamber. Earlier I referred to his comments about individual responsibility. My response is that we should stand up for what we know to be true about the alcohol industry and make it more responsible. That is what we should be doing. We had the Alcohol Summit and we know what we should do. However, everyone has walked away from the strong recommendations of the Alcohol Summit. I have worked closely with the police in my area, where we have a considerable problem. Many people from southern Queensland travel to our lovely tourist town, which has many late-night venues, and continue drinking and having a great time until about 3 o'clock in the morning. Sometimes they cause trouble.

Why should we put more pressure on police? We should take the strong move and stand up to the alcohol industry. The Government should make mandatory some of the recommendations from the Alcohol Summit. I would be thrilled if I could stand in this Chamber one day and say that I was proud to be here and to see strong action on real and existing problems. We should not simply continue to pass legislation that will have an impact on the most disadvantaged people in society. We need to support the police who do a tough job in these areas. I cannot support the bill. Hopefully, we can improve the bill in some way with our amendments. I am disappointed that the bill is an inappropriate response to a serious issue, without strong action.

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD [5.25 p.m.]: I support the Summary Offences Amendment (Intoxicated and Disorderly Conduct) Bill 2011. This bill is important. It is yet another bill that delivers on a Coalition election promise. It is important also for regional New South Wales. Regional New South Wales is not immune to some of the excesses that we see from time to time. Arguably, regional New South Wales is more reliant on an entertainment and socialising industry, but families need to feel safe. People who live on the coast or in regional New South Wales would like to think that people feel safe not only in George Street but also in Peel Street, Bradley Street and other fine streets in the regions.

[Interruption]

I acknowledge all those interjections. 3624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

Dr John Kaye: You can't do that. You have to do them individually.

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD: I must acknowledge them individually.

Dr John Kaye: You must have plenary acknowledgement.

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD: I think I am building support. The Hon. Jan Barham referred to compassion. I believe the bill delivers on that. I have not been in this place long but I have been close to politics for some time. I well remember that 1999, 2001, 2004 and 2007 were characterised by law and order auctions. Both sides were at fault, and it was not a pretty sight. It was a race to mandatory sentencing and to look tough. It was not particularly befitting of either party. In 2007 we had the election of an Attorney General who I believe will be remembered as one of the best Attorney Generals because he was quick to put a lid on the law and order auction, to speak of compassion and to keep people out of what he calls "the university of crime", which is our justice system.

This bill delivers what the Coalition said it would do before the election, that is, give police extra powers but keep them balanced. It was not a law and order auction. To characterise these provisions as an abuse of police powers is doing a disservice to our Attorney General and to the bill. I draw the attention of members to some provisions in the bill. Having listened to the speeches, I wonder whether members opposite have read the bill. Item 2.2 [1] in schedule 2 provides an additional ground on which a police officer may make a move-on direction, that is, if the police officer believes on reasonable grounds that the intoxicated person's behaviour is disorderly. Item 2.2 [3] requires the police officer who gives a move-on direction to a person on the grounds that the person is intoxicated and disorderly in a public place to warn the person that it is an offence to be intoxicated and disorderly in that or any other public place at any time within six hours.

In other words, police must give the person clear verbal directions about what he or she is being cautioned against. Item 2.2 [4] provides that police officers can continue to detain intoxicated persons under that part for the purposes of their care and safety. In schedule 1item [2], new section 9 (3) states:

In proceedings for an offence against this section, it is necessary to prove that a move on direction was given within 6 hours before the person was found to be intoxicated and disorderly in a public place, but it is not necessary to prove that the person contravened the move on direction by being so intoxicated and disorderly in the public place at the time concerned.

New section 9 (5) states:

It is sufficient defence to a prosecution for an offence under this section if the defendant satisfies the court that the defendant had a reasonable excuse for conducting himself or herself in the manner alleged in the information for the offence.

Considering the current state of our society, magistrates probably will use those provisions as and when they need to. This is not lock 'em up and throw 'em away legislation. The other balancing provisions of the legislation relate to the reports that will be made by the Ombudsman. As I said earlier, our Attorney General always includes balancing components in legislation he introduces. The bill requires the Ombudsman to report to Parliament on the efficacy of the laws. The fact that this legislation will be the subject of a report to Parliament will have a moderating effect on implementation by the police. Although it may be a year before the report is presented, that provision will be in the back of every police officer's mind. I conclude my brief comments on the bill by confirming on behalf of many country communities my support for the bill. It strikes a fair balance and delivers on yet another campaign promise.

Dr JOHN KAYE [5.31 p.m.]: I will briefly endorse the comments made by my colleagues the Hon. Jan Barham and Mr David Shoebridge in what can only be described as extremely coherent analyses of this legislation that exposed the problems it will pose for our State's most vulnerable people—our Aboriginal people, our young people, people with mental health issues and our homeless people. They are the four most disadvantaged categories of people in New South Wales and they are the categories of people that will fall foul of this legislation. They will end up being entangled unnecessarily in the criminal justice system in a manner that will compromise their capacity to escape from it. Inevitably that will lead in many instances to their being jailed, which in turn creates all the problems associated with being in jail. It is well understood that one of the primary objectives of legislation must be to keep as many people as possible out of jail, particularly young people. Once somebody has been in jail, it is very difficult to rehabilitate them.

As the Hon. Jan Barham so eloquently stated, this legislation plays out well with shock jockery because it brings the issue to the radio where it can be glossed up and be made to sound as though it will make 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3625

households safer. The problem is that this legislation will not make people safer. All it will do is increase the criminalisation of people who do not need to be criminalised and increase the number of people who end up in the university of crime—our jails. It reintroduces an offence that disappeared a long time ago in New South Wales, the offence of being drunk and disorderly. The offence disappeared because it was recognised that the incidence disproportionately fell upon people who spend their time in the public domain and who consume alcohol in the public domain. The repealed offence of being drunk and disorderly was characterised by over-representation by the four categories of people I have mentioned.

This legislation purports to strengthen the existing move-on powers of police. It will create enormous discretionary power for the police and places police in a position in which they can exert enormous control over people who are entertaining themselves on the street. That is not good for police corruption, community relations, or for the police per se. In the long run, it really will not work for the police or for community safety. Polling of the three sobering-up centres generated good election coverage. I congratulate the Government on the election mileage it derived out of the sobering-up centres. It was good stuff. However, the problem is that no evidence has been produced to support assertions about the effectiveness of sobering-up centres. It will be interesting to see how the Government will staff sobering-up centres. Who wants to work there? The other issue is whether it makes a lot of sense to create centres in which a lot of people who are intoxicated are aggregated. Is it sensible public policy to put people who are basically drunk in one location?

The effect of the legislation will be that people who do not obey a move-on directive will receive an on-the-spot fine of up to $200. Although it can be argued that they will not end up in jail, we know a large number of those who receive fines will not be able to pay them or will have difficulty in paying them. In that event, orders will be made against them for payment. Then the matter will escalate through the criminal justice system and result in the offenders being jailed, particularly if the offender has moved house and the penalty notices do not reach them or there is no way of effecting service of the penalty notice.

The other major concern that has been publicly expressed about this legislation is the way in which it violates three of the key recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. The commission recommended that in jurisdictions in which drunkenness has not been decriminalised, governments should legislate to abolish the offence of public drunkenness. We have decriminalised public drunkenness, but by this legislation we will be re-criminalising it. This legislation is simply contrary to the recommendations made by the royal commission that were designed to reduce the incidence of Aboriginal deaths in custody and address the appalling overrepresentation in New South Wales of Aboriginal people in full-time custody. Twenty-three per cent of the New South Wales adult Aboriginal population is in custody despite Aboriginal people representing only 2 per cent of the New South Wales population. Aborigines are almost 12 times overrepresented in the criminal justice system.

Creating laws that inevitably will fall on the shoulders of people who are homeless, people who suffer mental illness, people who are of Aboriginal background, young people, and people who are otherwise alienated from society is simply bad public policy. We should be working hard to find alternative activities, alternative housing options as well as better treatments and outcomes for those individuals, but instead we will criminalise their behaviour by this legislation. Nobody likes to be confronted with a drunken person. It happens to me occasionally and I am sure to all of us from time to time. It is not a pleasant experience and it often leads to uncomfortable and dangerous situations. Addressing public drunkenness is an important outcome.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: It is not drunkenness. It is disorderliness, and drunkenness is a constituent component of that.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Addressing public drunkenness that leads to disorderly behaviour is an important public policy objective. This bill reintroduces the offence of being drunk and disorderly, and being drunk is a component of being disorderly. But the key point that must be borne in mind is that we have a responsibility to prevent people from becoming intoxicated in the first place. As the Hon. Jan Barham stated earlier, legislation should get tough with publicans who continue to serve intoxicated individuals. We must find sensible ways of addressing that issue. The Greens have acknowledged on the record the need to enforce section 61 of the Liquor Act, which prohibits the sale of alcohol to people who are intoxicated.

It has a functional definition of "intoxication". It is an entirely workable section of the Act. The Act requires publicans to train their staff in the responsible service of alcohol and to ensure that their staff practise the responsible service of alcohol. If publicans were abiding by the law we would not have this problem. The issue needs to be taken back to the publicans in a functional way that works. The legislation as it stands will do little to make people safer; it will only criminalise people who should not be criminalised. 3626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

It is a very easy law and order agenda for the Government. It is a very easy agenda which states, "Okay, we can get this onto Alan Jones, John Laws—who is back on 2SM—and out there with the other shock jocks who will love it. They will feel that is good." It may work for the Government electorally, but it will not serve the cause of the people of New South Wales. It will create a less just and less secure society. I express my disappointment at the public language of the shadow Attorney General, Paul Lynch, a man for whom I have a lot of admiration and whose liberal attitudes—

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: He is left wing.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Left and proud, mate.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I acknowledge both interjections. I am sure Mr Lynch, like me, will be proud of being a member of the Left. He has left-wing attitudes.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: The Ferguson Left or the Albanese Left? He said he was on the Left.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I assure the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps I am not on the Albanese Left or on the Ferguson Left; I can promise him that. As I said, I have a lot of admiration for Mr Lynch, who generally says sensible things. However, on 20 July he told the Sydney Morning Herald that he did not think the bill reintroduced the offence of "drunk and disorderly". He said:

This bill merely tinkers with move-on powers. The only offence in this bill is failing to obey a move-on directive, an offence that already exists. This is a clear breach of an election promise.

It is fine to criticise the Government, but does Mr Lynch really want the full gamut of what the Coalition promises?

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: He did not say that.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Why did he say, "This is a clear breach of an election promise"?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: He said we are not strong enough.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Effectively, Mr Lynch is implying that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services is not strong enough in cracking down on people. I will read the quote again—

[Interruption]

No, I am not being wilfully obtuse. He said:

This bill merely tinkers with move-on powers. The only offence in this bill is failing to obey a move-on directive, an offence that already exists. This is a clear breach of an election promise.

He wants the Coalition to live up to an election promise and to be tougher. As the Minister for Police and Emergency Services will attest, whenever I draw attention to the numerous breaches of election promises I always do so with the objective of trying to make the Government less tough on law and order, to make it less tough on people who do not deserve to be punished and to make it better on the environment. I am always looking for better behaviour.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: Dr John Kaye should not mislead the House and deliberately misquote a member of the Legislative Assembly. The member clearly said, "I am not unhappy that the Government has not—

The PRESIDENT: Order! That is not a point of order. The Hon. Lynda Voltz will resume her seat.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I only read what was printed in the Sydney Morning Herald, which is greatly disappointing from a man for whom I have respect. Sight unseen, to correct the record I will read what the Hon. Lynda Voltz has handed me. Hansard of 22 July states:

This bill does not introduce a new category of offences called "drunk and disorderly". What it does is fiddle with the existing move-on powers under section 198 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act [LEPRA] by increasing the fine and tweaking the nature of the behaviour that can provoke the issue of a move-on direction.

4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3627

This is the bit to which my attention has been drawn:

I am not unhappy that the Government has not introduced the offence of being drunk and disorderly.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: So you are happy.

Dr JOHN KAYE: So he is happy that the Government has not introduced the offence. In fairness to the shadow Minister, I will continue the quote—

It [the offence of being drunk and disorderly] was a stupid and bad policy flying in the face of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, although it is certainly a broken election promise.

He is having an each-way bet. I take it that he is not happy with it. I refer to the briefing from the Government, which states at point 2:

In the lead up to the 2011 election the Coalition Government made three commitments relating to anti-social behaviour in entertainment hubs, reintroducing an offence of drunk and disorderly conduct.

I ask the Minister to state in his speech in reply whether he does or does not reintroduce it. As I read it, the legislation creates an offence of being drunk and disorderly that previously does not exist.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: It doesn't.

Dr JOHN KAYE: It is very unfortunate that the Government's briefing document says that it does. It does not.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: I will explain that shortly.

Dr JOHN KAYE: You can tell me now. Does it or does it not?

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Interjections are disorderly.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Unfortunately, hypocrisy is not disorderly, which is a great shame because it should be.

Mr David Shoebridge: It is only rank hypocrisy.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Rank hypocrisy—so minor acts of hypocrisy are not disorderly. I return to the substance of the legislation because it is a serious matter, a matter of grave concern to the Law Society, to those who have worked with Aboriginal communities, homeless people, young people and people with mental health issues who recognise that this legislation will inevitably focus on them. Whether the changes do or do not fulfil an election promise, and I do not care—

The Hon. Trevor Khan: Look at the Act. It does not create the offence that you assert.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The Hon. Trevor Khan he has just called Greg Smith, his Attorney General, a liar. Greg Smith's document states, "reintroducing an offence of drunk and disorderly conduct".

The Hon. Trevor Khan: Read the Act.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: That is what Greg Smith set out.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I am advising what Greg Smith set out; I am not saying he is right.

Mr David Shoebridge: Quit while you are behind.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Yes. The point is that this legislation makes it clear that people who are already facing a tough time will face a tougher time. It gives too much discretionary power to the police. It does major violence to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. It is legislation that inevitably will end up with more incarceration for those people who should not be incarcerated. The Greens oppose the legislation. 3628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.50 p.m.]: I shall speak briefly in debate on the Summary Offences Amendment (Intoxicated and Disorderly Conduct) Bill 2011. My colleague the Hon. Paul Green has already covered the main points of the legislation and indicated the complete support of the Christian Democratic Party for the bill. This bill, which will amend the Summary Offences Act 1988 and other legislation, will give effect to the Government's election commitment to introduce an offence of intoxicated and disorderly conduct as part of giving the police the powers to move people on. Most of the critics of the legislation, particularly The Greens, have a great suspicion about the conduct of the New South Wales Police Force. They suggest that the police will abuse their powers. I reject those allegations.

As other members who support the bill have said, the New South Wales Police Force is the finest in the world. We have an excellent Commissioner of Police, Andrew Scipione. The culture of the New South Wales Police Force has completely changed. It has been said that in the past police lacked compassion and so on. However, compassion, ethics and other similar matters are now part of their training to more closely represent the concerns of the community. Police would not abuse their powers; they would exercise them with compassion.

Finally, I have a great memory of the activities of the Hon. Frank Walker, the Labor Government's Attorney General in the 1970s. I crossed swords with him many times. I hardly ever agreed with anything that he did. One of his big philosophical issues was what he called "victimless crimes"—that is where this concept came from, the previous Labor Government. He talked about victimless crimes. He conducted seminars to try to convince people that offences such as drunkenness, drug use, swearing and prostitution had no victims. However, when one analyses each issue on its own one finds that there are victims, including the individuals involved in the activity, whether they be a prostitute, a drug addict and so on. I campaigned strongly against those policies. There were many counter-forums for the Hon. Frank Walker's policies. However, the then Labor Government had the numbers to ram those policies through both Houses of Parliament.

Recently we have had a debate about the length of speeches and the conduct of the House. When Neville Wran was Premier, Government members would say to me, "There is no point moving amendments; the policy is not to accept any amendments." I moved one amendment deliberately: That this House supports the United Nations Human Rights Convention. They even opposed that; they said, "We don't support amendments." However, this Government is far more rational and fair. I am pleased to support the bill.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.52 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to the debate—whether I agree with their contributions is neither here nor there. A number of members took the opportunity to speak in debate on the bill.

The Hon. Adam Searle: A rich tapestry of democracy.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: As I am reminded, there is a rich tapestry of democracy in this place. However, I was saddened by some of the comments made during the debate. For example, the Hon. Amanda Fazio, in a shoddy and shabby way, made quite significant comments about unacceptable, unethical and indeed improper conduct by police when she referred to their misusing this legislation. It saddens me because only a few months ago she was a member of a Government that protested loud and clear to those who criticised police that New South Wales has the best police in the country and, arguably, the best police in the world.

A number of Opposition members made similar contributions, but none so pointed or strident as that of the Hon. Amanda Fazio. She said that this legislation would be abused by members of the New South Wales Police Force. Members of The Greens are predictable and true to form. They have never shifted their view in regard to the police, so we come to expect that of them. However, it was disappointing to hear such comments from a member of the Opposition who only a few short months ago was a member of the Government. It is sad as her comments reflect on a dark period in our history with respect to how we dealt with people in custody, irrespective of whether or not they were Aboriginal.

We have accepted that police practice was improper in some instances in the past. The royal commission showed that, as did various inquiries conducted over the years. Not once has an Opposition member when criticising this legislation been prepared to stand up and say, in fairness, the practices of 1970 and earlier are gone and the practices of the 1980s are gone. Police stations are now full of closed-circuit television cameras. They record the conduct of police dealing with prisoners, witnesses, victims and their colleagues. 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3629

Opposition members have not recognised that. They have not recognised that police training has changed dramatically. Levels of professionalism that would never have been considered in the 1970s and 1980s are now commonplace in New South Wales and, indeed, around the country. New South Wales is leading the way.

During the debate we heard about the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the tragic events, particularly in country areas of New South Wales, that had a devastating effect on the community and the family involved. However, Opposition members made no mention of the devastation it caused members of the New South Wales Police Force who were confronted with going to a cell and finding a person who had committed suicide. While it continues to happen, steps have been taken to provide custody officers in police stations. They look after people while they are in custody. There is also video surveillance of the dock and cell areas.

I have lost count of the number of cell complexes in New South Wales that have been condemned or deemed no longer suitable to hold prisoners of any kind because there are too many hanging points or too many opportunities for people to self-harm. Those cells are now used for storage. Opposition members did not recognise the innovation and the capital that has been invested by successive governments, both Labor and Liberal, to ensure that a custody situation is as safe as possible. We ensure that it is safe for the police and the person in custody. The community must be confident that the appropriate steps are being taken. There was no recognition of that from Opposition members. It saddens me when Opposition members make cheap shots suggesting that the bad practices of the 1970s and 1980s, and before, are somehow still at play in New South Wales.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke about the need for an enlightened view. Opposition members criticised us one minute for being too tough, for being draconian. They said that there would be an abuse of power, a police State. In the next breath we were told we were not going hard enough, that we have somehow stepped back from the commitment we gave the public and the police in New South Wales. This legislation is part of a process to make our streets safer—safer for police, safer for people who are intoxicated, safer for people who are merely moving around a city or a town, and safer for people going about their business with a hope of being free from abuse and most certainly free from violence.

This legislation is about giving police officers appropriate powers. Members talked about the old days. They probably do not know that in the old days people were thrown straight into the cells and no questions were asked. If there was a question about the colour of a person's skin or if they spoke disrespectfully to a police officer they were thrown in. Of course, we now have police officers who report the conduct of other officers that they believe is inappropriate. That happens more often now than ever before. We should be heralding the changing culture in the Police Force and the fact that officers no longer turn a blind eye to unacceptable behaviour. I am not referring to reports of violence but of officers inappropriately using police resources—for example, the unauthorised use of a police vehicle. There has been no recognition of that, of the improved training that police officers receive, of the cultural change, or of police officers working harder than they have before to build a relationship with Aboriginal communities.

Instead of members talking about Redfern and telling us about what they may have heard, they should go to Redfern and spend time with Chief Superintendent Luke Freudenstein to see how he is embraced by the local Aboriginal community. That community pleaded with me only a few short weeks ago not to let him go. Chief Superintendent Freudenstein goes to Redfern oval on a Sunday—in his own time—to meet and walk with Aboriginal elders. That was unheard of in the 1970s and 1980s. It would not have happened in New South Wales or anywhere else in those days. We have come a long way, but no-one is prepared to acknowledge that.

Members talk about shelter and faith-based support but they do not mention what happens when a person is violent and does not want to stay in facilities such as those referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. As the Hon. John Ajaka and the Hon. Trevor Khan said, this Government recognises that intoxication is a social issue. We must look at how we can help those who are entrusted with our safety and the safety of those affected by drugs or alcohol. We must provide our police officers with the necessary tools to fix the problem. Members opposite have not acknowledged the three-part test covering, first, intoxication—in the old days it was simply drunkenness—secondly, disorderly conduct and, thirdly, refusing a lawful direction issued by a police officer to leave the scene. Members opposite do not want that getting in the way of a good story. They want the public to believe that we are returning to the bad old days.

I have a great deal of time for the Hon. Jan Barham. She enunciated her strong support for her local police officers and then suggested that this legislation would result in victimisation of the homeless and the 3630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

disadvantaged. By whom? By the very the same police officers she had just congratulated for their work. She cannot have it both ways. Members talked about the 1970s. The type and availability of both alcohol and drugs have changed since 1970. The demographic of those who drink alcohol and take drugs has also changed. The opening hours of many licensed establishments have also been extended and entertainment areas—particularly in Sydney—have changed and increased in number, size and density. The increase in the incidence of alcohol-related violence by 2009 led the Coalition to promise to introduce this reform and it was elected on that reform platform.

The offence in this bill is also different from the old offence. Dr John Kaye raised this issue. The old offence simply made it an offence to be drunk and disorderly. The offence in this bill requires police officers to give people a clear warning that their behaviour is unacceptable before proceeding against them. In other words, we are not the fun police; police officers will approach people who have drawn attention to themselves and will issue a lawful move-on direction. The previous Government introduced that measure, but it did so bureaucratically and the direction could be issued only to three or more people. That provision has been simplified in this bill by allowing a direction to be issued to one or more people. If a police officer issues such a direction it is up to the person concerned to decide what to do next. In other words, a police officer will initially ask a person to move on because that person is drunk and disorderly. The person will be warned that failing to comply with the direction may be an offence and that to be intoxicated or disorderly in that or any other public place in the next six hours will also be an offence.

The shadow Attorney General said that the police would let these people roam the streets for six hours. Either he cannot read legislation or he was misrepresenting the bill. This bill is very clear: people are warned to leave and told that they must not return within six hours. If they return to the area intoxicated and continue to be disorderly they will be deemed to have breached the law. If a person quietens down and obeys the direction to move on that is the end of the matter. If a person continues to act in a disorderly manner police officers will have the option of issuing a criminal infringement notice or a court attendance notice. Members should note the difference: the criminal infringement notice is issued on the spot on the street. It does not take the cop off the street and it does not mean that the person is taken to the police station. Of course, if the person continues to disobey the direction police officers can also issue a court attendance notice, which allows the police officer to remove the risk—the risk to themselves, to the individual or to other members of the public. I stress that if a person initially ceases the disorderly behaviour but is later found to be intoxicated and disorderly in that or any other public place that person may be issued with a criminal infringement notice or a court attendance notice.

Members' references to beating up people in the street are malicious. Mention has also been made of the Law Reform Commission and the Ombudsman. The Government has publicly stated that this new policy is not aimed at vulnerable members of society, and that remains the case. The bill contains safeguards such as ensuring that a move-on direction has been issued, that it is reasonable in the circumstances given the conduct and that the behaviour must be without reasonable excuse. The Police Force will develop written directions to guide officers in the appropriate use of move-on directions and offence provisions. It will be clear that the offence is directed at antisocial behaviour at night in entertainment hubs. Of course, if intoxicated and disorderly behaviour that is sufficiently serious to warrant intervention by police officers occurs at other times and in other places police officers will still be able to use the powers if appropriate. However, they are intended for use in circumstances as outlined by the Coalition during the election campaign. It has been suggested that this policy was part of the law and order auction that sprang up and that everyone was caught by surprise. I have probably been talking about this problem in this place for nearly 10 years.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You have.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I think I talked about it when I was a backbencher.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You were talking about a lot of things when you were a backbencher.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I know, and they have all come to pass. This is not some last-minute decision; the Coalition has been talking about this issue for some time. The bill also requires the Ombudsman to prepare a report about the new offence and the use of criminal infringement notices 12 months after the enactment of this legislation. That report is to be laid before both Houses of Parliament and it will provide a transparent view of the operation of this legislation and its impact, if any, on vulnerable members of our community. I will not labour the point. I am pleased that we have had an opportunity to have a full debate over the course of the day and I look forward to participating in the Committee stage before this matter is finalised. 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3631

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 19

Mr Ajaka Mr Gay Reverend Nile Mr Blair Mr Green Mrs Pavey Mr Clarke Mr Khan Mr Pearce Ms Cusack Mr MacDonald Ms Ficarra Mrs Maclaren-Jones Tellers, Mr Gallacher Mr Mason-Cox Mr Colless Miss Gardiner Mrs Mitchell Dr Phelps

Noes, 18

Ms Barham Mr Primrose Ms Westwood Mr Buckingham Mr Roozendaal Mr Whan Mr Donnelly Mr Searle Ms Faehrmann Mr Secord Mr Foley Ms Sharpe Tellers, Dr Kaye Mr Shoebridge Ms Fazio Mr Moselmane Mr Veitch Ms Voltz

Pair

Mr Lynn Ms Cotsis

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [6.20 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 1 to 5 in globo on sheet C2011-64A:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [2], lines 13–14. Omit "at any time within 6 hours after the move on direction is given". Insert instead "during the compliance period for the move on direction".

No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1 [2], lines 28–29. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead "public place during the compliance period for the move on direction".

No. 3 Page 3, schedule 1 [2]. Insert after line 29:

(3) The compliance period for a move on direction is the period starting after the person has been given a reasonable time to comply with the move on direction and ending 6 hours after the move on direction is given.

No. 4 Page 3, schedule 1 [2], line 33. Insert "and that a reasonable time was given to comply with the direction" after "place".

No. 5 Page 6, schedule 2.2 [3], lines 29–31. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead "that or any other public place during the compliance period for the move on direction (within the meaning of section 9 of the Summary Offences Act 1988)."

These amendments propose to deal with what appears to be a substantial practical problem in the operation of section 9 of the bill. I read a position paper by the Law Society of New South Wales, which describes the problem in a pithy fashion:

1. Proposed section 9 (1) (b) of the Summary Offences Act 1988 provides that the offence is committed if "at any time within six hours after the move on direction is given", the person is intoxicated and disorderly. That construction has the consequence that the person literally commits the offence immediately upon being given the move on direction and 3632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

continuing to be drunk and disorderly, even if they are actually complying with the move on direction. For instance, if the person walked away, presumably still intoxicated, and told the police officer what they thought about them, they would commit the offence despite substantively complying with the direction and not committing any other offence. This circumvents the purpose of a move on power which is to give a person an opportunity to leave the area before they commit an offence.

2. The last words of proposed section 9 (1) (b) provide that the further behaviour can happen in "the same or another public place". The Committees queries where a homeless, intoxicated, mentally ill person could conceivably go that would enable them to avoid committing this offence. The consequence of this drafting is that a homeless person moves from one place to another and still commits the offence, although they are substantively complying with the direction.

Greens amendments Nos 1 to 5 seek to deal with that very issue. They would amend page 3, schedule 1 [2], lines 13 to14 by omitting the phrase that currently appears in section 9 (1) (b), "at any time within 6 hours after the move on direction is given", and replacing it with the phrase "during the compliance period for the move on direction". A similar amendment is made in lines 28 to 29, which is in the notation. A new definition of "compliance period" is inserted into the bill as new subsection (3) as follows:

(3) The compliance period for a move on direction is the period starting after the person has been given a reasonable time to comply with the move on direction and ending 6 hours after the move on direction is given.

In other words, it gives the person who has been issued with a move on direction a reasonable time to comply with that direction before they are susceptible to having their conduct criminalised by this new provision. Take, for example, when a young male person is bailed up by police and he is carrying on like a pork chop. A police officer may say to that young person, "Stop what you are doing. You are drunk and disorderly. I am directing you to move on. You are to move 600 metres away. Move out of this street." With an intoxicated person that can often be a confronting situation. If that person is substantively complying with that direction and moving off but as they move off they yell out or remonstrate surely that conduct should not be criminalised.

Someone who is substantively complying with a move on direction should be given reasonable time to comply with the move-on direction before they are susceptible to having any further conduct defined as criminal for the purposes of this bill. These amendments try to prevent what appears to be an unintended consequence of the bill by allowing for the immediate criminalisation of that conduct. These amendments will go some way towards lessening the unintended consequences of the bill. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [6.25 p.m.]: The Greens amendments would mean that the offence would only be committed if the intoxicated and disorderly conduct occurs during a compliance period, which would be a period of six hours commencing after police have allowed a reasonable time for the person to comply with the move on direction. The proposed amendments do not identify what a reasonable time to comply with the direction is. The offence provision as it stands implicitly allows for police to provide a reasonable time to comply with a direction before proceeding against a person. These amendments only add an unnecessary layer of complexity.

Police develop standard operating procedures and other written directions governing the implementation of any offence. Such written directions will guide police on the appropriate and reasonable use of the move-on direction and the offence provision. Those standard procedures, in written form, will be scrutinised by the Ombudsman. What is a reasonable time to comply depends on the circumstances in which the intoxicated and disorderly behaviour occurs. Every situation is different and every situation requires a different response. In some circumstances a reasonable time might be very short and in others it might be very long.

The police who respond to the intoxicated and disorderly behaviour on the scene will have to determine what, in the circumstances, a reasonable time requirement is in order to allow a person to comply with the direction. It is best left to police discretion, in conjunction with written directions, to determine what a reasonable time requirement is before proceeding with the offence. There is no necessity for an additional element of reasonable time to be explicitly added to the offence provision. By making it an element of the offence rather than a matter of discretion it will be another matter that will have to be proved in any prosecution that is brought for the offence, thereby adding to the complexity of those proceedings.

Under section 199 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002—failure to comply with a direction—the present offence does not have any reasonable time requirement attached to it. I restate that point. The legislation of the previous Government, now Opposition, does not have any reasonable time requirement attached to it. I suggest that the Opposition will be supporting the Government on this occasion as we have used its own legislation as the foundation upon which the move on direction provisions are built into the legislation. Police have been using this offence provision since 2002—eight years. They are well 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3633

experienced at determining what a reasonable time for compliance with a direction in the field is before proceeding with an offence. Police are very experienced in dealing with people in intoxicated situations and use their discretion based on that experience to respond appropriately and reasonably in the circumstances. I again make the plea to the Opposition: Do not vote down a bill built on the foundation of your own legislation.

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

The House continued to sit.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.30 p.m.]: Much as it pains me to disappoint the Minister, I indicate that the Opposition will be supporting the Greens amendments. I do not think the Minister intended this, but an unintended consequence of the legislation will be that the gateway to the imposition of the higher penalty will occur immediately upon the move-on direction being given. I accept that that may not be the intention, but that will be the effect and it needs to be remedied. If the Government does not like the Greens amendments to effect that change, obviously we would be happy to entertain any other formulation. I understand that the Government is not putting anything forward.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: We're pretty relaxed with what we've got.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: I assumed that.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [6.31 p.m.]: I take issue with two comments made by the Minister. First, he said that there is an implied issue about reasonable time in the bill. That is a courageous interpretation of the legislation, which does not contain a reference to "reasonable time". Secondly, the Minister and the Government claim that the power will be used only in entertainment areas and that we should rely on police standard operating procedures to ensure that it will not be used in areas where it will impact on vulnerable people. It is a betrayal of our job as legislators if we do not enact laws that include the particular strictures with which we want those who interpret and use the law to comply. If the Government is serious about giving people a reasonable time within which to comply with a direction before they are susceptible to being charged with a drunk and disorderly offence, it should be contained in the law.

It should not be relying on an as yet uncirculated and unseen police standard operating procedure. It is unfortunate that the Minister got such a briefing paper—it is totally inappropriate to compare the police powers in the bill to the police move-on powers—because it would be a full and absolute defence to a prosecution for breaching a move-on direction if the person was complying with the move-on direction. A reasonable period is not required to run that defence. Under this bill, people will be susceptible to being charged with the new offence at any time, even if they were complying with the original move-on direction, if the elements of the charge are satisfied. This amendment addresses that problem. It is unfortunate that the Minister's briefing paper did not address the substance of the amendments.

Question—That Greens amendments Nos 1 to 5 [C2011-064A] be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 18

Ms Barham Mr Primrose Ms Westwood Mr Buckingham Mr Roozendaal Mr Whan Mr Donnelly Mr Searle Ms Faehrmann Mr Secord Mr Foley Ms Sharpe Tellers, Dr Kaye Mr Shoebridge Ms Fazio Mr Moselmane Mr Veitch Ms Voltz

Noes, 19

Mr Ajaka Mr Gay Reverend Nile Mr Blair Mr Green Mrs Pavey Mr Clarke Mr Harwin Mr Pearce Ms Cusack Mr Khan Ms Ficarra Mr MacDonald Tellers, Mr Gallacher Mrs Maclaren-Jones Mr Colless Miss Gardiner Mr Mason-Cox Dr Phelps 3634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

Question resolved in the negative.

Greens amendments Nos 1 to 5 [C2011-064A] negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment.

Adoption of Report

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher 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. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Hunter, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [6.45 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [6.45 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House issues associated with mining and tourism and economic opportunities for regional areas of New South Wales.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I am unable to hear the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham. Members who wish to engage in conversation will leave the Chamber.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I mention these issues on behalf of many regional communities in New South Wales who are facing some difficult decisions about their economic future. Many members of this House will be aware that recently I travelled around the State talking with communities that are affected by coal and coal seam gas. I met with farmers in towns such as Bunnan and Baerami and with community groups at Running Stream and Rylstone. Contrary to comments made earlier today by the Hon. Trevor Khan, I inform members that I was warmly welcomed in regional New South Wales, especially in Tambar Springs. The response tended to be along the lines of, "Well, you are the only one that has shown up to listen to us." It was particularly difficult at that time to locate the Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Hospitality and Racing, and Minister for the Arts, the Hon. George Souris, and the Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Healthy Lifestyles, and Minister for Western New South Wales, Kevin Humphries.

The Hon. Scot MacDonald: I was there in the week before you were there, Jeremy.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: They mentioned the Hon. Scot MacDonald in Gunnedah, but they also said that there were a few Government members who were missing in action. But another message confronted me throughout most of the meetings that I held during that trip: It was stated loud and clear that most communities do not want coal or gas to become the pre-eminent economic driver in their communities. However, they feel either that it is inevitable or that, if they do not accept mining in their communities, their 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3635

towns will die. It is telling that many communities, particularly those where there are existing coal-related activities, feel it is inevitable that they will be swallowed by this industry. There is little to no confidence that this Government will turn back the clock and offer an alternative, despite the fact that alternatives exist. I am looking forward to working with those communities to help to chart that alternative future—and there are many opportunities.

Principally, we must maintain sustainable agriculture. We must preserve our water resources—the precious lifeline of agriculture—for future generations. It is unthinkable that the development of the coal seam gas industry could risk our water resources such as the Great Artesian Basin suffering long-term damage. There is also enormous opportunity for the development of smaller-scale horticultural and regional cooperatives. Horticulture is labour-intensive and produces a high-value product not only because of the commodity itself but also because of its health-related properties that are highly prized by people who consume clean green food. The development of alternative industries also offers an opportunity to build community resilience in the face of a peak oil future.

A recent report on New South Wales economic indicators that has been prepared by the Parliamentary Library shows a worrying trend in income derived from agriculture. New South Wales is the only State in Australia with negative income from agricultural sources over the past five years. Since 2005 New South Wales has recorded a 14 per cent decrease in agricultural income. That drop will only be exacerbated if we continue to allow mining and gas to displace agriculture and destroy the agricultural potential of New South Wales communities. I state for the record my concern about the droughts in western New South Wales, particularly in the grain belt. It will be absolutely disastrous if the 2011 winter crop fails. From Moree all the way down to the Riverina a lot of crops are extremely dry and need rainfall soon.

However, tourism offers huge opportunities to implement substantial change. Every couple of months or more frequently when I can get home, I take a Rex Airlines flight and read the in-flight magazine, which is full of tourism opportunities in the Hunter, the Riverina, the west and Broken Hill. There are fantastic opportunities for people to get out into regional areas of New South Wales to experience the fantastic hospitality, the food, the natural environment and the warm personalities of the people. The in-flight magazines are full of tourism experiences and stories about the mining industry. The mining industry advertises employment and mining industry products in those magazines. Whenever tourism opportunities are being promoted mining continues to make its impact felt. Examples of that are evident in Gloucester, where tourism facilities have been swallowed up by coalmines. The Government must address that issue. New South Wales tourism contributes $23.7 billion to the New South Wales economy, which is almost twice the contribution made to the economy by mining. We must assist regional communities to develop resilience.

NORWAY KILLINGS

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [6.50 p.m.]: Anders Behring Breivik of Norway committed a mass slaughter of innocent, unsuspecting young men and women, even teenagers as young as 14 years old, and blew up a government office. He even used special bullets for maximum damage. He did all that because he hates Muslims and believed Norway's Labour Party deserves the death penalty for its multicultural policies. Breivik is a white, blond and blue-eyed Norwegian. He is wealthy with a middle class upbringing and, as he described himself, a Christian. He may see himself as Christian but in my view he is devoid of the Christian faith. He is nothing but a home-grown terrorist who is driven by an ideology of hate.

The leader of the New South Wales Christian Democratic Party, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, criticised the media in his adjournment debate speech on Tuesday 2 August 2011 for describing Breivik as a "Christian fundamentalist". He said that Breivik is not a Christian fundamentalist because his act was not an act of a Christian and he has no personal faith in Jesus Christ. In my view his act of terror is not an act representative of the Christian faith. It is wrong to blame the religion of Christianity for acts of terrorism by a Christian, just as it is wrong to blame Islam for the acts of terrorism by a Muslim.

The thrust of the argument of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, however, is that a Christian cannot commit such acts of terror—only a non-Christian can. This is an ideological view that smacks of what I shall term denial-ism—a refusal to accept that those who call themselves Christians can commit such horror. It is a narrow ideological view that Christians cannot be described as terrorists because terrorism is a label reserved for Muslims. Yet too many are caught in a doctrinal "east-west" or "us and them" view of the world. It is an awkward issue because it raises the question of loose labelling based on faith to describe those who commit violence in the name of their faith. 3636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, like many others, would wish to redefine reality and history through the prism of his very narrow perspective of the world. The fact is that those who commit acts of terror in the name of their religion—any religion, be it Christianity, the Islamic faith, Judaism, Hinduism or Sikhism—are not real Christians, real Muslims, real Jews or real Hindus. They just claim to be of that faith to rally other like-minded people to perpetrate similar acts of terror. Those who committed atrocities on September 11 were terrorists, but their act was not representative of the Islamic faith, just as the act committed by Breivik is not representative of the Christian faith. Breivik is nothing other than a terrorist indoctrinated by an ideology of hate. In an article in the Sunday Telegraph on 31 July 2011 entitled "The fear we have of our own Breiviks hiding in suburbs", Yoni Bashan quoted Assistant Commissioner Peter Dein, head of the New South Wales Counter Terrorism Command, as stating in part, "Yes, we are concerned about the non-Islamist terrorist and we have been for some time."

Similarly, in an article entitled "The enemy within" in the Sydney Morning Herald on 30 July 2011, Karen Kissane argued that this was a wake-up call and issued a warning that "Europe had been preoccupied with the threat of Islamic terrorism and that a blond Christian, home-grown threat could be just as deadly". We should be vigilant of all those who harbour extremist views and we should condemn those who vilify others, incite hatred and stir up emotions of hatred by making such claims as Islamisation of Australia, as such fear-based views can lead only to Breivik-type atrocities.

OPERATION RESTORE HOPE

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.54 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House the outstanding work of Dr Darryl Hodgkinson through Operation Restore Hope. Operation Restore Hope, a charity established by Dr Hodgkinson, is a not-for-profit, non-governmental, non-sectarian charity that surgically repairs cleft lips and palates for underprivileged children in the Philippines. As most members know, a cleft lip and/or palate is the separation of the parts or segments of the lip or roof of the mouth, which are usually joined together during the early weeks in the development of an unborn child. A cleft lip is a separation of the two sides of the lip and often includes the bones of the maxilla and/or the upper gum. A cleft palate is an opening in the roof of the mouth and can vary in severity. A cleft palate occurs when the two sides of the palate do not fuse as the unborn baby develops.

The purpose of Operation Restore Hope is to correct cleft lips and palates, facial disfigurement and other deformities for those who, without the donation of services, would remain untreated and permanently disadvantaged. Unfortunately, in undeveloped communities physical deformities can carry profound social disadvantage, bringing with it economic hardship through an inability to find suitable work, sustainable and loving relationships and family life—a terrible burden on these poor individuals. Dr Hodgkinson's team of medical, nursing and paramedical volunteers give hope to and a future for these people. They can go on after surgery to lead a normal life, or close to a normal life. And their happiness, along with that of their loved ones, is moving to all who have been fortunate to view film footage of Restore Hope recipients at Dr Hodgkinson's fundraisers.

After attending Darryl's Elvis singalong fundraising evening in Paddington, my husband Alan and I are eagerly awaiting a follow up ABBA evening. Our collective gratitude goes to Tony Johansson and his staff from Vamps Bistro at Five Ways, Paddington, not only for their fabulous food and service but also for their wonderful musical talent. Dr Hodgkinson's organisation comprises many international volunteers, all of whom donate their precious time to treat the Filipino children, and sometimes adults, who have birth defects, especially cleft lips and palates, along with any scarring.

Operation Restore Hope currently sends three teams to the Philippines each year—to Manila and to Cebu. In Manila they operate out of the President Diosdado Macapagal Medical Centre in Caloocan, a city in which 37 per cent of the population live in poverty. Operation Restore Hope is also now well-established in Cebu, the second largest city in the Philippines. It operates also on the outskirts of Cebu in the small town of Lapu Lapu, out of Lapu Lapu District Hospital along with Vincente Sotto Memorial Medical Centre in Metro Cebu. While typical missions last one week, throughout the week this organisation constantly teaches and develops the skills of the local medical staff who work alongside them. Most of the equipment used by this organisation in the Philippines is brought by the organisation from Australia or is donated.

Operation Restore Hope has received an outstanding review by Ambassador David Pine, the New Zealand Ambassador to the Republic of Philippines in 2007. Ambassador Pine stated in a letter written to the 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3637

organisation that he was impressed by the emphasis placed by Operation Restore Hope on transferring skills to the local Filipino staff. Ambassador David Pine stated eloquently and effectively in his letter when describing the success of Dr Hodgkinson's organisation:

It is wonderful that this relatively simple procedure can transform a child's opportunities in life so dramatically.

Dr Hodgkinson would not have been able to give any of his time and expertise if it were not for the tremendous support of his loving, devoted and wonderfully talented wife, Katherine, and their children, Victoria and James, who have taken such an active part in this wonderful charity. The pride that they have for their father and his team is moving to all who are fortunate enough to know this incredibly humanitarian family. I thank Dr Darryl Hodgkinson and his family and the team of dedicated volunteers for the wonderful work that they do.

HUNTING IN NATIONAL PARKS

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [6.59 p.m.]: I want to set the record straight on the history of negotiations relating to the conservation hunting of feral animals in national parks. I had not intended to do this but a new member in the Legislative Assembly who might not have been aware of what occurred in the term of the former Government unwittingly lit the fire on Tuesday. I refer to the member for Keira, who asked a question of the Government about hunting in national parks. For some reason it appears to be a topic about which members of the former Government are keen to talk. The Shooters and Fishers Party has a policy of utilising licensed volunteer conservation hunters to cull feral animals from our national parks and State reserves. Not even The Greens can deny the damage and losses that are caused by these feral animals. The one true Green in the last Parliament, Ian Cohen, agreed that feral animals needed to be removed; we differed only on who should do the job.

However, I digress. In the term of the last Parliament the Shooters and Fishers Party put this policy to the former Government for negotiation. It was obvious to everyone other than former Government members and The Greens that the first bill was open to negotiation after The Greens almost turned purple and nearly choked with outrage—something that I believe was reflected also in the left wing of the Australian Labor Party. The dust settled and negotiations with the Labor Government began from an opening position of not understanding what we wanted to do. The former Government gradually saw the benefit of having volunteer licensed conservation hunters removing goats, pigs, foxes, feral cats and feral dogs from our national parks.

The then Minister for the Environment—the current Leader of the Opposition—was the first Minister with whom we dealt as part of a senior ministerial negotiating team. As he had carriage of the matter he seemed happy enough to adopt what politicians call a pragmatic attitude to it. From that starting point things progressed, albeit slowly, because the Labor Left was worried about offending The Greens and perhaps not getting preference votes at the election, which at that stage was still a couple of years away. We kept going throughout it all, despite the many roadblocks put up by some people within the Department of Environment in their advice to the Ministers and, lo and behold, we finally reached an agreed position with the then Premier.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Which one?

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Nathan Rees. This agreement enabled Game Council licensed voluntary conservation hunters to cull feral animals in more than 60 national parks across New South Wales— remote parks as they were labelled by Graeme Wedderburn, the Premier's Chief of Staff. Should there be doubters, I have a map which confirms what I am saying. Despite this agreement—we all know that hand-shake agreements do not hold much water these days—things went no further. As I understand it, when the agreed position was taken to Cabinet there was apparently some gnashing of teeth, and perhaps even the shedding of a few tears. The term borderline hysteria also comes to mind, but I cannot be certain of that now. I will not name those who were apparently so offended by the proposition. It seems that the Premier was told if the Government went ahead with this vile agreement it might as well hand Balmain and Marrickville then and there to The Greens. What happened? The then Premier, Nathan Rees, spectacularly junked that agreement in what turned out to be a valedictory speech on 3 December 2009. The Labor Party still lost one of those two seats to The Greens and only narrowly held on to the second—irony writ large.

The bottom line is that a former Labor Premier negotiated and agreed to hunting in more than 60 national parks across New South Wales. It is now hypocritical for the Labor Opposition to pretend that it did not happen. It wants to think that the sky will fall in if this Coalition Government agrees with us on the benefits of such a brilliant initiative. The Shooters and Fishers Party will continue to promote this now proven, sensible 3638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

conservation model. Our constituents—true conservationists, I might say—expect us to do so. We are committed to the hugely successful conservation model behind the legislation. Volunteer conservation hunters have successfully hunted in State forests for more than five years. Feral animals do not recognise boundaries on a map.

In conclusion, we have all witnessed a politically difficult issue negotiated to an outcome in the United States of America just this week. Following that example, it is not beyond the wit and will of good people to have this important conservation measure resolved between the Government and the Shooters and Fishers Party. We live in hope.

DISABILITY SERVICES

The Hon. MICK VEITCH [7.04 p.m.]: On Tuesday 2 August I, along with many other members of this Chamber and the other place, attended an important event held in the Jubilee Room at Parliament House. We participated in Disabilitea, a day of action and tea. Disabilitea was held in venues around Australia to campaign and raise awareness for the National Disability Insurance Scheme Campaign, Every Australian Counts. In New South Wales the Premier, Barry O'Farrell, and the Leader of the Opposition, John Robertson, were in attendance, which highlighted the importance of the event. In April last year the Productivity Commission began an inquiry into a national long-term care and support scheme. The purpose of the inquiry was to look at the cost, benefits and viability of a national no fault insurance approach to supporting people with a disability and their families and carers.

More than 600 formal submissions were submitted to the inquiry from individuals and organisations. I am advised that this is highest recorded number of submissions to an inquiry in the Productivity Commission's history, including the paid parental leave inquiry. In February this year the commission released a draft report that found that the current disability support system needed a complete overhaul to meet the growing needs of people with disabilities and their families and carers. The very first words of the report are:

The disability support system overall is inequitable, underfunded, fragmented and inefficient and gives people with a disability little choice.

The report proposes two main solutions: the first solution being the National Disability Insurance Scheme [NDIS] and the second solution being the National Injury Insurance Scheme [NIIS]. The National Disability Insurance Scheme would support around 360,000 people whose disability has a significant impact on their lives. By providing a secure pool of funds persons on this scheme, or their families and carers, can develop person-centred and individualised support arrangements. The Productivity Commission recommends that people eligible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme are people with a permanent disability and have one of the following conditions: significant limitations in communication, mobility and self-care; an intellectual disability; a condition for which early intervention would result in an improved level of functioning; or they are people for whom intervention would have significant benefits.

The National Disability Insurance Scheme would support people who suffer a catastrophic injury and would help to extend and improve current State-based schemes. The choice that the National Disability Insurance Scheme will offer to people with disabilities and their families cannot be underestimated. Significant research has been conducted that proves individualised funding improves outcomes for people with disabilities. Information supplied by the National Disability Insurance Scheme Every Australian Counts campaign states that under the scheme people would be able to choose their own service providers, ask a disability support organisation to assemble the best package on their behalf, cash out their funding allocation and direct the funding to services they believe best meet their needs.

Other supports include aids, equipment, home and vehicle modifications; personal care; community access to support community inclusion; respite; specialist accommodation support; domestic assistance; transport assistance; therapies; guide dogs and assistance dogs; case management and coordination; specialist employment services; and crisis and emergency support. It would appear self-evident that the flexibility of the National Disability Insurance Scheme would help to make the lives of families and carers easier, providing them with the necessary respite they need to perform their important support role. The National Disability Insurance Scheme will also provide people with disabilities with the support they need to reach their full potential. The unemployment rate of people with disabilities in Australia is double that of people without a disability. Internationally this does not rate well. Amongst Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] countries Australia ranks 19 out of a possible 27 for our employment rates of people with a disability. 4 August 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 3639

Only yesterday in this House I was speaking about the supported wage scheme during the disallowance debate on the public sector wage regulation. I also spoke of the need to maintain suitable workplace arrangements to ensure people with a disability are able to attain and maintain gainful, meaningful and appreciated employment. The National Disability Insurance Scheme could provide people with the appropriate aids, equipment, training and development to assist their participation in Australia's workforce. Another very important recommendation from the Productivity Commission is that funding be increased to the disability sector—doubled, in fact—and that the service be quarantined and not subject to the annual budgetary process. I fully support those measures.

Disabilitea, a fantastic event, was just one part of the Every Australian Counts campaign. I alert members to the campaign website, www.evervaustraliancounts.com.au. I also urge all members to join the campaign, which they can do via the website, Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites. As of today, there are more than 49,000 supporters. However, the goal is to reach 100,000 supporters. Every Australian Counts urges us to spread the word. I have lots of posters, stickers and brochures, which I am happy to share with anyone who wants to get involved in the campaign. At the end of the event that was held last Tuesday both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition gave bipartisan support for the campaign. I urge all members to support this worthy and valuable campaign.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD [7.09 p.m.]: I speak of the vandalism of the genetically modified [GM] wheat trials last month. In May and June 1933 the world witnessed the Nazi book burnings in Germany. On 14 July 2011 we had the local version of anti-science and anti-intellectualism, with the damage to trials of genetically modified wheat at Ginninderra outside of Canberra. Greenpeace admitted that it broke into secure premises at the CSIRO site and whipper-snipped wheat and barley field trials. The CSIRO is still assessing the effects and has said that the trials will either be delayed or have to be abandoned and re-sown. Greenpeace justified its protest along the lines of, "The CSIRO will not release its findings. The CSIRO is captive to GM agribusinesses. The trials are a danger to human welfare." Greenpeace has not provided proof of any of these allegations.

The Australian community, and anyone concerned for our environment, should be alarmed at the emerging threat of agriterrorism. Quite how the risk to human health and the environment could be assessed without scientific evaluation is a mystery. The GM trials continue a long history of modification of genomes of cereals that have helped to feed a world whose population has increased from 2.5 billion in 1950 to a projected eight billion by 2030.

The potential benefits the trials were investigating include increased plant growth and yield with all the obvious benefits of feeding the world as it rushes toward a population of eight billion. Early glasshouse trials pointed to yield increases of 20 per cent. As the available farmland comes under pressure and the early productivity yield increases are struggling to be matched, this is an outstanding prospect. The trials also looked at increased nitrogen use efficiency that would either increase yield at a given rate of nitrogen or give a stable yield with lower nitrogen inputs. There is also the very desirable environmental benefit of reduced nitrate leaching into waterways—known as eutrophication. Of course, nitrogen-based fertilisers are energy intensive in their production, so we could look forward to lower emissions in fertiliser manufacturing.

Altered seed storage protein composition, which could give us wheat with high baking quality but a lower protein content allowing grain, could be produced with fewer chemical fertilisers and that would allow higher value grades to be grown in areas that had previously needed expensive inputs. If successful, we could look forward to wheat that would have a lower glycemic index and increased starch content. This would have important preventative health implications for type 2 diabetes sufferers and those vulnerable to colo-rectal cancer.

I would expect all members of this House to condemn this act of stupidity. Greenpeace is rightly accused of turning its back on food security for the most vulnerable nations of this world. Developed countries such as Australia would continue to grow wheat successfully without using GM crops. It may forgo the yield, environmental benefits, international competitiveness and profitability that would have flowed back to the regions, but it is the developing countries that would have lost the greatest opportunity if Greenpeace had been successful in sabotaging the trials. Denying this technology to hungry nations and willing farmers is elitist, discriminatory and destined to cause greatest harm to those countries that are net importers of food. There are 3640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 4 August 2011

unquestionably issues to resolve with genetically modified food. Although there is already widespread consumption of GM food—such as canola and cotton seed by-products—there must be rigorous health and safety checks. The Australian Office of Gene Technology Regulator is well placed to monitor the CSIRO trials.

It is completely counterproductive to sabotage the trials and to deny the community the information and tools it needs to make informed decisions about the role of GM cereals. There are challenges with GM crops, including intellectual property rights, third party impacts and supply chain segregation. However, these are matters for the Parliament, the courts and industry, not self-appointed eco-warriors who put themselves above the law. This act of vandalism by Greenpeace was disrespectful to the CSIRO, its scientists and its support staff. It was blight on our society, which has been built on independent science. I strongly condemn Greenpeace and call on the relevant agencies to bring the perpetrators to account.

ORGAN DONATION

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [7.13 p.m.]: I draw members' attention to a report released last week indicating that New South Wales has the lowest rate of organ donation in this country. We must tackle this issue. I know that the Australian Organ Donor Register is a Federal Government responsibility, but as members of Parliament we have a responsibility when we to talk to our constituents and community groups and when we send out newsletters to stress the importance of people placing their names on the register. We must also stress the need for people to ensure family members know their intentions. Families are asked for permission to remove the organs of a deceased loved one when that loved one has died as a result of an accident or a deteriorating health condition.

When the time comes for them to decide whether to grant that permission to give someone else a second chance at life they should be fully informed about the consequences and be in a position to make that decision. The window of opportunity to harvest viable organs is narrow and permission is requested at a very stressful time. As politicians we meet many people in a variety of situations and we should use those opportunities to encourage organ donation. We should also let our family members know that we are prepared to donate our organs to give other people a second chance at life. I want people with a chronic illness on a transplant list in this State to know that we are doing our best to improve New South Wales's organ donation statistics.

[Time for debate expired.]

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m. until Friday 5 August 2011 at 9.30 a.m.

______