6663

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Wednesday 9 April 2008

______

The Speaker (The Hon. George Richard Torbay) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.

The Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Notices of Motions

General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) given.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

Question—That private members' statements be noted—proposed.

NEW SOUTH WALES RAIL TRANSPORT MUSEUM

Mr PHILLIP COSTA (Wollondilly) [10.02 a.m.]: The New South Wales Rail Transport Museum is located at Thirlmere in my electorate. The museum is an independent, non-profit company established in 1962 for the purpose of collecting, preserving and presenting railway heritage of New South Wales for the benefit of the community. Former Commissioner McCusker officially opened the original New South Wales Rail Transport Museum on Sunday 22 October 1972 at the Round House at Enfield. This was one of the former commissioner's last official duties. In 1973 it was announced that the museum at the Round House at Enfield would be demolished, and after much negotiation with the Public Transport Commission the museum was transferred to a space made available on the Commission's property at Thirlmere. In 1974 the Thirlmere site began its transformation when exhibits were transferred, and the museum was opened on 1 June 1976.

The New South Wales Rail Transport Museum has more than 2,000 members, including an active volunteer workforce of over 300 and a small number of full-time staff who are the driving force that keeps the museum open every day of the week. A voluntary board and a management committee administer the museum. The museum is accredited as a rail operator under the Rail Safety Act 2002 and has network access rights to the New South Wales main line rail network. It also leases and maintains a 14-kilometre section of the track from Picton to Thirlmere and Buxton. The main reason for my raising this matter today is to inform the House that the museum at Thirlmere has undergone a significant upgrade to the value of $14.6 million. Members of the museum had considerable input in bringing the upgrade plan to fruition and, now complete, the concept design promises to transform the Thirlmere Rail Heritage Centre into an interactive attraction for all rail enthusiasts, families and the broader community.

The new design concept contains three precincts. The first is the heritage precinct, which includes the station, the signal box, the stationmaster's house and the co-op shed, all of which were built in the late 1800s. The co-op shed is very important because this part of my electorate was originally an important agricultural belt and the shed was used to transport much of the produce from the area. Incidentally, this was the original line south prior to the main line being rebuilt through Bargo. The second is the exhibition precinct, and an outstanding piece of infrastructure is to be built there. Locomotive 3801, which is already housed at Thirlmere, will be on exhibition in the new precinct for all to see. The exhibition precinct will house many items of historic value and the public will be able to walk amongst some of the trains—as they can now—in a much better layout. The third precinct is an operations precinct, where the volunteers will continue their hard in restoring many of our iconic rail pieces, such as locomotive 3801 that is now housed at the museum.

I will give a few examples of the type of work that is being carried out at the museum at the moment. Tony LeBreton is currently coordinating a project on locomotive 1905, which is receiving a full static restoration to present it to full display condition for the museum. Bill McNiven is coordinating a project on carriage HFL 420, which is being restored at the museum workshop. Geoff Allerton is coordinating a project on carriage eight-wheel radial, whatever that is—I have not seen this before. I have a list of approximately 6664 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

15 items, all of which are very important to the rail heritage and all of which are part of restoration projects coordinated by volunteers. I place on record my thanks to the Thirlmere Rail Heritage Centre for its great work and I look forward to the completion of this fantastic project in 2009.

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI (Fairfield—Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Minister for Ports and Waterways) [10.07 a.m.]: I congratulate the member for Wollondilly on bringing the great developments occurring at the Thirlmere museum to the attention of the House. People from the local community are active participants in the volunteer workforce. As the member for Wollondilly mentioned, more than 300 people constitute the volunteer workforce. The museum has 2,000 members and every weekend there is an impressive level of general interest and activity by the public in this heritage effort. Their effort should be commended.

I am sure it also provides a boost to local businesses in the area and the local community generally. It never ceases to amaze me how much interest there is in preserving this heritage and, more importantly, how the preservation of the heritage has occurred through the work of active, interested and highly motivated individuals and community members. I know that Minister Watkins has had a long interest in ensuring that progress occurs in the relocation and other investment activities. The Government expresses its support and appreciation to all the volunteers and members of the museum and wishes them the very best.

GOULBURN WATER SUPPLY

Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn) [10.08 a.m.]: The subject I bring to the attention of the House today will not be new to, or surprise, members on either side of this Chamber. It is water, and more specifically Goulburn water and the much-discussed Wingecarribee to Goulburn pipeline. Members will no doubt recall that I have raised this matter in this place on a number of occasions, first in my inaugural speech last year, then again in June, November and December. The pipeline is old news, but it needs a new commitment. The people of Goulburn endured and survived severe level 5 water restrictions in the face of the worst drought Goulburn, and indeed New South Wales, has ever known. In true country style, they took up the challenge and imposed on themselves their own methods of saving water. I have commended the people of Goulburn before in this place, and have no hesitation in doing so again.

There was light at the end of the tunnel, however, in the lead-up to the State election in March 2007. Proposals were suggested by both major parties, plans were made, and the idea for the now famous Wingecarribee to Goulburn pipeline was born. There were, of course, other ideas but opponents of the proposal, who preferred a pipeline from Pejar to Sooley Dam—believing that this would result in the same economies of scale for water but with far less cost—were ignored and sadly derided. In the end, the Wingecarribee to Goulburn pipeline won the support of the Iemma Government.

The Government made a commitment to providing $20 million towards the pipeline. The former Federal Government later matched that amount and, as I understand, design work began almost immediately. The Goulburn Mulwaree Council borrowed significant funds in the belief that the pipeline would be built, and it levied an immediate charge on ratepayers of $75 per household. We are not talking peanuts here. But it is desperate times and there really is no other choice for Goulburn. Goulburn ratepayers now expect to pay the special levy every year for the next 30 years, in line with inflation, as our contribution towards the pipeline.

For a while Goulburn residents believed we had the solution to our water problem secured. We even started to enjoy less severe water restrictions, thanks to good summer rain, although certainly no-one I spoke to was cavalier about the use of water. Now, unfortunately, there seems to be a stalemate. There are mutterings about the new Labor Federal Government withdrawing its support for the Wingecarribee to Goulburn pipeline— and with it, its money. While the council is committed to the project and the State Government has continued its support for the $20 million, it seems that the Federal Government is having second thoughts. There is talk about the project not meeting the guidelines.

The Government of New South Wales has publicly committed to its funding share of the Wingecarribee to Goulburn pipeline on a number of occasions, for which Goulburn citizens, including me, are grateful and relieved. The urgency of securing a guaranteed water supply to the city of Goulburn is well appreciated by the people of New South Wales and I do not believe this funding is begrudged by anyone. I believe there is also a public appreciation that an insecure water supply for Goulburn poses a significant economic risk not only for that city but also for the surrounding region. 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6665

While Goulburn Mulwaree Council has received a draft funding agreement underpinning the Federal Government's $20 million pledge, Senator Penny Wong, the Federal Minister for Climate Change and Water, has not yet agreed it to. Goulburn Mulwaree Council Mayor Paul Stephenson does not see this as a problem and is convinced that the Federal Government will proceed with the joint funding. I applaud his optimism but nevertheless remain concerned. In light of this uncertainty, and on behalf of the people of Goulburn, it now falls to the Iemma State Government to do all in its power to ensure that the Federal Government signs on the dotted line. Not to do so would constitute a breach of faith and a rejection of the New South Wales Government and its judgement about the importance of the pipeline. Most importantly, however, it would constitute a devastating breach of faith with this community.

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI (Fairfield—Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Minister for Ports and Waterways) [10.13 a.m.]: I note that the member for Goulburn has congratulated the Iemma Government on its leadership with regard to the Wingecarribee to Goulburn pipeline. The Government has worked very hard to ensure the security of the water supply to Goulburn. I join the honourable member in her remarks about the wonderful involvement of the people of Goulburn in every measure that has been necessary to secure the commitment that has come from the Iemma Government, as well as its $20 million funding commitment to the pipeline. It is clear that the people of Goulburn exercise enormous restraint during very difficult times, as do many people in rural and regional New South Wales. The people of Goulburn will now assist in the provision of this additional infrastructure through the payment of a special levy, and their cooperation in that regard is appreciated. I note the request of the member for Goulburn. The Iemma Government is very much committed to achieving results for the people of Goulburn.

SCHOOL LEAVING AGE

Ms LYLEA McMAHON (Shellharbour) [10.14 a.m.]: I have recently conducted a series of consultations within my electorate on the New South Wales Government's discussion paper entitled "Raising the School Leaving Age". The discussion paper shows the Iemma Government's commitment to modernising our education system. I have been consulting with the Shellharbour community to understand their general sentiments towards such an initiative. It is important that any new proposal includes extensive consultative measures, so the whole community is able to provide input into Government decisions.

Over the last month I have organised numerous interactive programs across the electorate, including mobile offices, school visits and student forums. This was a gratifying experience that enabled me to provide and take in information from the community. But most importantly, as part of my investigation and consultation I established a youth brains trust, which included seven high school students from two high schools, Lake Illawarra High and Kanahooka High. Those students were Samantha Murray, Emma Purdy, Tania Lincoln, Teagen Lacey, Thomas Doyle, Talitha Stevens and Frank Soto. The students helped me design the consultation process and also a website from which students can access information. The students put together the website content and designed the structure of it.

The website aims to address the question: What age should the school leaving age be raised to? That is a key issue addressed in the New South Wales Government's discussion paper. So far the website has attracted 235 visits, and we can expect this number to grow given that the preliminary advertisements have taken place. This is a wonderful initiative that creates awareness of key fundamental aspects in gaining and maintaining a job. The website's aim is to help young people understand the competitive nature of the workforce, and to encourage them to educate themselves and learn the right skills so they are more employable.

By connecting with other people who are experiencing the problems of finding a job, visitors to the website may utilise the information provided to make themselves presentable at job interviews, understand what is expected of them, learn how to construct a resume, learn how to gain a pro-work attitude, and understand the need to develop their full potential through the education system. Another core function of this website is to provide advice on current programs on offer, such as school-based training, apprenticeships, TAFE courses, and programs conducted at the new Shellharbour Trade School, which will open in 2009. These Iemma Government initiatives are aimed at providing long-term solutions to the skills shortage in the Shellharbour electorate.

On Monday morning this week I ran a forum at Lake Illawarra High School together with 12 students. I thank Carlie Dibben, Natalie Gilbert, Jake McAneney, Paige Brilsky, Leon Raikes, Ellira Bassett, Marcus Latcham, Aylisha Corran, Kelly Pringle, Daniel Burke and Rochelle Bugden for their contributions and involvement. Together we discussed three main points: Is youth unemployment a big issue for them? In what ways do they think the issue should be addressed? What age should the school leaving age be set to? These questions were the core to gaining a variety of perspectives on how the problem should be approached. 6666 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

During the forum several common themes were addressed. All participants recognised that a key component to addressing youth unemployment is ensuring that young people leave school with the right skills and abilities. Part of that is ensuring that they remain engaged with the education system, whether it is at a high school or a TAFE college. The participants also acknowledged the importance of vocational education and training systems, particularly school-based traineeships, school-based apprenticeships and vocational education and training courses. I met a number of students who are involved in school-based traineeships, one of whom recently commenced a school-based apprenticeship in plumbing in the local community. As part of this forum, I was able to gain first-hand accounts of the situation of young people who are considering leaving school. The excellent contributions to the forum of a variety of students from different backgrounds were greatly valued.

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI (Fairfield—Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Minister for Ports and Waterways) [10.19 a.m.]: I congratulate the member for Shellharbour on bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It is wonderful to see members of Parliament and students getting together and facilitating public debate on important public policy issues, such as, skills development and opportunities for educational and vocational training. I know that the member, from her previous work life, is well aware of the skills development issues confronting Australia and the importance of investing in our young people so that they become a well-trained workforce, which is necessary to ensure the prosperity and growth of the country.

FORSTER-TUNCURRY POLICING

Mr JOHN TURNER (Myall Lakes) [10.20 a.m.]: I again raise in the House on behalf of my community the need for 24-hour policing and increased police numbers in the Forster-Tuncurry command. The Minister for Police is well aware of the long-term project being undertaken by the community for extra police. Although the problems are still prevalent, the Minister has done nothing. The Crime Prevention Task Force, which is part of the Great Lakes Community Safety Network, has embarked on a program to enhance the Minister's knowledge of the problem. Recently the task force undertook a project within the community, circulating scenic postcards showing the beauty of Forster-Tuncurry. The picture on the postcard highlights the reason why people holiday and retire in the area. The other side of the postcard tells the real story. The postcard, which is addressed to the Minister for Police, states:

As a resident of Forster Tuncurry, I request you take immediate action to provide for 24 hour policing to our community. The response time and often lack of response from Taree is unacceptable. We understand the difficulties in executing this action but we have been waiting long enough. Please take action now. I would like you to respond to my request.

Five thousand of these postcards have been signed, representing the concerns of one-third of the community of Forster-Tuncurry. That is just the tip of the iceberg. The postcards are a symbol of the community's concerns and the work of the Crime Prevention Task Force. I seek leave to table the postcards.

Leave not granted.

The Iemma Government and the Minister for Police have refused to accept the postcards. They will not acknowledge the concerns of the community or identify the problems in Forster-Tuncurry. I will ensure that the Minister for Police receives these 5,000 postcards and invite him to take action on this issue. It is a sad day when representations from the people of Forster-Tuncurry about community safety cannot be tabled in the Parliament of New South Wales. It is an indictment of the Labor Iemma-Watkins Government. The problems in Forster-Tuncurry will not go away unless the Government and the Minister for Police intervene. The Minister says that he does not have the power to do so, that it is up to the Commissioner of Police. As I have pointed out to the Minister previously, he obviously does not understand the Police Act. Section 8 (1) of the Police Act states:

The commissioner is, subject to the direction of the Minister, responsible for the management and control of the NSW Police Force.

Clearly, the Minister can tell the Commissioner there is a problem in Forster-Tuncurry. The Minister has been to the area, he has been informed of the problems and he has 5,000 postcards from one-third of the community voicing their concerns. He should also have evidence from his own police statistics about the problems in the area. Pursuant to section 8 of the Police Act the Minister can ask the Commissioner to take action. Yet he continually refuses to do so. As we saw recently in the media, he is an intervening Minister. I invite him to intervene in this case and direct the Commissioner of Police to provide sufficient police numbers in Forster-Tuncurry, to implement 24-hour policing and to open the Forster-Tuncurry police station 24 hours a day. The present situation is not good enough. Regrettably, in recent times we have seen an increase and escalation in serious crime, such as, murder, assault causing grievous bodily harm, assault on the streets and break and enter. Yet the Minister buries his head in the sand and refuses to acknowledge the problem. 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6667

We have been told that Taree police can deal with the issues. That is nonsense. Forster-Tuncurry is 37 kilometres from Taree. People in the Labor-held seats of Western Sydney would complain loudly if they were told that police would have to come from Chatswood or Bondi to deal with problems in their area. They would not accept that situation. The people of Forster-Tuncurry will not accept that police from Taree will deal with problems when their police station is closed between the hours of 4.00 and 8.00. The closure of the police station is an advertisement to the low-lifes in our community that they can come out to play and terrorise the community, particularly the elderly. Many people have retired to the area seeking sanctuary and security. Yet the low lifes are able to roam the streets during those hours knowing that no police are available. It is time the Minister for Police supported the people of Forster-Tuncurry and agreed to their requests for more police.

MARY MACKILLOP EAST TIMOR

Ms DIANE BEAMER (Mulgoa) [10.25 a.m.]: I want to praise the work of a group of constituents in my electorate. Last month I met with two Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart, Sister Susan Connelly and Sister Josephine Mitchell, who informed me of the needs of the East Timorese and the work carried out by the Mary MacKillop East Timor organisation from St Marys. They spoke to me about a beautiful country with a dreadful history that has had consequences for the health and education standards of East Timor. In response to a call in the 1990s from Bishop Belo for help in education programs and the teaching of Tetun, the official indigenous language of East Timor, the Sisters established the Mary MacKillop East Timor organisation. As a charitable organisation, they rely solely on donations to continue their work.

As their major aim is to increase literacy, they face extraordinary obstacles—50 per cent of all Timorese are illiterate, 65 per cent of women are illiterate. Tetun is the most commonly used language and a primary cultural symbol. If people are to maintain their identity, heritage and culture they need the ability to read and write this language. The Mary MacKillop East Timor organisation has produced the first educational children's books in Tetun. The books are for grades 1, 2 and 3 and kindergarten and the organisation is presently developing books for grades 5 and 6. The resources include teachers' guides and manuals, small readers for children, charts, alphabet cards and flash cards. The series of books, incorporating 84 titles, have been donated to the schools of East Timor and the education department can reprint them.

The program operates in co-operation with UNICEF and the books are being used in all 800 schools— government and Catholic—in Timor-Leste as the basis of the language curriculum. Many of the children have never seen a coloured book before. These hardworking Sisters have also helped develop, repair, rebuild and provide furniture for 27 schools. They also support about 200 students with school fees—which range between $US1 and $US5 per month in Catholic schools and US50¢ in government schools—as well as school requisites. They help subsidise the wages of teachers, which range between $US120 and $US175 per month, and held training and workshops for 400 teachers in 2006-07. Donations are received from individuals and other community groups in Australia. A number of books and music CDs have been produced and printed in St Marys, with all profits from the sale going to Mary MacKillop East Timor. One book, entitled Funnery— Unconventional Tales, relates stories about Josephite nuns. As an amusement for members, I will refer to one of the stories. It reads:

The Pelvic Floor

To help the Sisters take steps to maintain their health and well-being, a series of "Women's Health" talks was organised, and it seemed that almost any Sister who could walk attended.

During the cuppa after the session on simple exercises that Sisters could do to maintain their pelvic floor muscle strength, one of the more senior Sisters was heard to remark, "It's all right for the younger ones. Even if I got onto the floor, I wouldn't be able to get up again."

The Sisters help to raise funds by telling amusing tales. His Eminence Cardinal Clancy has stated that Mary MacKillop East Timor comes:

… like a burst of sunshine through the darkened clouds. It does not conceal anything of the appalling situation and incredible sufferings of the Timorese people, but it focuses on the achievements of a community of good committed people in their heroic support of the Timorese. A classical restoration of faith in human nature.

I praise Sister Susan Connelly and Sister Josephine Mitchell, who have dedicated themselves and their lives to advance the future of the East Timorese, and the Sisters of St Joseph, who have helped the less fortunate for more than 150 years. They face a mighty struggle; however, they will face it unflinchingly and in a way that is remarkably productive. 6668 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI (Fairfield—Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Minister for Ports and Waterways) [10.30 a.m.]: I concur with, and support the words of, the member for Mulgoa about the efforts of the Sisters of St Joseph and the Catholic Church more generally in East Timor. We are often quick to congratulate governments on their involvement and the assistance they give the people of East Timor, but we often forget the non-government organisations that have committed resources and made an enormous effort to alleviate the poverty and meet the challenges that confront that growing and embryonic democracy. I congratulate the member for Mulgoa on bringing those efforts to the attention of the House. I congratulate also everyone from the Catholic Church involved in the initiatives in East Timor.

POINT DANGER

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Terrigal) [10.31 a.m.]: On many occasions throughout Australian and New South Wales history several significant landmarks have been renamed or had their names amended by the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales. Such was the case with Australia's largest mountain, Mount Kosciuszko. It was named in 1840 by the Polish explorer Count Paul Edmund Strzelecki after the Polish national hero, General Kosciuszko. Previously, the mountain was spelt without the "z" but the correct version was officially adopted and recognised by the Geographical Names Board in 1997 by inserting the "z" into "Kosciusko".

There is in fact another name that has been the subject of dispute between historians and the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales—the name is "Point Danger". A constituent of mine, Mr Ken Gold, brought to my attention the controversy that has surrounded the exact location of Point Danger for the past 38 years. Ken became involved in this debate four years ago and challenged the board to review the location of Cook's Point Danger. History suggests that in 1766 the Royal Society of London hired Captain James Cook to explore the Pacific Ocean. On 19 April 1770 he was the first known European to discover the eastern coastline of Australia.

After naming the famous Botany Bay, Captain Cook continued north along the Australian coastline and on 16 May 1770, after nearly running aground on a reef, he came upon what was named by him and is still known today as Mount Warning, which is inland to the east of the northern New South Wales point named Fingal Head. It is off that headland that Mount Warning, once a volcano, created a three-mile reef to an island off the coast. On the same day in the journal of the Endeavour Cook recorded:

… We now saw the breakers again … they lay … two Leagues from a point under which is a small Island, their situation may always be found by the peaked mountain before mentioned … from them this mountain or hill, and on this account I have named Mount Warning … it lies 7 or 8 Leagues inland … the land is high and hilly about it, but it is conspicuous enough to be distinguished from everything else. The point off which these shoals lay I have named Point Danger.

The controversy seems to have begun in 1823 when a government surveyor, John Oxley, set out in the Mermaid to explore Port Curtis, the site of Gladstone. Whilst on that journey Oxley explored Moreton Bay, which had been named by Captain Cook, and the Brisbane River. Oxley also explored and named the Tweed River. It was on his return journey, travelling south, that Oxley pulled up along the now named Fingal Head and reported it as being Point Danger, so named by Captain James Cook. Oxley's favourable report on the Brisbane River saw him return the following year and establish the colony of Brisbane under the direction of Sir Thomas Brisbane, Governor of New South Wales in 1824.

At some time in 1828 Henry John Rous, travelling north, either on a duty voyage to Moreton Bay or his second trip to explore the northern rivers of New South Wales, charted the Tweed River, which he named the Clarence River, unaware that in 1823 it had been named the Tweed River by Oxley. Rous came up the eastern coastline and around the reef off the coast of the feature now known Fingal Head, and arrived at a place called Rainbow Bay, so named after his ship. It was there that Henry Rous has arguably caused all of the confusion. He named the, at the time, unnamed site of Point Danger as being that of Cook's Point Danger.

There was further confusion as to the location of Cook's Point Danger when in 1840 surveyor Robert Dixon was given the task of doing the first land survey of the area. Dixon was to map the New South Wales and Queensland border. He was told to map the border from the west to Point Danger on the east coast. Dixon took the location of Cook's Point Danger as being that of the one identified by Rous in 1828 rather than the one identified by Oxley in 1823. In 1970, on the 200th anniversary of Cook's naming of Point Danger and given that the location seemed to be correct, a memorial was placed at the current site and the New South Wales, 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6669

Queensland and Federal governments combined to erect the Point Danger Captain Cook Memorial Lighthouse. In 1971, the following year, after much debate about the location of Cook's Point Danger and the Queensland-New South Wales border, the Geographical Names Board declared:

… little doubt exists that the feature named Point Danger by Captain Cook was in actual fact the feature now known as Fingal Head. However, as the name has been known in its present position for over 130 years and having in mind the wording of the letters Patent of 6 June, 1859, in which the position of the QLD-New South Wales border is linked with the position of Point Danger, the Board is not prepared to assign the name to any feature or position other than that to which it is currently located.

Some 18 years later, in November 1989, debate continued about the location and the Geographical Names Board approved a historical re-enactment of Cook's voyage. Its findings seemed to be consistent with the findings of Ron Benjamin, Acting Chief Surveyor, although no changes were made, which stated:

From the re-enactment voyage, I now have no doubt that Captain Cook's, 'point of land under which lies a small island', was intended to be today's Fingal Head.

In 1998 the Geographical Names Board again reviewed the location and declared:

It is the opinion of the Geographical Names Board Committee therefore that the present Point Danger is correctly designated.

Sometime in 2004 Mr Ken Gold from my electorate took up the debate about the naming of Cook's Point Danger and its location. After many years of hard work, travel, reports and correspondence with me, I am pleased to announce that today the Geographical Names Board has considered Mr Gold's efforts and announced that the official records for Point Danger and Fingal Head will be changed to reflect both the historical versions of the naming of Cook's Point Danger. I thank the Secretary of the Geographical Names Board, Mr Greg Windsor, for his assistance on this matter. [Time expired.]

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI (Fairfield—Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Minister for Ports and Waterways) [10.36 a.m.]: That was the most constructive contribution I have heard from the member for Terrigal in the 13 years that I have been a member of this House. He did a good job in bringing to the attention of the House the achievements of his local constituent. The Geographical Names Board offers a good opportunity for local residents who have passion and interest, and who have served local communities in many various and important ways, to be recognised in their local communities. The member has told of a fitting recognition of one constituent. In my electorate we often use name changes for bridges, roads or parks as ways of recognising local achievements.

PHUOC HUE MONASTERY, WETHERILL PARK

Mr NINOS KHOSHABA (Smithfield) [10.37 a.m.]: I was honoured to attend, on behalf of the Premier of New South Wales, the Hon. Morris Iemma, the recent Lunar New Year's Eve celebrations by the Buddhist Federation of Australia at the Phuoc Hue Monastery at Wetherill Park. It was a great night. Thousands of people attended to welcome in the Year of the Rat. It is said that lunar astrology divides the years amongst 12 animals. A common folklore is that just before Buddha died he called all the animals to see him and promised them a reward. Only 12 animals turned up, and having a year named after them in the order in which they arrived was their reward. It is said that people born in the Year of the Rat are leaders, pioneers and conquerors.

The Phuoc Hue monastery is the headquarters of both the Buddhist Federation of Australia and the United Vietnamese Buddhist Congregation in Australia and New Zealand. For the past 16 years the monastery has served not only as a place of worship but also as a centre for social and cultural activities for the general community. It was built in the mid 1980s and was officially inaugurated in 1991. It is named after the Most Venerable Thick Phuoc Hue, who was a senior teacher, and the first Vietnamese monk to arrive in Australia. He had formerly taught at the An Quang Pagoda, the pre-eminent Buddhist centre in southern Vietnam. His Royal Highness Prince Charles and the Governor of New South Wales Her Excellency Professor Marie Bashir, AC, are amongst the dignitaries who have visited the monastery. During his visit to Australia in the mid 1990s, Prince Charles held an interfaith meeting at the monastery with Australia's religious leaders from the Christian, Buddhist, Islamic, and Jewish faiths.

In the 1970s and 1980s true ethnic Buddhism made its appearance and became firmly established in New South Wales. Currently all traditions of Buddhism are well represented in New South Wales. The Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese have established temples in the Mahayan tradition, while the Cambodian Khmer, Laotian, Sri Lankan and Thai communities have erected Theravada temples. One of the smallest ethnic 6670 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

groups, the Tibetans, has one of the largest numbers of Buddhist organisations. In Sydney, where there are 75 Buddhist temples, Buddhists tend to concentrate in the south-western suburbs such as Smithfield and Fairfield, where there is a significant Indochinese and Vietnamese refugee population.

Buddhism is one of the fastest growing religions after Christianity. Members of the Buddhist faith form a significant part of our cultural diversity and our multifaith community, where other people's heritages are respected and acknowledged. It is also true that many Australian-born members of our community are embracing the tenets of Buddhism. The Buddhist community has made an outstanding contribution to our wider community through the sponsoring and promotion of interfaith events and initiatives, with a view to enhancing unity, harmony and peace, especially in charity work and particularly through the Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Foundation Australia, established in 1992.

One of the major reasons for this rapid growth has been the immigration from countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, Laos and Sri Lanka, where Buddhism is the main religion. In New South Wales these days we have the freedom to practice our religious beliefs and to live together in peace. Faith communities working together make harmony possible and lead by example, and the New South Wales Government encourages interfaith activities in our culturally diverse society.

I congratulate the Phuoc Hue Monastery of Wetherill Park, which for the past 16 years has served not only as a place of worship but also as a centre for social and cultural activities, and I commend the good work of the general community and members of the monastery. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Small Business and Regulatory Reform is in the Chamber. He has been to the monastery on several occasions and he knows firsthand how well respected this community is. In closing, I congratulate the organisers of this year's event, and especially the Most Venerable Thick Phuoc Hue, President of the Buddhist Federation of Australia and the United Vietnamese Buddhist Congregation of Australia and New Zealand, on his vision and hard work for the benefit of his community.

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI (Fairfield—Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Minister for Ports and Waterways) [10.42 a.m.]: I join the member for Smithfield in congratulating particularly the Vietnamese community on its work and on the success of the Phuoc Hue Monastery. As the member said, the monastery has been serving the community now for 16 years. It is the centre of the Vietnamese community in particular and it engages in many important celebrations. The two most notable are the celebration of the birth of Buddha, which occurs every year on a Sunday morning, and also the Lunar New Year celebration, which happens also at the monastery. The Vietnamese community and the Most Venerable, who leads the monks who are based at the monastery, provide enormous leadership to the Vietnamese community after very difficult times. The first temple was established on Hamilton Road, Fairfield West, just down from where I grew up.

When I was a child attending Fairfield West Public School I remember the arrival of the first Vietnamese to Australia and their struggle as they were trying to settle into a new country. Their faith has played a very important role in giving the Vietnamese community the strength necessary to achieve what they have achieved since their arrival in Australia in the mid 1970s. They are now a very important, celebrated and integral part of the Australian community, particularly in the Fairfield local government area where Vietnamese residents are the most numerous of all the ethnic minorities. I congratulate the member for Smithfield on bringing to the attention of the House the success and the achievements of the Vietnamese Buddhist community as well as the other Buddhist communities based around the Fairfield local government area. They continue to make a wonderful contribution, particularly to the strength and resilience of the ethnic minority immigrant community that has needed support during very difficult settlement processes.

TWEED CATTLE TICK FEVER

Mr GEOFF PROVEST (Tweed) [10.43 a.m.]: Once again, I am 100 per cent for the Tweed. Last week I spoke about the inefficiencies and the lethargic response of the Department of Primary Industries to the latest outbreak of cattle tick fever in the Tweed. I inform members of the Department of Primary Industries' response to an earlier outbreak that occurred in the Tweed late last year. In December 2007 Howard Passmore became aware that his stock had been infected with some sort of virus after a dead cow was discovered on his Carool property. On inspecting the dead cow Mr Passmore found cattle ticks on its body, so he immediately contacted the Department of Primary Industries. Officers from the department quarantined the property and began inspecting and treating his stock.

On 24 December, soon after treatment of his stock began, Mr Passmore discovered that one of his bulls was ill, with cattle tick suspected to be the cause. The Department of Primary Industries was contacted again, 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6671

with Mr Passmore querying the availability of the Imizol vaccine, a drug used to treat animals that have foreign organisms in their blood. The officer told him that the Department of Primary Industries did not have any quantities of the drug on hand but would send out a Department of Primary Industries veterinarian, who would have the vaccine in her possession, to inspect the animal and take blood samples.

After an inspection of the sick bull, the Department of Primary Industries veterinarian was of the opinion that the cause of death was bracken poisoning. Mr Passmore was not confident with that assessment as he had little bracken on his property, and he requested that an injection of Imizol be administered for good measure. The veterinarian told Mr Passmore that she did not have any vaccine but would take blood samples for testing. The bull died later that day. It took the Department of Primary Industries three weeks to supply Mr Passmore with the results of the testing, which confirmed cattle tick fever as the cause of death.

On 27 December 2007 a second animal was found ill and it was suspected that a number of other animals were coming down with a similar illness. This time Mr Passmore took no chances in wasting his time with the Department of Primary Industries and called in the local veterinarian, who took samples and sent them to a private laboratory for testing. The cow died not long after being tested, taking with it a calf, which would have been born within a day or so had the cow survived. The results, which took only 24 hours to process compared with the Department of Primary Industries' three weeks, again showed that cattle tick fever was the cause of death.

Fully aware that the Department of Primary Industries had no stocks of the vaccine on hand, Mr Passmore ended up administering eight-year-old vaccine sourced from a neighbour, with almost the entire herd vaccinated the following day. Mr Passmore has told me he has no doubt that these measures saved his herd and that if he had the vaccine earlier he would have saved the cow and calf. I am astonished by the lazy response of the Department of Primary Industries to this deadly outbreak. It took the Department of Primary Industries three weeks to process laboratory results, whereas the local veterinarian had the results back in less than 24 hours. If Mr Passmore had put his faith in the Department of Primary Industries to stop this outbreak it is more than likely that his entire herd would have succumbed to the virus as a result of the ridiculous delay in obtaining laboratory results and the original misdiagnosis by Department of Primary Industries officers.

I question the Department of Primary Industries' lack of supply of Imizol vaccine. This drug is clearly crucial in preventing the spread of cattle tick fever and treating infected livestock. The Department of Primary Industries should be ready to respond to outbreaks of this nature, but it is obvious that without any vaccinations its ability to fight outbreaks is severely limited. It is fortunate that Mr Passmore was able to source Imizol from his neighbour, as I am certain he would have lost many more cattle if he were forced to rely on the Department of Primary Industries to provide quantities of this vaccine. This entire situation raises the question of how the Department of Primary Industries and the Minister for Primary Industries has not learnt from the initial outbreak of cattle tick fever in the Tweed.

When the Department of Primary Industries was caught off guard in December 2007 with outbreaks of the virus and no stocks of the vaccine on hand the Minister should have ordered the Department of Primary Industries to acquire quantities of the drug and should have stepped up efforts in deploying cattle surveillance cameras in locations other than just Sexton Hill. Unsurprisingly, this never happened and, as usual, the Iemma Government did nothing and, as a result, the farmer whom I have spoken about previously in the House, Mr Robert Harnett, suffered the loss of a dozen cattle. These events certainly undermine the comments made by a spokesperson for the Minister last week, who stated that the Department of Primary Industries "has an excellent track record in New South Wales controlling ticks", and that the camera surveillance at tick gates are "very effective". Recent outbreaks suggest otherwise. The Iemma Government must get serious about preventing cattle tick outbreaks, as this latest example of laziness is seriously affecting the livelihood of New South Wales farmers.

CESSNOCK POLICE AND COMMUNITY YOUTH CLUB

Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock) [10.48 a.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House the facilities at the Cessnock Police and Community Youth Club. In Cessnock we have problems with gangs, aggravated assaults, vandalism and graffiti, much the same as any other community, but we have a particular problem with the main street of Cessnock, which is attacked on a regular basis. Every Friday and Saturday night shop owners have their windows smashed. The police say that they do not have the numbers to deal with the problems, but the police and community youth club is trying to address many of the problems we have youth in the area. The police and community youth club was built in the 1950s with miners' money; money that was stumped from 6672 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

miners each week actually built the police and community youth club clubhouse, which is in a prime spot, to address many of the problems. At one stage the council was considering moving the police and community youth club to provide better retail shopping in the area, but that idea was rejected because the location of the police and community youth club is in the best spot for youth to gain access to it.

The member for Miranda is a Cessnock boy. When he came to Cessnock to have a look around he visited the police and community youth club and said that nothing had changed in the 40 or 50 years since he had attended, which is a sad reflection on the police and community youth club. I know that the new person in charge, Mr Peter Rosemond, CSC, a former regimental sergeant-major in the Australian Army, is very keen to help the youth and is interested in rebuilding and remodelling the police and community youth club. He organises abseiling and rockclimbing activities. The Government has provided $100,000 for a rockclimbing wall for the community. The youth participate in abseiling outside the police and community youth club, in the Watagan mountain area. This activity creates another outlet for youth and has attracted a lot of interest from young people across the area. There is a very positive police presence for young people and Constable Steve, as he is known to the youth, is doing an absolutely terrific job.

The camps run by the police and community youth club at Singleton Army Base focus on integrating social skills as a group and developing positive self-esteem. The programs, which are having a terrific effect on many of the youths who participate, include teaching young people to swim; surfing lessons; and hospitality training, to feed young people into local employment or further education. The police and community youth club is doing an absolutely wonderful job. The big problem is a lack of funds to refurbish the clubhouse. A minimal amount of money has been put into it, and this must be addressed. If we are going to resolve problems with our youth we must ensure that they have the facilities at their disposal—and good facilities—to remedy many of the social ills of our world. We have a drug epidemic, the same as every other electorate in the State, but ice is starting to come through our community and it is creating havoc. The police and community youth club knows that firsthand.

The Cessnock District Learning Centre works in conjunction with police and community youth club officers. They share resources and they often share participants. The police and community youth club staff organise camps at the army base, and abseiling, with the Cessnock District Learning Centre. These programs and activities build people's self-esteem and create a major benefit for young people. I congratulate the Minister for Youth, the Hon. Linda Burney, on providing $100,000 for indoor rockclimbing as well as $5,000 for abseiling equipment for the youth to use when they are in the Watagans. I have attended many functions for the police and community youth club, and the results of the programs and activities provided by the Cessnock District Learning Centre and the police and community youth club are something to be seen. To jump off a rock face and abseil down a rock cliff is quite a dramatic step for most people, but to see the self-confidence of youths after they participate in that activity is amazing. We must have more programs and we must provide a better facility at Cessnock for the police and community youth club. I encourage all the Ministers to whom I have written to look at the program and address the problem.

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI (Fairfield—Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Minister for Ports and Waterways) [10.53 a.m.]: I commend the member for Cessnock for bringing the story of the success of the Cessnock police and community youth club to the attention of the House. There is no doubt that police and community youth clubs around New South Wales are making a wonderful contribution by using police as role models for young people, getting actively involved in the community, targeting young people who have troubled stories or difficulties, identifying them and trying to provide for them a way forward in their lives.

I also acknowledge the success of the camps and other activities to which the member has drawn the attention of the House. These types of initiatives achieve results: they empower and give self-confidence to the young people involved. I congratulate Linda Burney, the Minister for Youth, on her grant of funds to local organisations in Cessnock to enable these types of activity to continue. The Iemma Government is very much committed to—it is incorporated in the State Plan—using recreational activities as a means of empowering and educating, and providing leadership and direction for young people.

ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY LIAISON OFFICER, ALBURY

Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [10.55 a.m.]: Following numerous representations on behalf of the police officers of the Albury Local Area Command and our local Aboriginal community I was pleased to be informed in early January this year that funding would be provided for the employment of an Aboriginal community liaison officer. In a reply to my most recent request of December 2007 the Minister for Police referred to my 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6673

representations regarding the appointment of an Aboriginal community liaison officer at Albury local command and advised that the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs had provided external funding to the New South Wales Police Force for the employment of an additional four female Aboriginal community liaison officers for a period of up to 12 months. The New South Wales Police Force had identified Albury local area command to receive one of these positions.

The Minister noted that a memorandum of understanding to facilitate these appointments had been prepared and was being evaluated. It was expected that the document would be endorsed in early 2008. It is now well into April and we have heard nothing more. The Minister was at pains to point out to me that funding for this position—remembering that it is Federal funding—is for 12 months only and that the Albury command would have to submit a business case, including a budget variation, to seek permanent status for the position beyond that time. It would be a most ridiculous situation to recognise the need for an appointment, go through the selection process and then fail to retain the Aboriginal community liaison officer because the New South Wales Government is not prepared to allocate funding. Is this the reason for the lack of progress following the welcome advice of early January?

The Aboriginal community in the Albury area was delighted to learn of the impending appointment and is looking forward to working on programs to address local concerns, but the delay and the lack of information are raising doubts about the Government's commitment—and with good reason, for this matter has a history. In November 2004 the Aboriginal Community Action Group in Albury wrote to the Commissioner of Police to advise of the major issues they were working on: youth/crime; grief/loss and suicide; and family breakdowns. The letter stated:

For the past 14 years we have been requesting an Aboriginal Community Liaison Officer to be based in Albury. Our Aboriginal children in particular are not respecting the law because of the distrust they have towards the police officers. We believe that with an Aboriginal Community Liaison Officer that will in time change for the good.

The letter went on to state that the group had been told their area had been a priority for the past three years, but it was always another town that had been allocated an Aboriginal community liaison officer. The writer stated:

We have a youth crime problem with children as young as 7 years old committing petty crime but as they grow the crime is not so petty and warnings are ineffective. We get support from a couple of police officers but we have no Aboriginal person within the Police or probation services to assist Aboriginal people ... An ACLO would benefit the whole community by working with the community to understand the way the law works.

The same 2004 letter also called for an Aboriginal liaison officer at Albury Local Court. In 2005 the Aboriginal Justice Advisory Council wrote to the Albury Aboriginal Community Action Group on behalf of the New South Wales Attorney General's Department to advise that it had funds to set up a community justice group and were working on the guidelines. The idea was to employ a local Aboriginal community coordinator for two or three days a week and channel some funding towards crime prevention and early intervention programs. The statements of support from the Attorney General's Department led to an expectation of delivery. I quote from the correspondence:

We've been given so much support from other government departments such as Juvenile Justice and the Chief Magistrate's Office. To think last year we had virtually nothing in the way of funding and support and now many of the key people want to help and be a part of this.

This optimism was ill founded for the funding did not arrive and the programs were not delivered. Liz Heta, Aboriginal liaison officer at Albury City Council, told me that there was a restructure and communication was lost. Four community members were trained in mediation, but they are very rarely used. I arranged a meeting with the local Aboriginal Lands Council, Mungabareena Aboriginal Corporation, Woomera Aboriginal Corporation and others in my office last November and discussed some of the issues confronted by the various groups, and by the police and the Department of Housing.

I undertook again to approach the Minister for Police regarding the appointment of an Aboriginal community liaison officer and to write to the Attorney General about an Aboriginal liaison office at Albury Local Court. I had been told that in 2003 we were number two on the priority list for the appointment of an Aboriginal community liaison officer. I call upon the Minister for Police to expedite the processing of administrative matters and to ensure that the selection procedure is implemented in the next few weeks. This is exactly what was promised at the beginning of the year. As for the court liaison officer, I have been advised by the Attorney General that the Aboriginal client service specialist attached to Wagga Wagga Local Court will assist at Albury when required. Unfortunately, the local Aboriginal community say that that person is seldom available when required. 6674 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

SUSTAINABLE LIVING EXPO AND EDFEST, ARMIDALE

Mr RICHARD TORBAY (Northern Tablelands—Speaker) [11.00 a.m.]: A year can be a short time in public perception. In 2007, a group of people in Armidale got together to do something practical to assist their community to respond to the challenges of climate change. In a relatively short period of five weeks they put together a Sustainable Living Expo in the city mall to showcase sustainable products and practices that could be adopted locally. It incorporated an existing Sustainable Living Tour—already in its third year—a market showcase in the mall and a series of community forums organised by Dr Brian Connor and other community members. Importantly, it was backed by the Armidale Dumaresq Council through Economic Development Manager, Kevin Abey, who employed a coordinator, Alison Buckley, to pull the fledgling event together on short notice. As a consequence, the event was relatively small, but it was a triumph of enthusiasm over scarce resources. It was considered a great success and all involved wanted it to continue on an annual basis.

Move forward 12 months and this week I launched the Sustainable Living Expo 2008 [SLEX] at the Armidale showground to acknowledge the 12 sponsors who have contributed more than $100,000 in cash and in kind to support this year's event. That is an astonishing response. What was remarkable about the launch was how strongly it reflected the original aim of the expo; that is, to involve the goodwill of the whole community, and that it was an opportunity to preach to the converted. I was pleased to announce a grant of $24,500 from the former Minister for Environment and Climate Change, the Hon. Phil Koperberg. The grant was actively supported by the current Minister, the Hon. Verity Firth. The Hon. Phil Koperberg met Sustainable Living Expo representatives when he was in Armidale for the State Cabinet meeting last October. The funding is provided for the production of a sustainability plan for Armidale Dumaresq in conjunction with the local council. A framework for this plan for implementation will be presented to the community at the Sustainable Living Expo 2008.

The major sponsor for the event is a new business in Armidale, Richardson and Wrench, whose principals, Peter and Janet Cooke, are strong supporters of sustainable development. They have committed $60,000 over three years to the Sustainable Living Expo. As well, Peter is president of the Rotary Club of Armidale, which is partnering with Armidale Dumaresq Council to organise one of the central Sustainable Living Expo events—Live. Garden. Farm—at the Armidale showground. This event will include exhibitors from business, the community, government departments, not-for-profit groups and others to demonstrate sustainable products and practices. There will be forums and presentations on sustainable gardening, permaculture principles, hobby farm management, energy use, peak oil, garden design and business practices. A farmers' market will showcase regional products from within a 100-kilometre radius.

TAFE New England has become a strong supporter and sponsor this year. It has already shown its sustainability credentials through the solar passive design of the new library and creative arts buildings on the Armidale campus, which were included in last year's Sustainable Living Tour. Through the institute's sustainability plan it has achieved a 3 per cent saving in electricity consumption, an increase in green fleet rating, increased recycling and 100 per cent use of 10 per cent recycled A4 paper. It is undertaking many water-saving projects and has planted 4,000 trees on campuses and within the region.

The New England Credit Union, which has installed solar panels on the roof of its administration headquarters in Armidale, has again sponsored the Sustainable Living Expo. Jobs Australia, whose clients become involved in many environmental projects, has come forward as a sponsor. Country Energy is once again making a strong contribution with financial and in-kind backing. Two local businesses—Forsyths and Invest Blue—are new sponsors. More than 850 year 5 students from schools in the region will participate in the EdFest during the Sustainable Living Expo. This will include a short festival of films made by students on a theme of sustainability, a recycling race and many other events.

Armidale High School year 9 students will also host a hydrogen car race and the school's year 11 students will present their carbon footprint study to the EdFest. The school is also a sponsor of the Sustainable Living Expo. I have outlined briefly the level of support gathered in the Armidale Dumaresq community for this event over a relatively short period. It is an indication of how important the issue of climate change has become and of how it can unite government, business, educational institutions, not-for-profit groups, community groups and individuals to work together on such a major issue. Harnessing this goodwill is important for our survival on this planet, and the grassroots level is a good place to start.

Mr JOSEPH TRIPODI (Fairfield—Minister for Small Business, Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Minister for Ports and Waterways) [11.05 a.m.]: I commend the member for Northern Tablelands for bringing 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6675

this wonderful community effort to the attention of the House. There appears to be enormous grassroots support for climate change initiatives. As the member has stated, businesses working together with individuals, communities and sponsors are advancing this very important priority about which there is world-wide consensus. EdFest is a wonderful initiative. The theme of sustainability is at its core and it involves students and other members of the community in highlighting the significance of the issue and identifying people's carbon footprint. These initiatives combine to lead the way on its this very important priority—that is, climate change.

PORT MACQUARIE COMBINED EMERGENCY CENTRE DEVELOPMENT

Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [11.06 a.m.]: I address the House this morning on the combined emergency centre developments in Port Macquarie. Over time this will be one of the most significant emergency centres in New South Wales. It will bring together the ambulance station, the State Emergency Service facility and the fire brigade at one location. The combined site, which will provide a joint emergency room, will benefit the community because the various services will be able to share the facilities. The ambulance station, which is the first facility on the site, is now complete. The ambulance service and staff have moved to the new location, which is closer to the Pacific Highway and growth centres in and around Port Macquarie. It is also closer to the major new road known as the Link Road. This significant move will allow faster access to all parts of Port Macquarie. It is also a move out of the central business district by the ambulance service, which was concerned about being trapped by traffic when getting into and out of Port Macquarie. Staff feedback to me is that they are extremely happy with the facility. The fact that the community is largely unaware of the changes suggests there are no concerns about the extra minutes saved when emergencies arise.

The second part of the combined emergency centre is reaching a critical point. The State has contributed the full amount available through the State Emergency Service capital works program. Council is engaged with and supportive of the project. It is pushing this move forward at a rapid pace. That is certainly welcomed by the community and me. The development application process is progressing. Construction of the new State Emergency Service facility will commence when that process is completed. The current facility is probably one of the oldest State Emergency Service facilities in New South Wales. It is an asbestos riddled, rundown, creaky old building that is lucky to be still standing. The move is significant and it will certainly boost the existing membership and attract new members to the facility.

I speak this morning to raise the third component of the combined emergency centre, that is, the Fire Brigades. Plans have been drawn up by the Fire Brigades but unfortunately negotiations to provide the combined emergency centre, the final part of the jigsaw, have been extremely slow and to some degree have stalled. I ask the Minister for Emergency Services to look at progress on plans for relocation of the Fire Brigades in Port Macquarie and to recognise the significance of the benefits of a combined emergency centre. The Fire Brigades should not be left out as a missing link in any plans but should be able to tap into the benefits enjoyed by the ambulance station and about to be enjoyed by the State Emergency Service.

The Fire Brigades would be closer to the growth areas of Port Macquarie when a fire occurs, closer to the highway when called out to motor vehicle accidents, and closer to the new link known as The Link Road. Further, its staff would be happier and the community safer. I ask the Minister for Emergency Services to have a good look at the plans for the Fire Brigades relocation in Port Macquarie that has been mooted for several years. Negotiations have been moving extremely slowly, if not stalled. I encourage the Minister to recognise the overall benefits of the move and to finalise the combined emergency centre on Central Road, Port Macquarie, as one of the standout emergency facilities in New South Wales.

Question—That private members' statements be noted—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Private members' statements noted.

HOUSING AMENDMENT (TENANT FRAUD) BILL 2008

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from 8 April 2008.

Ms CHERIE BURTON (Kogarah) [11.11 a.m.]: I am pleased to support the Minister for Housing as he introduces this important legislative reform to crack down on housing cheats. Housing is a precious resource that is delivered to people who need it most. The Iemma Government is focused on providing shelter and 6676 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

support to those most vulnerable in our community. The majority of public housing tenants are honest and decent people, and many of our tenants rely on the stability offered by public housing to ensure access to other government agencies and to assist them to improve and move on with their lives. With my involvement in Mental Health these needs became even clearer. Under the new housing and support program, rolled out across the State by the Government, Housing provides the housing stock and Mental Health provides the support to keep people well in the community and out of hospital. Other agencies also provide support, and approximately 52 per cent of tenants living in public housing access the available support to move on and lead more stable lives.

But when scarce public housing resources are used by people who do not need them, I join with taxpayers and people on the waiting list who are outraged at that sort of behaviour. The eligibility criteria to access public housing are very strict, and they need to be strict because public housing exists to help those most in need. How we determine who is most in need should be assessed on a fair and equitable basis. Unfortunately, there is always a small minority of people who will deliberately lie and cheat to obtain the benefit. It is these people and these people only that the legislation will target. Deliberately receiving a benefit by lying about your household income is a crime and needs to be recognised as one. This behaviour means that a house desperately needed by a family under pressure is occupied by people who could and should look after themselves. By incorrectly claiming a rental rebate, these fraudsters rob the department of vital income to build new public housing stock to help our elderly, our young families, our disadvantaged and our homeless. This behaviour cannot and will not be tolerated by this Government.

When we make these reforms we need to be careful we do not disadvantage the vast majority of public housing tenants who do the right thing. All public housing tenants are required to notify the department within 28 days if their household circumstances change. Most tenants do this. Some tenants have serious mental health issues and do not understand their obligations. Some have a genuine fear of violence or intimidation. Some are providing short-term shelter for family or friends who may be fleeing from domestic violence and some just genuinely forget because of tumultuous lives or ill health. These people are not the targets of this legislation. They are not intentionally defrauding the public.

This legislation is targeting those who have a regular income but still claim a rental rebate; those who wilfully and intentionally rip off the department by moving out of their public housing property, subletting it at a profit, and not notifying the department; those who own other properties but continue to live in public housing; and those who have adult household members who are working but do not declare their incomes. These people have forfeited their right to occupy public housing. They have committed an offence and should face the consequences.

These reforms will also enable the department to better recover money from fraudulently claimed rental rebates. For the first time the department will be empowered to enforce repayment of rental arrears from any adult members of the household who are knowingly involved in fraudulent activity and who gained a personal benefit. At present, action can only be taken against the tenant of the property even where there is evidence that other residents were involved in the fraud. For example, where a man has intimidated or threatened a woman who was a public housing tenant to prevent her revealing his income or advising the department that he is living in the home with her, it will now be possible to pursue him, rather than the tenant, for the extra rent owed. These changes link the punishment with the person who gained the benefit.

From my experience of being a former housing Minister, and growing up in public housing, I state on the record that I know public housing is a very generous gift from the taxpayer. Some people who live in public housing feel a sense of entitlement about it, which is not the case. Public housing is a hand up for the future, not a handout for life. Taxpayers are very generous in handing over their taxes to provide subsidised income and to keep a roof over the heads of those who cannot do it for themselves. These changes will be very important because, for the first time, they will give the department the ability to pursue its own cases.

It was mentioned in the House yesterday that the department has all of these powers, which it does, to investigate fraud but that it is up to the police to pursue offenders, lay charges, and take them to court. But police have many other commitments. The department will be able to prosecute its own cases by due process. The department will still have to gather evidence and prove that a fraud has been intentionally committed, but prosecution of its own cases will take that burden off the police. I believe this will lead to more cases being investigated and pursued. Let me send a warning to all those tenants that there is an amnesty so that they can come clean and not have an issue with the department. The amnesty is an opportunity to clean up their act. I suggest strongly that they take that opportunity; if not, they will be caught and then prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6677

I strongly support the reforms that the Minister has introduced. I know how difficult it can be for people who are struggling and waiting for public housing; they cannot understand why they have to wait to be allocated public housing while other people are rorting the system. The proposed changes to the current legislation will further enhance the power of the department. They will make sure people are aware of the consequences of their behaviour as public housing tenants, and they could lead to more prosecutions. Hopefully, these changes will deter future fraudulent behaviour. It is sad to see people in genuine need missing out because others decide to take advantage of the system. That is what most angers taxpayers in my electorate. Taxpayers do not mind paying to provide subsidised housing or to support those who are in genuine need, but they do not like being taken advantage of. They do not like people ripping off a system designed to help those in genuine need.

I congratulate the Minister and the department on introducing these reforms. It is fantastic that the Government is making sure that those most in need are housed. Public housing has changed since the 1950s, when it started, and is not provided for the same reasons as it was back then. The massive reforms that have been made over the past few years—when Minister Tripodi held the portfolio, when I was Minister, and now under the current Minister—have made the system fairer and more equitable. These proposed changes will make sure people understand that housing is a hand-up for the future to help those whose lives are disorganised so they can enjoy housing stability and can access other government departments and resources to get their lives back on track. Public housing helps those most vulnerable in the community.

The Iemma Government's efforts to ensure public housing is available for those most in need are vital for those people. Yesterday in the House reference was made to the extent of the housing waiting list. The fact is that those waiting lists are being reduced constantly; we are providing housing for more people all the time. By building and providing new housing stock we are ensuring that those most vulnerable in our community are catered for. This legislation also sends a strong message that criminal fraud will be pursued and that criminals will be prosecuted. That message is: Beware, and make sure you take advantage of the amnesty. If you are doing something wrong, right that wrong. Beware, because after the amnesty period, when these changes come into effect, you will be caught and prosecuted.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (Castle Hill) [11.22 a.m.]: This is not the first housing bill introduced in this House, nor the last, but it is the first housing bill to bear the words "tenant fraud" in its title. Most of the other bills dealt with a raft of issues, such as antisocial behaviour, housing affordability and housing supply— I believe more than 70,000 are on the waiting list. The Housing Amendment (Tenant Fraud) Bill 2008 deals specifically with tenant fraud. In his agreement in principle speech the Minister for Housing said:

This bill will allow Housing New South Wales to address rental rebate fraud with the seriousness it deserves …

The cost of rental rebate fraud has been estimated at between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of the value of all rental subsidies. These figures are based on industry standards. In dollar terms this means that even if only 5 per cent of rental rebate subsidies is claimed fraudulently there is an annual cost to Government of $26 million. If 10 per cent is used for the calculation the annual cost to Government of fraud reaches $52 million.

For reasons best known to the Minister, he based those calculations on 2003-04 figures⎯perhaps his speech is an old one and the bill has been recycled from before the last election. The department is more efficient. The 2006-07 report has not been released, but the 2005-06 report has been and is available on the department's website. That report states net rental income as $602 million. So the increased cost to the Government of rental fraud⎯if the 10 per cent figure is believed⎯would be between $30 million and $60 million. If the Minister were more on the ball, he could have strengthened his case even further. The Minister went on to say:

There are significant benefits to be gained with the successful prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of cases of intentional rental rebate fraud. Prosecution sends a clear signal to the public that Housing New South Wales is committed to addressing rental fraud. Importantly, it reinforces the efforts of front-line staff to identify individual cases of fraud. Finally, it ensures the Government receives a proper return for its assets so that maximum resources are available to house those in need.

I guess nobody would disagree with those statements. The nub of the legislation is that it targets those who perpetrate rental fraud. One wonders why such legislation was not introduced earlier. The Minister describes this as an innovative solution, presumably along the lines of gaoling parents who do not send their kids to school. I would have thought an innovative solution would have been to actually deal with the problem⎯something this Government always seems manifestly incapable of doing. Lest it be thought I am being unkind in saying that, 10 years ago the then Minister for Housing, Craig Knowles, introduced a rental fraud amnesty that he claimed netted the Government $15 million in unpaid rent. So, what is this Minister doing with this bill? 6678 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

Schedule 3 to the bill provides for an amnesty which, in the Minister's words, will operate for a limited period⎯I believe from 1 July⎯aimed at encouraging any tenant who is unfairly claiming a rental rebate to rectify the situation. Interestingly, the amnesty clause is not numbered. Is this another of the Minister's innovative solutions, to resurrect something the Government tried 10 years ago that failed demonstrably? If it had not failed, this bill would not be before the House today. The unnumbered tenant fraud amnesty clause, entitled "tenant fraud amnesty", in schedule 3 to the bill, states in part:

(1) The objective of this clause is to provide an amnesty:

(a) to encourage a person to notify the Corporation if the person is incorrectly or improperly obtaining a benefit from the Corporation, and

(c) to protect any such person from prosecution or civil proceedings in respect of the matters notified before the end of the amnesty period.

The bill goes on to say in paragraph (3) of the unnumbered clause:

(3) A person cannot be prosecuted for a fraud offence in respect of any conduct that would constitute such an offence if the person notifies the Corporation of the person’s conduct:

(a) before the end of the amnesty period, and

(b) before the Corporation has commenced an investigation into the conduct.

It says further:

(4) If a person notifies the Corporation in accordance with subclause (3), no action or proceeding may be brought by the Corporation to recover any penalty, damages or other monies from the person in respect of:

(a) the conduct constituting the fraud offence that occurred before the notification, or

(b) the benefit that the person incorrectly or improperly obtained, as a result of that conduct, from the Corporation before the notification.

In a nutshell, this clause states that someone could have been ripping off the taxpayer for 20 years and all they need to do is to fess up, come clean during the amnesty period, and they will avoid prosecution. Their illegal action, which could have cost the taxpayers of New South Wales hundreds of thousands of dollars over a period of more than 20 years, will result in no consequences. What really is the purpose of the amnesty and how is it going to cover those lost millions, the $50-odd million? It could have been $60 million if the Minister actually had done his homework properly. How is he going to recover any of those lost millions?

The member for Kogarah in her contribution said that she strongly advises those rorting the system to take advantage of the amnesty. She said, "You will be caught." That is talking tough. The fact is that an amnesty period was available 10 years ago; they went through this rigmarole 10 years ago. Apparently nobody has been caught because the percentage of people allegedly rorting the system is the same as 10 years ago. How do I know this? The then member for Newcastle, Bryce Gaudry⎯a loved figure in the Labor Party—mentioned the amnesty when introducing another Housing bill on 22 June 2001. He said:

… subsequent subsidy reviews indicate that between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of tenants may … be abusing the rebate system.

That is exactly the same figure as that provided by the current Minister. Clearly, the Government has had no success whatsoever in dealing with rental fraud. No reduction has occurred in the percentage of people committing rental fraud over the past seven years. The former member for Newcastle then stated:

This bill will provide the necessary powers to deal with rental rebate fraud— anyone who believes that believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden—

The powers will include the capacity to investigate suspected rebate fraud, cancel or vary a rebate, and require repayment of arrears where a rebate has been fraudulently claimed. The bill will not establish a harsh or punitive system.

Seven years ago the Government believed it was acquiring the necessary powers to deal with rental rebate fraud. It even set up a fraud prevention hotline where people could dob in their neighbour. The rather wet-behind-the-ears new Minister states that his bill will allow Housing New South Wales to address rental rebate fraud with the seriousness it deserves. He went on to say, "With this bill the tide has turned." Why would 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6679

anyone believe that? We were told to believe the Government seven years ago so what makes this bill so special? The Minister claims that the penalties are tougher. Under this bill people can be fined up to $2,200 and/or jailed for up to three months. Someone who has been systematically defrauding the taxpayers of tens of thousands of dollars through a housing scam should be convicted of fraud and sent to jail for a lot longer than three months. Perhaps I am wrong. Is the Minister saying that housing rental fraud is less of a crime than, say, defrauding a little old lady of her life savings?

As of the member for Terrigal pointed out last night, under section 178BA of the Crimes Act a person can be imprisoned for five years for obtaining money by deception or making false or misleading statements. Apparently, it is okay if it is taxpayers' money from the Department of Housing. Indeed, the department's own website states that where the fraud is deliberate the department may seek to terminate the tenancy. It may also refer the matter to the police. That is a clear acknowledgement that the power has always been there, as one would expect. If someone commits fraud, the police may prosecute that matter.

The member for Kogarah said the problem was that police had better things to do with their time. We are talking about $52 million or $60 million, depending on whose figures one believes, of taxpayers' money being systematically defrauded from the taxpayers of New South Wales, but apparently that is not sufficiently serious for police to prosecute the matter. It is suggested that either the police are not doing their job or that there are not enough police. Either way, it is a Government responsibility. I highlight some examples of housing fraud given by the former shadow Minister for Housing, Andrew Humpherson, in 2001. He said:

A tenant and her partner have public housing property at 5/2 Ivanhoe Place, Macquarie Park. Since the beginning of this year, she has rented the property to another private tenant and she and her partner now live on the Northern Beaches in a friend's home. They derive income from an illegal rental, and that is in breach of the tenancy agreement and the principle of taxpayers providing public housing. The woman and her partner work full time. Her car remains in the garage of unit 5 but she rents the garage of unit 2 from another public housing tenant, to store furniture and home ware. The Minister should investigate that example, because sadly it occurs far too often …

Another example relates to the public housing tenants of 4/1 Eyles Street, Telopea, a couple who travel overseas for the best part of the year, mainly in the Middle East where they have family and property interests. They appear to use the residence at Telopea only as a place to stay during summer in Australia.

Those instances were quoted on 27 June 2001 in debate on the previous housing bill. I do not know whether anything has been done about those issues or whether those people have been prosecuted for fraud. Sufficient information was provided by the former shadow Minister to enable the department to take action. Does the Minister really believe that for these offences a potential three months in jail or a $2,200—a slap on the wrist— is adequate punishment? Ostensibly, one major change is the provision that gives Housing New South Wales the right to search the State public register of business names to see whether a public housing tenant currently owns a business or is running a business illegally from his or her home. At the moment a search can be made of the register only if the name of the business is known.

Quite frankly, the Department of Housing should have been given this power a decade or so ago, at the time of the last amnesty, if the Government were fair dinkum about tenant fraud. The bill also introduces an innovative approach—although one is always suspicious when the Minister uses the word "innovative"—to recover overpayment by tenants from a Commonwealth benefit. Henceforth, Housing New South Wales will be able to cancel or reduce a rent rebate for a specified period to recover a judgement debt against the tenant in cases where the tenancy has not been terminated. However, the department's website states:

Rental subsidies may be cancelled or adjusted when the Department of Housing becomes aware that a tenant is receiving a subsidy they are not entitled to. The cancellation or adjustment maybe backdated and a debt placed on the tenant's rental account.

How is this innovative? Equally, what safeguards have been built into the system to ensure that where someone has acted in good faith but has failed to notify the department of a change of circumstances, the person will not be prosecuted? However, new section 72A is innovative in that it makes persons living with tenants liable for the debt of tenants. It states:

A person is jointly and severally liable with another person to pay to the Corporation any amount … if:

(a) the person lives or has lived with the tenant,

(b) the tenant is liable to pay the amount to the Corporation because the tenant improperly obtained a rental rebate or any other advantage or concession to which the tenant was not entitled because of the person living with the tenant, and

(c) the person was over 18 years of age at the time the tenant became liable to pay the amount and knew, or should reasonably have suspected, that the tenant was improperly obtaining the rental rebate or the other advantage or concession.

6680 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

According to the bill, it need not be the person who commits the offence; it may be someone who is totally innocent, but who should reasonably have suspected that the tenant was improperly obtaining the rental rebate that ends up being fined. It is an extraordinary abuse of power and a complete turnaround in the principle of innocent until proven guilty. The bill gives Housing New South Wales the power to lay a complaint to prosecute fraud offences, albeit with slap-on-the-wrist penalties. It sounds more like a make-work scheme for the Minister after the next election, or maybe the member for Miranda. He will lose his seat at the next election, so it is a make-work scheme for him. He can work for the Department of Housing.

Mr Barry Collier: Point of order: The member for Castle Hill should not speculate on my future prospects. He should speak about the tenancy bill, which has nothing to do with my election prospects. I ask you to bring him back to the leave of the bill.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! I am sure the member for Castle Hill was making a passing reference. I note the concern of the member for Miranda about the remarks. I ask the member for Castle Hill to address the bill.

Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON: I saw the member for Miranda standing in the Chamber and the opportunity was too good to pass up. Having examined the bill and considered what the Government has done in the past in this area, I doubt that it or the amnesty will make any difference. I would not hold my breath waiting for the tide to turn. The name of the bill is incorrect. It is not about tenant fraud but about fraud perpetrated on the people of New South Wales by the Iemma Government.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.37 a.m.]: I speak on the Housing Amendment (Tenant Fraud) Bill 2008. The electorate of Miranda has a relatively large number of public housing clients and a large regional Department of Housing office serving the shire in Central Road, Miranda. The dedicated management staff and client service officers of the Miranda Department of Housing do a wonderful job, providing advice and assistance to new and existing public housing tenants. In speaking to the bill I take the opportunity to thank the dedicated team at the Miranda Department of Housing office for their tireless hard work, commitment and service to the shire community.

I am sure members will agree that those who perform public service and work in Department of Housing offices have a difficult task. They meet the housing needs of the young, seniors, the frail and the aged. They meet the complex needs of those with intellectual disabilities. They deal with clients with challenging behaviours. They meet the emergency accommodation needs of victims of domestic violence. They deal with the homeless. They maintain and repair Department of Housing properties. They also balance differing and competing needs of those seeking public housing. That is why the bill is important. It is about using public housing resources better to ensure that it is allocated to those in need, not to those who are simply ripping off the system.

We need to identify, weed out and prosecute those who defraud the public housing system. In my experience people often justify their fraud by saying, "Look, it is only the Government. We are taking the money out of the public purse." It is not only a fraud on the Government and the public purse but it is also a fraud on those who have to wait longer while ineligible people enter public housing or remain in it through fraud. Clearly, the vast majority of public housing tenants are good, honest, decent people who care about their properties and their community. They do the right thing. However, the grubs trying to rip off the system need to be dealt with.

The new powers dealing with tenant fraud are critical to maintain the integrity of our social housing system. The Department of Housing provides shelter for some 340,000 tenants. Rental of public housing is determined by household income—usually between 25 per cent and 30 per cent. The viability of our system depends on tenants and applicants correctly declaring their income and ownership of assets, as well as any changes that affect the level of rent or determine their eligibility. All rent collected from public housing tenants is ploughed back into providing new homes and services for those most in need. If any money is lost in rental fraud the money is taken away from providing our tenants and vulnerable people with housing and providing the security and peace of mind that many of our tenants so desperately need.

The new laws will provide the Department of Housing with the power to crack down on incidents of tenant rebate fraud. It provides the department the opportunity to check whether a tenant owns a boat, property or business. Not only will it free up public housing for those who actually need it, but it will also act as an incentive for tenants to pay the amount of rent they owe. Recouping lost income will also allow the Government 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6681

to provide up to an extra 200 homes per year. I understand there may be concern about the legislation impacting on people who are doing it tough or affecting people who have made a mistake in not keeping the Department of Housing updated on their income and tenancy details. However, provisions in the legislation protect such people.

The offence created by the Housing Amendment (Tenant Fraud) Bill 2008 is not a strict liability offence. Any prosecutions pursued by the Department of Housing will require proof beyond reasonable doubt that there was no reasonable excuse for the person not to notify changes of their circumstances. Tenants will have a three-month amnesty from 1 July 2008 to 1 October 2008 to correct their income and tenancy details. The member for Castle Hill suggested that the amnesty would not do anything. He also spoke about the 1996 amnesty, which I understand resulted in 4,855 reports of suspected rental rebate fraud and the collection an extra $15 million in rent from those tenants who self-nominated during the amnesty. There was a benefit in having the 1996 amnesty, contrary to the assertion of the member for Castle Hill.

An education campaign will be provided in several different languages to inform tenants of the new laws. Carers will be exempt from criminal prosecutions by the Department of Housing under the new laws. It is important also that women fleeing domestic violence will not be adversely affected. The circumstances relevant to a particular case will be considered before a reassessment of the rental rebate or criminal prosecution. There are significant protections for public housing tenants to ensure that people are not unfairly affected by the legislation. It is good legislation that will deliver the good outcome of more houses to those in need.

Both the member for Castle Hill and the member for Terrigal spoke about section 178BA of the Crimes Act, which provides for matters on indictment in the District Court and carries a maximum penalty of five years. The bill provides for matters to be dealt with in the Local Court and carries a maximum penalty of $2,200 or three month's imprisonment or both. The bill also provides for a penalty of three month's imprisonment for fraudulently obtaining accommodation or rental rebate or any other advantage or concession from the New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation. The new section 69A creates an offence with a maximum penalty of $2,200 or three month's imprisonment or both if a person eventually fails to notify the corporation of any change in the present circumstances that removes or reduces the person's entitlement to accommodation or a rental rebate or any other advantage or concession from the corporation.

Notification under the proposed legislation is required to be given within 28 days after the person becomes aware of the change and that his or her entitlement will be removed or reduced because of the change. The proposed legislation permits the corporation, for the purposes of preventing or investigating fraud or prosecuting a person for fraud, to request, collect, use and disclose information, including personal information, from certain registers of information, including the driver licence register. The ability to collect information on a person suspected of defrauding the Department of Housing is important. Quite often cars and boats are registered in other people's names and people have other sources of income, such as running a home business from a public housing property. They undertake activities that reduce their eligibility⎯if not eliminate their eligibility altogether⎯for public housing.

It is important that the department has access to these registers in an effort to uncover and prosecute those who are guilty of defrauding it. The penalties consequent upon the legislation are imposed in the Local Court with a maximum penalty of $2,200 or three month's imprisonment. Sections 178BA and 178BB of the Crimes Act will no doubt still be available in cases of serious fraud. These carry a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment if dealt with on indictment in the District Court. However, I suspect the majority of frauds involve matters that can sensibly be dealt with by a magistrate in the Local Court. It is pleasing to see the Department of Housing has taken it upon itself to establish its own prosecution procedures and have prosecutors appear in the local Court. I support the bill.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS (Murray-Darling) [11.46 a.m.]: All members should be greatly concerned about the suggested figure of between $50 million and $60 million that has been projected to have leaked out of the bucket of public housing by the fraudulent activities of tenants. We need to ask serious questions about the way public housing is managed in the State. If insufficient checks and balances were in place in private enterprise and that allowed the leakage of between $50 million and $60 million out of an organisation, people would be looking for another job on Monday. I would like to know how that figure was derived. Obviously, the Government has knowledge that fraud is taking place. Has someone done an audit? Is the Government aware of it? Is the department listening to tenants that are highlighting issues of other tenants who are suddenly found to have a new boat or asset they might not have declared when they originally set up their tenancy agreement? 6682 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

There are obviously major holes in the tenancy agreements. People do make declarations when they sign up an agreement as to their state of affairs. I believe a declaration is a legal document and there is sufficient legislation to effectively take action against people making a false declaration when taking on public housing rentals. We are now putting in place legislation to address fraud. The Government is admitting to the fraud, but how is it going to fix it? My question is: If the Government has not fixed it up to now, how will it fix it in the future? How will this legislation work? What are the mechanics of the process? If I wanted to be really cynical, I would say that the Government relies on public housing for a strong Labor vote, so why rock the boat? Why go out there and make the hard decisions—

Ms Angela D'Amore: So you do not believe that there should be public housing?

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: Absolutely, there should be public housing, but there should not be fraud. Effectively the Government is admitting $60 million worth of fraud in public housing. The Government admits it has been happening for some time and it has let it happen. The Government has let it leak out the door and it has lived with it. How did the Government come up with the figure of $60 million? What information did it use to collate that figure? Obviously, the Government has known about this fraudulent activity and has let it go on and on and on.

Ms Angela D'Amore: Do you support the bill?

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: Absolutely I support the bill.

[Interruption]

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! The member for Murray-Darling does not need encouragement and assistance from the Government backbench.

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: This is absolutely and totally ineffective legislation. By the Government's own admission, fraud in public housing has been taking place to the extent of up to $60 million. It has admitted that fact. If the Government has allowed that fraud to happen, what will it do when this legislation is enacted? It will continue to let it happen. Perhaps it cannot monitor the situation and the figure is a guesstimate or speculation. Maybe that is the amount of fraud, maybe it is not. The Government wants people to put up their hands and say, "Sorry, in the last couple of weeks I acquired another asset." Good luck. The Government needs to understand that, unfortunately, there are people in this world who do not have any respect for the law.

The Government needs to put in place clear guidelines to deal with those people and to protect the State from them taking advantage of public housing. People who need public housing have been blocked by people who commit fraud. The people who commit fraud have no regard for the law or regulations and they have no regard for agreements they have signed with the Department of Housing. As the Government effectively said, the department is a toothless tiger. I believe the legislation also will be a toothless tiger because, as has been clearly demonstrated, regardless of past legislation and regulations, the fraud has continued. The Government is not prepared to police or audit the situation or to renegotiate with people and continually keep agreements up to date.

Ms Angela D'Amore: What do you suggest?

Mr JOHN WILLIAMS: I suggest the Government has completely and utterly failed in its administration of public housing in this State. With the introduction of this legislation, the Government admits that it has not administered public housing in this State in the best manner for the people of New South Wales. Regardless of this legislation, the Government admits it has a huge problem. I believe that problem will continue unless the Government puts in place the appropriate measures to protect the citizens of New South Wales. Without such measures, the problems with public housing in New South Wales will continue.

Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne) [11.52 a.m.]: The Housing Amendment (Tenant Fraud) Bill 2008, which was introduced by the Minister for Housing, is important legislation that delivers on the Iemma Government's commitment to provide housing to people in need in our State. I am particularly pleased to support the Minister's efforts to assist public housing tenants who want to do the right thing. All members know that the most effective anti-fraud measures are prevention and community education. The amnesty provisions included in the bill are comprehensive and will send a strong message to everyone in the community that playing by the rules is the fairest way to go. For those public housing tenants who know or suspect that they are in breach of the guidelines, this amnesty will provide the perfect opportunity to wipe the slate clean and make a fresh start. 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6683

For three months tenants will be able to come forward, provide their correct details and have their situation assessed. If it is found that they have been incorrectly claiming a rental rebate, their rent will be corrected. However, they will not face criminal prosecution nor will they have to repay the rental debt that they may owe. They will be able to move forward without the worry of sanctions hanging over them. These amnesty provisions are a huge incentive for tenants to check their circumstances and ensure that they are not in breach of their rental agreement. As members would know, amnesties work. In 1996 Housing New South Wales held its last amnesty, receiving 4,855 reports of suspected rental rebate fraud. An extra $15 million in annual rent was collected from those tenants who self-nominated during the amnesty period. It is anticipated that similar numbers will come forward this time.

The amnesty will be widely publicised. Housing New South Wales will write to every tenant and will communicate with all the support networks, tenant advocacy groups and other government agencies that work with public housing tenants. This is an opportunity to ensure that all tenants are aware of their obligations and are encouraged to come forward and clarify their situation. It will be very easy for tenants to take advantage of the amnesty provisions. Tenants will be able to call a 1800 number and have their circumstances assessed over the phone. Every effort will be made to ensure that the process is as user friendly and as inviting as possible. Telephone interpreter services will be available. There will also be the capacity to nominate over the Internet or to go into the office to speak directly with client service officers.

The bill introduces significant changes to the way fraudulent activity within public housing is managed, regardless of the Opposition's comments during debate today. It is important to note that the bill will not change the rules of eligibility for public housing or the criteria that Housing New South Wales uses to assess applications. Offering an amnesty allows all tenants an opportunity to self-nominate and have their situation corrected, so that the Government can continue its good work of providing housing to people who need it most and cracking down on people who are taking advantage of precious public resources.

I welcome the amendments to the bill that allow the Government to check with the Department of Lands, the Roads and Traffic Authority, the Office of State Revenue and the Office of Fair Trading to ensure that people have not commenced other businesses, do not have another source of income or have not purchased other land. In my seat of Drummoyne, public housing is valued as affordable housing for our residents. I am pleased that the Minister announced more than $20 million in capital upgrade to our public housing, which will result in 102 units being built in Abbotsford and Concord in my electorate. It gives confidence to our residents who are on the public housing waiting list that public housing will be made available to them.

The bill also sends a clear message to people who breach the rules that public housing is not a privilege. It is provided for people who are most entitled to it. I am concerned about some of the comments of the Opposition during debate. Although they support the bill—but criticise it during debate—they have not put any alternatives. If the Opposition were genuine in its criticism, it would move amendments to the bill. I suspect they agree with the entirety of the bill. If they were in power we would not have a problem with fraud. They would sell off all our public housing because they do not recognise it as a form of affordable housing. I will be interested to see whether the Opposition moves any amendments to the bill. The bill supports those who want to do the right thing. I commend the bill to the House and look forward to further debate from the Opposition. I hope the Opposition will be more constructive than it has been during debate today.

Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [11.58 a.m.]: The Housing Amendment (Tenant Fraud) Bill 2008 is a treasure trove for sceptics. In fact, it is a cynic's delight.

Ms Angela D'Amore: Do you support it?

Mr GREG APLIN: I suggest to the member for Drummoyne that the bill should be subtitled the window dressing bill with no practical application.

[Interruption]

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! The member for Albury will be heard in silence. He extended that courtesy to previous speakers.

Mr GREG APLIN: Before introducing the bill, the Minister for Housing took the opportunity to give a prologue on Thursday last week. In answer to a Dorothy Dix question, the Minister highlighted his department's failure by referring to a particular person who obtained public housing, sublet it, moved interstate 6684 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

and ripped off the system to the amount of $65,000. Of course, these very actions contravene the current tenancy agreements, which are signed by tenants. It is currently enforceable to have the tenant charged and brought back to New South Wales to appear in court, yet we somehow need new legislation to enforce the current rules that obtain in the Department of Housing. How does the situation that the Minister so accurately described arise? Quite clearly, it arises from a lack of inspection and a lack of enforcement under the current tenancy provisions.

The fact that the department has lost, in the words of the Minister, $53 million a year, is admission of a failure to enforce current tenancy agreements and, as I have indicated, quite clearly points to the lack of inspection. Will this change under the new bill? I believe that the cynics will have a field day. The absurd proposition of a three-month amnesty is further admission that the department has no way of managing these issues and is condoning previous fraud. There is no other interpretation one can put on it. There should be no amnesty, just a warning letter to tenants concerning their obligations and pointing out, of course, that those obligations are currently within the tenancy agreement. The suggestion that the Department of Housing should have the authority to lay and prosecute offences of tenancy fraud is couched in terms that will circumvent the need to refer matters to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the New South Wales Police Force. I find it strange that the word "circumvent" is used in these circumstances.

When will the Department of Housing prove that it has efficacy? It certainly cannot base any proof on past experience, so one can only look forward to the extra staff that will be added to the Department of Housing to make these dreams come true. What extra staff will be employed to run the new Department of Housing legal and prosecution department, and where is that to be found in the bill? Where is the extra funding? Where are the exact numbers? None of that is identified. Therefore, indeed, we do take a cynical approach to the bill.

How are these matters going to see the light of day with the limited number of inspectors currently on the staff and no additional ones provided for in the bill? Why is the Department of Housing taking over this role? Is the Minister saying he is not satisfied with the other State departments? That is certainly the interpretation when one circumvents referring matters to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the New South Wales Police Force. All of this means nothing at all without the extra staff and the inspectors to apply the practical aspects of the legislation; it would be purely lip-service. The department has been a total failure so far with a loss of $53 million a year. Why does the Minister believe that taking on prosecution duties will improve that?

I turn to the Minister's agreement in principle speech to consider the substance of his argument for the introduction of the bill. In the second paragraph the Minister provides more evidence of department failures. Since when has it been the role of the Minister to highlight the department's failures? I find it strange that the Minister did that. He points to the fact that $125,000 was assessed as a debt in one particular tenant's case and in another case the tenant owed $67,000 to the State. In the third paragraph of his speech the Minister went on to say:

That is why we have committed $420 million to "New Directions in Social Housing for Older People", delivering 2,800 new properties over the next four years to house our elderly tenants. The Iemma Government will also invest $75 million over the next four years to modify properties that will make life much easier for older people.

It is interesting to read, and clearly it is an admirable sentiment, but it is the exact same statement made by the former Minister for Housing in May 2006. In her speech on Tuesday 2 May 2006 she said:

We were there to announce the first phase of the Premier's affordable housing plan, $420 million over the next five years for more housing dedicated to our seniors.

The Minister went on:

The Government will spend $75 million to make sure our homes meet the needs of older people. We know they want to feel independent and secure, which is why this $75 million investment is so important.

They are exactly the same words as used by the current Minister for Housing; the only thing that differs is the time frame. If the announcements are going to be repeated—this whole bill is repetition because, in practice, it already exists because in many ways the tenancy agreement has taken up some of those issues—if the Government is going to repeat the words and speak of the same amounts of money, being $420 million and $75 million, but change the dates, surely one is entitled to be sceptical and, indeed, cynical and wonder whether the reannouncements are the order of the day. Is this a smoke and mirrors announcement rather than a practical announcement? The Minister claims that the new provisions will reinforce the efforts of the front-line staff to identify individual cases of fraud and this new legislation will have tenant fraud seen for what it is—a crime 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6685

against the public. What would the Minister term the current commission of acts against the Government? Naughty? A little bit naughty? Perhaps just a fraction naughty? Or is it very serious? I inform the Minister that the public already see it as a fraud. What on earth is he telling us in his speech?

The Minister claims the problem commences with the tenant providing false information on a government document. Fancy that! Is that not already a crime: knowingly providing false information for the purposes of gaining an advantage or falsifying information on a government document? What does the Minister classify that as—just a little bit naughty? The Minister claims also that the problem occurs when the tenant does not notify the department of others living in the premises and of their financial and property interests. Under the current tenancy agreement the tenant is required to notify the department of any additional people residing at the premises and of changes in income. How is that going to change other than by new legislation? A fine of $2,200 already covers the breach and breaking the lease agreement is currently grounds for eviction. In paragraph 8 of his speech the Minister makes quite a bizarre statement. He said:

However, if a person is found responsible for fraud against the public purse then I expect Housing New South Wales to take action to obtain possession of the premises in question.

One is entitled to ask just what is the Minister's current expectation of tenants who do not pay their rent, who sublet their houses or who do not comply with their tenancy agreement? Why the need for a change? Why the need to highlight this in the agreement in principle speech? The Minister continued:

I expect the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal to make an order for possession.

Again I ask, what does the Minister think the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal does now? Is the Minister suggesting that he might usurp the tribunal's authority? If not, that is a most fatuous statement. In paragraph 9 of his speech the Minister said the adding of a term of imprisonment of up to three months to the current punishment of a $2,200 fine will improve the situation and result in enforcement of the agreement. Unfortunately, without the means of enforcement—without the inspectors—a life sentence could be applied to this particular crime and it would still be meaningless.

We have to agree that access to databases is a step forward. We have been calling for this for many years, particularly in relation to government departments, and I have spoken to government agencies about this. Access to databases is logical and it should have happened many, many years ago. The Minister talks about access to the databases of the Roads and Traffic Authority, the Department of Lands, maritime registers and so forth. That is a step forward, but investment properties in other States will not be registered by the New South Wales Department of Lands—the Minister should know that full well, being a marvellous property investor himself. This could be rectified only through the Australian Taxation Office on tax returns and on negative gearing claims.

With regard to vehicle registration, a gap in the legislation exists that the Minister might want to address before proceeding with it. One of the problems faced in border regions—and, as the Minister knows, I represent such an electorate—that would prevent the legislation being terribly effective is that many vehicles are registered in a neighbouring State but are in fact housed and used within New South Wales. As a result, New South Wales not only will lose out on registration fees for those vehicles but now it will be impossible to trace the those vehicles owned by public housing tenants.

Businesses can be registered in other States but operate in New South Wales. Also, businesses can be placed in other family members' names or under a family trust, providing the main beneficiary a level of protection. The Australian Taxation Office would need access to this information to assist the Minister in his new quest. A couple of questions must be asked: What difference does this addition to the current penalties make? The issues that the Minister has raised relating to the actual fraud—falsifying documentation, not notifying the Department of Housing of changes in circumstances, subletting, leaving the property for extended periods and so on—are already covered under the tenancy agreement and by State and Federal laws. If a person is receiving a rental subsidy from the Federal Government, surely that person also has committed fraud against the Federal Government.

Without appropriate enforcement, the additional penalty is simply window-dressing. The department does not have enough inspectors to manage normal repair and maintenance. One need look only at some of the issues that I have covered in a previous contribution to the House to realise that. I refer to the case of Ms Donna Filby of Neville Street, Ryde, who was experiencing problems with her sewerage service. Ryde Family Support Service Incorporated supported her and wrote to the Minister and to me as the then shadow Minister. The letter 6686 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

pointed out that the team leader of the Ryde Department of Housing office and the area manager had received copies of the relevant material. It is understood that a tradesman was sent to the premises but that minimal repairs were performed. However, an assurance was given that full repairs would be carried out within two weeks. That occurred only because the Ryde City Council health department served the Department of Housing with an order to repair. This goes to the heart of inspection and enforcement. It was a problem back in 2006 and well before that. What will change today? Without proactive detection, nothing will change.

In 2006 I called for a full inquiry into what was known as the "Oatlands drug house" in which an explosion occurred, apparently caused by a group manufacturing drugs in an illegal granny flat added to a Department of Housing property. It was reported that the roof of the extension was blown off and that a male lost part of his arm. The Minister's explanation at the time raised more questions than it answered. The Government had been granted approval to remove the unauthorised extension in April 2006, but it was still standing in August. The Minister claimed that the Government could not gain access, even though it had a court order and it still owned the property. That frightening explosion could have been avoided if the Government had taken appropriate and timely action. Neighbouring residents were lucky to be alive because the explosion could have taken out their houses.

The Minister at the time said that the department had followed a process. However, the court ruled in the department's favour but it still failed to act. It should explain why. That response calls the bill into question. The extra opportunities to prosecute will be extremely limited if the department does what it did in 2006, when clear results could have been achieved. The failure to do so resulted in an explosion in an illegal business being conducted in an illegal extension. The Government did nothing. Of course, it tried to shift the blame by saying that it was not a Department of Housing problem; it was a police matter. Yet it was a Department of Housing property that was blown up. Again, the Government tried to shift responsibility from the department to the police, suggesting that it would be better placed to prosecute. I do not believe we will have much success as a result of this legislation.

What funding is being allocated to create the Department of Housing legal and enforcement agency that will take over responsibilities from the New South Wales Police Force? What extra powers will be provided to inspectors to enter properties forcibly, to demand identification and to remove evidence to secure prosecutions? How many extra housing inspectors will be employed to enforce this legislation? As I asked in reference to a previous example, who will inspect the repair and maintenance work? When a fault is found, will the appropriate work be performed? When it receives an invoice, will the Department of Housing charge the tradesmen if the work was not performed? As I said, without the practical, on-the-ground inspectors to detect fraudulent activities the additional penalties will be totally ineffective. [Time expired.]

Ms JODI McKAY (Newcastle) [12.13 p.m.]: I am very pleased to commend to the House the Housing Amendment (Tenant Fraud) Bill. I am a strong advocate of social housing and this Government must ensure that our most precious resources are allocated to those who need them most. A significant number of people in my electorate live in public housing. They are an important constituency and I am pleased to have a constructive relationship with them and the Department of Housing. I also congratulate the department and thank the staff for the work that they do in Newcastle. I have about 4,000 Department of Housing properties in inner city Newcastle in my electorate. Those tenants have complex needs. They often come to my office and we are pleased to ensure that they get the support they need.

It is interesting to note that Newcastle has a rental vacancy rate of about 1.4 per cent, so the local housing priority list is significant. The number of people seeking housing support is also significant. That is why social housing—both public and community housing—is so important. The people seeking accommodation have complex needs and their situation is often such that it arouses incredible empathy in me as their local member. One woman who was a victim of domestic violence came into my office because she was living in her car. She had applied for rental accommodation and had been knocked back 74 times because she did not have a rental history. That is the type of person who is seeking housing and awaiting an offer. They will benefit from this bill, and that is why I believe it is important.

It is important that a member like me, whose electorate contains a significant number of Department of Housing properties, supports the legislation. As I said, public housing residents or people who are awaiting an offer of housing have approached me to express their concerns about unscrupulous individuals who are fraudulently occupying public housing. Those people are not eligible for public housing and they should not have access to it. Only those in need should occupy the limited housing stock available. To achieve that we must take action against the people who take advantage of the system. This bill will allow the Government to achieve that goal, which is why I support it. 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6687

The Iemma Government is committed to delivering more housing for people in need. That was outlined in the State Plan and every member in this place knows that. The Department of Housing provides shelter, security and peace of mind to more than 340,000 people in New South Wales. In one area alone in Newcastle I have about 780 Department of Housing properties. Many young families live in that area and many of the tenants are also frail, elderly, disadvantaged or suffer from a mental illness or physical disability. As members are aware, the Government is focused on providing social housing to those most in need and the most vulnerable in our community.

As I said, unfortunately some people living in public housing do not abide by the rules and abuse the opportunities offered to them. This bill will significantly improve the capacity of the Department of Housing to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute public housing fraud. I can only imagine the frustration of public housing staff who see this happen time and again but who have not been able to do anything about it. One of the key reforms is the information-sharing arrangement established with the Roads and Traffic Authority, the Department of Lands, Maritime New South Wales and the Office of Fair Trading. This access to information will allow the Department of Housing to investigate individuals suspected of fraudulent activity more effectively.

Of course, the department will be able to undertake proactive data matching exercises to identify tenants who act fraudulently. By examining that information we can find people who own businesses and who have boats or multiple properties. These people do exist in the system. More detailed checking will also be undertaken of applicants for public housing. That is important. Of course, searches of this kind are strictly limited to the protection of public revenues from fraud-related activities and they are subject to information-sharing protocols negotiated with the relevant agencies and Privacy New South Wales.

Safeguards exist within the Department of Housing to ensure that any information related to fraud investigations is restricted, that stringent security and access controls apply and that only senior investigative staff can access the information. As part of these reforms the Government will also initiate discussions with Centrelink and the Australian Taxation Office with the goal of entering into an agreement to exchange information for the purpose of reducing fraud. The Department of Housing already operates an income verification scheme with Centrelink to assist recipients of benefits to verify their income without the burden of copious paperwork. We have seen the benefits of working that way in my office in Newcastle. We must make it as easy as possible for people who are most in need to access public housing. It is hoped that further data sharing can assist with the ongoing efforts to reduce fraud and better utilise the scarce resource of public housing.

The Department of Housing relies on applicants and tenants, and the members of their household, fully disclosing their income and assets to enable an accurate determination of their entitlement to public housing accommodation and rental rebates. The Department of Housing has previously had limited powers to detect, investigate and prosecute tenant fraud. It has historically relied on civil rather than criminal law provisions. Between 1989 and 2005, 2,796 allegations of tenant fraud were investigated. No criminal prosecutions were referred to the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions. Where tenants were found to have incorrectly claimed a rental rebate repayment arrangements have been put in place and, in serious cases, the tenants have been evicted.

The amendments will make it a criminal offence—they will deter people from going down this path— to provide false information or intentionally fail to notify the Department of Housing of changes in circumstances that remove or reduce a person's entitlement to a benefit. They will enable the Department of Housing to recover debts owed by reducing or removing a rental rebate or by enforcing repayment from an adult who is not a tenant but who benefited from public housing. Rental fraud in public housing is estimated to cost nearly $53 million every year, as we have heard during the debate. That is enough to build up to 200 units to help people in genuine need every year. I say to the Minister for Housing, who is in the House right now, that I would like those 200 units in Newcastle, if possible.

This initiative is not directed towards people suffering hardship; it is about cracking down on people who are taking advantage of a system for their own personal gain, a system that is designed to help the most vulnerable people in the community. The Iemma Government remains committed to ensuring that those most in need—the elderly and people with mental and physical disabilities—are found secure, suitable and permanent housing. I know that important constituency of mine that I mentioned, people who are in social housing, will welcome this initiative because they come to see me and speak to me quite often about their frustrations with the existing system. Because of all that, I commend the bill to the House. 6688 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [12.22 p.m.]: It gives me great pleasure to speak to the Housing Amendment (Tenant Fraud) Bill 2008. A few members have alluded to the fact that the bill could perhaps be redefined as the here we go again bill, the housing inefficiency bill or the housing frustration bill—and by frustration I mean that of all the good working staff of the Department of Housing who will now be forced into a regulatory role if they have the time, but no detail has been given on that. Many clients of the Department of Housing who are on waiting lists are also quite frustrated. We could call it the government housing ineptitude bill or, as I heard last night, the come out with your hands up bill.

Last week we heard from the education Minister—there are some parallels with this legislation—that we will jail the parents of students who do not attend school, and now we are talking about jailing public housing tenants. If the Government thinks that threatening to jail parents will fix the truancy problem in New South Wales, it has another think coming. There is a serious disconnect in this State if the Government once again thinks that threatening jail to public housing tenants will end the fraud and the dysfunction in many departments, particularly on the ground level. The bill revisits something that happened 10 years ago, and highlights the ineptitude of the Government in failing to provide appropriate levels of staffing and resources to collect the rent.

The Department of Housing expects its staff to do the right thing when working with people on the ground, but the Government does not show the necessary connection when working with public housing tenants. One of the parallels is the collection of data and how it is processed and used. I wrote to the Minister for Education and Training about truancy last year, which has been alluded to by members on both sides of the House. One reason the Government cannot, or refuses to, acknowledge that we have a significant truancy problem is, as the education Minister highlighted—

Mr Ninos Khoshaba: Point of order: I raise relevance under Standing Order 76. We have allowed the member opposite a bit of leniency, but he continues to talk about truancy. The bill concerns tenant fraud in public housing. I ask you to bring him back to the bill.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Wayne Merton): Order! I am certain the member will return to the leave of the bill.

Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES: To solve the problem the Government has to look at what it does with the data it collects. It should not take 10 years to identify the problem in collecting rent and the fraudulent behaviour of many housing tenants. Without the information how does one know there is a problem and how to fix it? Again, in parallel with the truancy problem, the answer is to whack them in jail. That threat is all about being seen to be doing something, not about substance. I am pleased the Minister for Housing is present. I have written to him a number of times about problems within public housing and I have made recommendations that the Minister and the Government may take up.

The electorate of Barwon, one of the largest electorates in the State, and the electorate of Murray-Darling—I am pleased the member for Murray-Darling is present as well—have almost the highest number of public housing constituents in the State, with a mix of public and Aboriginal housing. As the member for Barwon for the past 12 months, I have had the opportunity to meet with many public housing resident and tenancy groups, land councils, advocacy groups and community stakeholders to look at some of the problems within public housing and what can be done about them. As I am sure the Minister is aware, I have also been contacted not only by my constituents but also by people from around the State, about public housing. It is recognised that public housing is an integral component of our community and tenants believe there is much room for improving and updating the management policy of public housing.

I highlight some of the public housing problems that were identified to me that relate to fraud and deception. It is not just about collecting rent; there are far deeper issues than that in public housing. One issue that was highlighted is that tenants who neglect—even destroy—their properties and who fail to pay their rents are being subsidised by good tenants through upgrades and relocations, and through the Government introducing amnesties when it should be collecting rent. There are many examples. I invite the Minister to come to Moree and to some other parts of my electorate to meet these people and see the problems firsthand. I visited many public housing tenants in our estates who have been good tenants for 30 and 40 years—they have paid for those houses two or three times over They are frustrated because they see neighbours who have trashed their places having them upgraded two and three times, while the good tenants cannot even get maintenance and things like air conditioning in parts of my electorate that average 38 degrees over long periods during the summer. 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6689

Our good tenants are not being rewarded; we are not looking after them. I have referred to the Minister certain programs that he could put in place to help support and reward our good tenants. One response was to acknowledge our good tenants by giving them a certificate. The bill provides an amnesty for those who are not doing the right thing. That will reward the wrong people. We should be rewarding our good long-term tenants who receive no formal recognition. Good tenants are not given an opportunity to relocate because the department prefers to keep them in difficult communities, as they are a settling influence. The department is deceiving the good tenants when it should be rewarding them.

Long-term public housing tenants should be able to co-locate with like-minded tenants who enjoy similar lifestyles. Ageing tenants are by far the largest public housing group; senior tenants prefer to be co-located in public housing. Pensioner tenancies in unit compounds that house a diverse mix of residents of all ages have created problems for older tenants who prefer a peaceful lifestyle. The problem is compounded for residents suffering mental disabilities and disorders, which places further stress on co-located tenants. Maintenance issues are discussed constantly by tenants, and in particular the 1300 call mechanism. This is another deception. A tenant cannot ring the local office to report that something requires maintenance. For instance, a tenant in Moree who rings the Adelaide Street office is shuffled on to the Moree office, then to the Narrabri office, then to the Tamworth office and possibly then on to Sydney, depending on what the tenant is attempting to report.

Public housing tenants want a local response from someone who can make the decision. Tenants are expected to do too much running around to get a response. Tenants have told me that local Housing representatives are too frightened to give any response, as they fear local reprisal. The department is regarded as being too soft. In the Barwon electorate, people on the housing waiting list can wait up to four years to be assigned a residence, yet ironically many houses are vacant for more than 12 months. That situation exists especially in rural communities because of poor communication by the Housing department, which manages the Aboriginal Housing Office. Maintenance upgrades and house reallocations often are convoluted. There is a shortage of housing vacancies, yet significant numbers of houses are boarded up and uninhabited. Again I invite the Minister to come and see the situation for himself.

There is a perception that the department has a pecuniary interest in the allocation of houses, and we have seen examples of that perception. Departmental staff need support, but they are not receiving it. How can staff receive support when all they will be doing is policing errant tenants? Who will do the job if existing staff numbers cannot manage now? The three-month inspections of housing residences are not carried out regularly. People living in many Aboriginal estates do not report their circumstances, because up to three and four families are living in two- and three-bedroom houses. They will never disclose that to the department. They tell me that publicly. If the Government is not being told about those situations, again I invite the Minister to visit and inspect the residences. The reason those families do not disclose the facts is that they have nowhere else to go. Many of our estates have significant housing shortages.

Under this legislation, is the behaviour of those people fraudulent? Technically they are deceiving the department. What will the Minister do? He cannot say the Government is attacking fraudulent and deceptive behaviour by ensuring the collection of rent. The public housing sector has deep systemic problems. Kevin Rudd visited Walgett a month ago because over the last couple of years the Federal Government said that it had to bypass the States on public housing. The Minister knows that the previous Federal Government canvassed local government to examine housing for indigenous people, aged people and people with disabilities. This Federal approach highlighted the fact that New South Wales does not manage housing effectively. Kevin Rudd and his offsiders met with specific Walgett communities that had concerns about housing. How is the Minister going to deal with that?

Tenants often make complaints about antisocial behaviour. Significant gambling and drug trafficking goes on in public housing but are not dealt with seriously by the police or the department. The Minister has been extremely ineffective in doing anything with the information that has been collected and shared. This must be turned around. Public housing estates suffer from a recurring ineffective theme. Who is responsible for maintaining law and order within public housing? Who maintains the standards? People will work with agencies to improve their quality of life in public housing if given the opportunity. Centralised management and community disconnection do not work. Public housing in rural areas⎯I cannot comment on the city⎯needs to have more engagement with the local community. I have met with the people who will take on the responsibility, but they need to be engaged by the Minister's department.

The following is a list of recommendations to improve conditions in public housing estates. We need a policy that recognises and rewards good, long-term tenants, and those rewards should be quantifiable and 6690 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

transferable. I refer the Minister to the L. J. Hooker A1 Tenant scheme. We need a policy that reflects timely upgrades, maintenance needs and relocation options for long-term residents. We need potential public-private partnerships with local commercial operators to manage and maintain public housing. It is critical that services are operated as a business and staff are not put in a position where they could be compromised. Rent will be collected when local people are put in charge. We need to develop local tenancy boards to provide local assistance, knowledge and input into the operation of public housing.

We need local maintenance crews that can respond at the local level, with particular focus on expanding our Aboriginal housing crews in areas such as Moree, Walgett and Brewarrina. Appropriate education and support should be provided to first-time public housing tenants. Tenants identified as being at risk should undertake either retraining or engage in an intensive mentoring program. That could include people who are struggling with rent. Young people having children, especially those with no parental experience or limited home-making skills, really are struggling in our communities. They need help because most of them reside in our public housing.

We need financial incentives for good long-term tenants, perhaps by providing utility rebates. The Minister should talk to public housing tenants; they are absolutely scared to death about the proposed changes to water charges and about what will happen when the Government privatises electricity. They know those utility costs will double. How will the Minister deal with the impact of those changes on public housing tenants? The department should focus on promotion of the concept of long-term tenants buying into the public housing system. Many public housing tenants actually have paid for their houses two and three times over. Whilst the Opposition has to be critical, it is happy to put forward those recommendations. Indeed, I am more than happy to take the Minister around to hear some of the practical solutions that have been put forward in the community, rather than jail people.

Mr NINOS KHOSHABA (Smithfield) [12.37 p.m.]: I support the Housing Amendment (Tenant Fraud) Bill 2008 because it is about fairness and equity. Our whole public housing system is built on equity. The idea that every Australian is entitled to decent accommodation is the principle underpinning public housing. It is a noble principle the Labor Party has championed throughout the last century. That principle, which we in New South Wales remain deeply committed to, was given new life after the Federal Labor victory in November 2007. This tenant fraud legislation is critical to that principle of equity. Without a proper system in place to ensure that public housing is provided only to those who need it, we cannot make good on our commitment to provide homes to those who need them most. This legislation will allow us to deliver that commitment. Not only will this allow Housing NSW to detect and prosecute instances of tenant fraud to recover money, but also it will set a good example to our tenants who are doing the right thing.

It is very disheartening for our tenants to see other tenants in their community taking advantage of the privilege that is public housing. These other tenants may be subleasing rooms, may own expensive vehicles or boats or, in some cases, may even be running businesses from their public housing property. This legislation is important to restore the faith of good public tenants and of the broader community that public housing is going to the people who really need it. This bill is critical in delivering equity and fairness to our public housing tenants, the majority of whom are good people trying to do the right thing. It will deliver fairness and equity also to the taxpayers of New South Wales, who can be assured that the public purse, their purse, is not being exploited by the selfish few.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Housing on introducing the bill, which ensure that public housing is given to those who need it most. We have heard a number of contributions from members opposite, who spoke for some time but said little. Perhaps they could be scriptwriters for shows such as Seinfeld. Even though they support the bill, they wish to debate it. It would have been better if the Opposition had had its own policy prior to the election last year. Indeed, the Opposition's policy would have been to provide recycled water to public housing, but as its photocopier was broken we will never know. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [12.40 p.m.]: It was an interesting acknowledgement by the member for Smithfield that Opposition members make speeches that are unscripted while Government members read word-for-word from speeches that have been prepared for them. I make a contribution to the Housing Amendment (Tenant Fraud) Bill 2008. Whilst I have no objection to the bill, previous speakers have raised myriad issues, and I shall add concerns about the way the Minister for Housing has undertaken his job and things he should have done. In the agreement in principle speech the Minister stated that the estimate of fraud was between 5 per cent and 10 per cent, suggesting that the cost to government was about $26 million, using the lower end of the scale. 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6691

I do not think the Minister has any idea what he is doing by using those statistics. It is a figure he plucked out of the air in the hope that he is right. It could be far worse; it could be 12 per cent or 15 per cent. Neither the department nor the Minister has a clue. They have used those figures to justify their actions. The Minister should have done more homework and been better prepared so that he could introduce legislation that reflects the truth. However, I would be surprised if the figure were lower; indeed I would welcome that. Members will never support defrauding taxpayers of their money. The money should be used to house people who have fallen on bad times, sometimes not of their own making, and people who have a disability. The bill introduces reforms to allow prosecutions. It also allows interagencies to transfer information in an endeavour to find people who are defrauding the citizens of New South Wales, which disadvantages those who desperately need public housing.

If there is one thing I cannot agree with, it is fraud. However, the Minister could have done more because the information is only shared throughout New South Wales jurisdictions. I ask whether the Minister has raised the matter with his Federal counterparts and whether it has been placed on the agenda of the Council of Australian Governments so that information can be shared with Centrelink and the Australian Taxation Office. If the Minister had been serious about clamping down on people who defraud the system, he would have been proactive. Knowing that he was going to introduce State-based legislation, he should have encouraged the Federal Government to agree to also share information. I ask the Minister in reply to explain how serious he is about cracking down on defrauders who may have moved interstate and have other properties elsewhere yet are sub-renting properties in New South Wales. This matter needs to be placed on the agenda of the Council of Australian Governments, but I bet London to a brick that not a word has been said federally.

Real estate agencies in New South Wales participate in a system known as the Tenancy Information Centre of Australia [TICOA]. Because the real estate industry is highly regulated, real estate agents are required to go about their business in certain ways before they can list a bad-paying tenant on the Tenancy Information Centre of Australia. Western Australia has an organisation called NTDA but I am advised that the Tenancy Information Centre of Australia is the better system. When I asked how the system works, I was told that the contract for the leasing of the property needs to expire or all contractual arrangements are closed and the premises vacated before the person can be listed as a bad debtor on the Tenancy Information Centre of Australia.

With the Department of Housing, I understand if a tenant leaves with outstanding debts, the department is not required to register the tenant with the Tenancy Information Centre of Australia. Therefore, if a tenant vacates premises while in arrears but then rents from a private rental agency or real estate agent or landlord who chooses to negotiate the contract themselves, there is no way of finding out whether that person has a bad credit rating other than through credit institutions such as banks or finance companies that may maintain a private register. The Department of Housing encourages people to invest in private housing and gives a rental rebate to public housing tenants to rent from private landlords, so why is the department not required to list bad creditors with the information centre? I ask the Minister to address that in reply.

I declare an interest. I am a landlord, as is the Minister for Housing. He must be the largest landlord in the Parliament, with his 13 or 15 properties, so he would understand the problems I am talking about. If someone absconds without paying rent, once all opportunities to recoup the rent are exhausted, he can list the bad-paying tenant with the Tenancy Information Centre of Australia. The same does not apply to public housing tenants, unless those tenants owe money to a bank or financial institution. People who provide private accommodation to public housing tenants do not have the same protection. I place these matters before the Minister and encourage him to stamp out these unfair standards and ensure a level playing field between Government and private industry. If the Government is serious about stamping out the behaviour of those who are defrauding taxpayers by subleasing properties or destroying them—as the member for Barwon said, not all tenants are good tenants—such tenants should be brought to heel and made to comply with the requirements of public housing.

Wagga Wagga has a large public housing tenants register and the department has been very cooperative in dealing with the requirements of my office. If there is one department that has a very difficult job, it is Housing. The local Wagga Wagga staff are terrific in dealing with any request made through the Minister's office or if my office is approached by tenants in regard to difficult neighbours or maintenance problems. I want to place on the record that I recognise the local staff have a difficult job. We have stood up and supported legislation to help them do their job better but I say to the department's staff that if they need to take action where a recalcitrant tenant is causing difficulties by, for example, harassing and intimidating older people, they should use every piece of legislation available to stamp on that tenant. The message I give the department is that I support it 100 per cent and I will not be sending a soppy letter defending such people if they are not adhering to the rules. 6692 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

I will be interested to see how seriously the Minister enforces the legislation. What resources have been allocated to enable the department to do its job? I know from the number of houses on the department's books, and the regulations it has to comply with, that the legislation will go nowhere unless it is reinforced with action by the Minister and funding support. The department will do its job well if given funding, but any legislation that the Government brings to the House without a dollar to back it up is superfluous. If the Minister does not go further and show he is serious by approaching the Council of Australian Governments, dealing with Centrelink and the Australian Taxation Office, and putting a program in place to track money and find out what exactly is going on with tenants, the bill will not achieve what it is supposed to achieve.

Mr MATTHEW MORRIS (Charlestown) [12.52 p.m.]: I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Wagga Wagga and advise him that I do not have a prepared speech but he is more than welcome to my notes to scrutinise at the conclusion of my contribution to the debate, if he so wishes.

Mr Daryl Maguire: You are welcome to mine also.

Mr MATTHEW MORRIS: It is with pleasure that I speak in support of the Housing Amendment (Tenant Fraud) Bill 2008. I congratulate the Minister for Housing on bringing such an important bill before the House. Unfortunately, a small element of public housing residents persist in their attempts to defraud the department of income. That fraud has a flow-on effect for the many thousands of people who need social housing. All members would acknowledge that there are extensive waiting lists but there is also a steady growth in the priority-housing list. That means that times are more desperate for people and more families need priority housing. Tenants who allow multiple occupancies mislead the department into believing that their properties are not available to house those in genuine need.

In recent years the Government has taken proactive steps to reform public housing, establish leasing arrangements, and scrutinise the application process further to ensure that those who do secure housing are in most need. However, public housing tenant fraud needs to be addressed. The bill will give power to the department to take the appropriate action needed to ensure that tenants do the right thing. Tenants are obliged to put their cards on the table not only at the time of application but during the tenancy to ensure that their records reflect what is happening. The majority of public housing tenants are decent and genuine people who are in public housing for a range of reasons and they have great respect for the department. They also acknowledge that public housing is subsidised across the board by the taxpayers. Most of them are endeavouring to establish themselves in their own right and move on from public housing.

The fundamental purpose of public housing is to give people the opportunity to establish themselves, at a young age in some cases, or to re-establish themselves and eventually move on to become part of the community. Unless we take active measures to restrict or minimise fraud then we are not doing the right thing by the taxpayers or the many thousands of people who are on priority waiting lists across the State. It was interesting to note some of the contributions made by the members opposite. Whilst members opposite did not suggest alternatives or amendments to improve the bill, they were happy to criticise elements of it. I would much rather see something positive emanate from the Opposition for a change. Many of the contributions of the members opposite were negative, which does not send a positive message to their own electorates about fraud that might be attempted in their communities. There would be a fairly large proportion of public housing in every electorate and we all understand the issues that accompany that fact.

There are many challenges in housing; it is not only about tenancy fraud. The department has to deal with both multi-agency issues and social issues which affect the broader community. It is fine to tackle these issues one by one but we need to continue to improve housing, improve the accountability of tenants, and endeavour to secure properties for those in most need. The legislation is good and timely. It will give my local Housing office the confidence and ability to go out and take active steps. I put on record my sincere appreciation of the office team at Charlestown who do a tremendous job, as I am sure all Housing staff do across New South Wales. It is a challenging and complex role. I am sure that staff do their absolute best to look after the public interest. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms CLOVER MOORE (Sydney) [12.59 p.m.]: The Housing Amendment (Tenant Fraud) Bill 2008 aims to address rental rebate fraud by making it a criminal offence. The bill provides for certain register checks to get information about particular tenants on rental fraud and to build profiles of tenants who commit fraud. The bill extends liability to a person other than a tenant who benefits from the fraud, such as, an undisclosed working occupant. The bill also allows Housing New South Wales to recover debts by cancelling or varying rent rebates of a tenant, regardless of whether the debt was caused by wilful fraud or a mistake of Housing New 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6693

South Wales. The Sydney electorate has a significant population of public housing tenants living in Surry Hills, Chippendale, Darlinghurst, Woolloomooloo, Pyrmont, Ultimo and Millers Point, as well as individual in-fill properties throughout the electorate. The City of Sydney has approximately 10,000 social housing properties, which is more than any other local government area in the country.

I agree that it is important to maintain the integrity of the rental rebate system with safeguards and disincentives to prevent people from purposely taking advantage of a system that is meant to assist those in need. However, the Tenants Union says that in most cases of rental rebate fraud the situation is not as extreme as the examples given by the Minister in his speech. In most cases people on limited means try to dishonestly gain a small advantage or make an honest mistake such as in reporting a variable income. I am very concerned about the impact this bill could have on already disadvantaged people. I understand from the Tenants Union that the current practices to deal with tenants receiving rebates that they are not entitled to can already create serious difficulties for the disadvantaged. The Tenants Union drew my attention to cases that were taken to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal. I refer to two of those cases.

A tenant whose former partner was homeless and addicted to drugs sometimes felt sorry for him and let him sleep on the lounge or in the garden and use the bathroom. Very sadly, he died in the tenant's toilet. The tenant also had a foster child who did not contribute to the household income. The Department of Housing cancelled her rebate retrospectively, creating arrears of more than $20,000, and took her to the tribunal to terminate her tenancy. Because of the circumstances the tribunal declined to terminate the tenancy. Another tenant had an ex-partner who physically abused her and took her wages and who occasionally lived in the premises. As he was not an authorised tenant, the New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation again retrospectively cancelled the rebate and applied to the tribunal to terminate the tenancy. Because of the circumstances the tribunal declined to terminate the tenancy.

I am concerned that Housing New South Wales will pursue criminal cases against such vulnerable people. The examples I have given demonstrate a lack of safeguards in the initial decision to initiate proceedings against tenants where there are clear extenuating circumstances. While the Minister has said that criminal prosecutions will be pursued only in serious cases, the Redfern Legal Centre points out that this is not a sufficient assurance. The centre stated that "experience shows that where powers exist, they will regularly be used to the fullest extent". According to the Redfern Legal Centre, this bill could result in the imprisonment of people who have special needs, merely for omitting to fill out forms at the right time. It notes that many public housing tenants have difficulties managing their affairs, which is why they are unable to access the private housing market. The Regional Tenants Resource Service worker for the Inner Sydney Regional Council for Social Development says that the bill could create a disincentive to work.

If tenants know they have problems with completing forms and sorting out their affairs they may be afraid to work because of the risks of criminal charges if they accidentally report their situation incorrectly. I share the Tenants Union's concern that the threat of criminal proceedings will force vulnerable tenants into accepting unfair terminations or financial conditions. The new powers of Housing New South Wales to recover debts through the cancellation of a rebate have serious disadvantages. In issuing repayment orders, courts always consider financial circumstances. However, the Tenants Union points out that this cannot occur through rebate cancellations because the impact will depend on the market rent value of where a tenant lives without any consideration of the tenant's financial situation. I share the Tenants Union's concern.

Instead of criminal prosecutions being pursued against disadvantaged people, the system should be protected against fraud by improving reviews of decisions. This should be the focus of new legislation. A stronger internal decision-making review process would assist tenants to meet their obligations, and protect them from unsubstantiated decisions that threaten their tenancy and cause them severe distress. It may end up with people being homeless. The Regional Tenants Resource Service has informed me that there are already powers to undertake criminal proceedings against tenants who commit fraud, so there is no need to bring in new legislation. The Redfern Legal Centre notes that no other housing agency in Australia has such specific power. Further, the Regional Tenants Resource Service says that this new legislation is estimated to impact on only about 1 per cent of tenants and, therefore, does not reflect the reality of public housing. For those reasons I strongly oppose this legislation.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [1.04 p.m.]: I support the Housing Amendment (Tenant Fraud) Bill 2008. My electorate of Wyong has a significant number of tenants in public and community housing. I am sure this bill will be of great interest to them. The vast majority of them will have nothing to fear from this legislation, as I know they liaise with the Department of Housing to make sure they do the right thing and notify 6694 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

their circumstances in a timely fashion. This legislation is designed to reduce tenant fraud and applicant fraud in public housing by improving the ability of Housing New South Wales to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute fraudulent activity. The vast majority of residents and applicants do the right thing and provide correct and timely information about their circumstances. I am pleased to say that these changes will have no effect on them at all.

The changes to the law focus on those who deliberately mislead Housing New South Wales in order to get public housing or to pay less rent. I emphasise the word "deliberately". This legislation is designed to ensure that those who really deserve public housing get it. In my electorate of Wyong social housing is a big issue, with a growing list of people who are facing difficulties in the current tough economic conditions. With rising interest rates and rising rents, it is becoming increasingly difficult for many low-income earners to keep a roof over their heads. Some 46.9 per cent of tenants in my area are currently in what is described as rental stress. The Iemma Government aims to ensure that cracking down on people who cheat the system will enable those who really need help to get help. I commend the Minister for bringing this legislation to the Parliament for the benefit of those law-abiding citizens in our community, the genuinely needy.

Specifically, the Housing Amendment (Tenant Fraud) Bill 2008 introduces the following initiatives. It creates a new offence of intentionally failing to report changes in circumstances that affect entitlement to a public housing benefit for existing tenants and applicants. It gives Housing New South Wales the power to take action against applicants who have lied on their application form in order to be eligible for public housing. It makes it easier for Housing New South Wales to recover a rental debt owed. In some cases privacy laws have made it possible for people to exploit the current system because departments have not been able to swap information. The legislation allows Housing New South Wales to access information held by four other government agencies: the Roads and Traffic Authority, Maritime New South Wales, the Office of Fair Trading, and Lands New South Wales. This information sharing is very restricted and can only be used to prevent, detect, investigate or prosecute tenant fraud matters.

One of the key parts of the new law is a three-month amnesty to run from 1 July 2008 to 1 October 2008. During this amnesty any tenants or occupants who think they may not have told Housing New South Wales the correct information about their household can call the Housing Contact Centre and have their circumstances reviewed. If it is discovered that tenants have been paying the wrong rent, or that they are not entitled to a particular benefit, Housing New South Wales will not prosecute them under the new laws and they will not have to pay back the debt for which they would otherwise be liable. That goes to my earlier comment that people who have deliberately flouted the law will be prosecuted and those who have made an honest mistake will not.

The amnesty is a way of encouraging people to do the right thing and own up to Housing New South Wales about their household circumstances. It is a chance for them to wipe the slate clean and not have to worry about repaying any adjusted rent. Once reassessed, tenants will have to pay the correct rent in the future. This demonstrates that the Government is out to catch only cheats and not people who have made honest mistakes. The Opposition missed that point. Fraud involves people deliberately covering up a situation. Opposition members asked why the department did not know about various situations. Action cannot be taken against fraud until the fraud becomes known. People need to know that these things are going on. The department does not have a crystal ball to determine whether people are telling the truth. It is only when they are dobbed in, confess, or are caught out through other information that they are identified.

I recommend that Housing New South Wales tenants use the amnesty period to review their circumstances and make sure they have correctly notified their personal details. The Government is committed to improving accessibility to social housing. In the last budget the Central Coast received more than $27.8 million to provide social housing for those most in need. This investment is part of the record $763.2 million for housing and an increase of $51 million from the previous budget. On the Central Coast $24.4 million was made available for new public and community housing and a further $3.4 million was made available for capital improvements such as modernising and upgrading kitchens, installing energy-efficient devices, improving floor coverings, painting, fire safety, security and design.

In July last year the former Acting Minister for Housing and I announced a new unit development in Wyong for people aged over 55. That development is now complete and occupied. It is a new, modern, safe living environment for our important senior citizens who require housing assistance. These examples from my electorate demonstrate that the Iemma Government is delivering on its State Plan targets and is strengthening the social housing sector. The bill further ensures that those most needy in our community are looked after, and it cracks down on fraudulent activity that rips off the system and disadvantages others. 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6695

As the Minister stated in his speech, if only 5 or 10 per cent of people are involved in this fraudulent activity, it could be costing up to $52 million. The member for Castle Hill pointed out that, given the figures in the 2005-06 report, the amount might be even more. The funds could be used to provide up to 200 new homes per year for those most in need of assistance. The Government has a duty to ensure that this crime is stopped as it directly takes resources away from the most disadvantaged in the community. The average taxpayer also would want the Government to crack down on such fraud as taxpayers rightly have an expectation that their tax dollars reach the people for whom they are intended. Again I stress that those who act honestly and do the right thing have nothing to fear from these changes.

Public housing allows people access to secure and affordable accommodation. In New South Wales more than 340,000 people live in public housing. The supply of available houses and units is limited and many people who are eligible for public housing are on the waiting list. Public housing is for those most in need and it is not fair that some people cheat the system. The new laws will help ensure that limited resources are made available to those in our community who are most in need: the elderly, people with disabilities, people living with mental illness, and people on low incomes. I finish by again congratulating the Minister on introducing the bill to address this very important issue. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama—Minister for Housing, and Minister for Tourism) [1.12 p.m.], in reply: I welcome the contributions of my colleagues, particularly the members for Kogarah, Drummoyne, Newcastle, Smithfield, Miranda, Wyong and Charlestown. They all made very valuable and sensible comments in regard to the Housing Amendment (Tenant Fraud) Bill 2008. I thank them and welcome their interest in and commitment to reforming our public housing system so that we can deliver the maximum amount of assistance to the most vulnerable people in our society. I also thank the member for Murray-Darling for stating the Opposition's support for this legislation. At least someone on the other side of the House actually gets it. But I will direct my attention to some of the ridiculous comments made by Opposition members, in particular the member for Terrigal, in regard to the bill.

Last night the member put on a stellar performance, and I urge those who missed it to make sure they get the tape. In one speech he managed to feign the full range of human emotions: outrage, concern, courage, and his favourite—and the emotion he feigns best—self-righteousness. But ultimately he left us hanging, and after all the fireworks and spectacle the member for Terrigal would not take a position. He flip-flopped for 40 minutes telling us that our legislation was too tough; then, just as he drew breath, he told us it was too soft. He finally admitted that he and the Opposition could not actually decide. From the outset the member for Terrigal demonstrated his confusion and ignorance about the entire point of the bill and about announcements relating to corrupt conduct by Housing New South Wales and fraud committed by the department's tenants.

I make it clear to the Opposition that these are two very different things. Corrupt actions by staff are very different from rental fraud committed by tenants, and speaking as though they are the same thing or related is only for the purposes of political point scoring. It shows how lazy and sloppy the New South Wales Liberal Party is: the two separate subjects have been conjoined in a manner designed to mislead. The anticorruption report referred to by the member for Terrigal focused on internal fraud mechanisms and not tenant fraud. If the member for Terrigal had bothered to read the report perhaps he would have been able to figure that out for himself. I will deal with his sloppy and lazy arguments blow by blow. He said that we do not need new legislation to deal with tenant fraud. I inform the member and the House that new legislation is needed to specifically address certain aspects of tenant fraud. We have introduced highly specific legislation intended to address the very specific nature of tenant fraud.

The staff of Housing New South Wales understand better than anyone else the complexities of public housing rebate policies and the intricacies of housing policy, of which Opposition members today have demonstrated their total ignorance. It is for that reason that a specialised bill is required. The claim by the member for Terrigal that Housing New South Wales can obtain information from the police and others is only partially correct. Despite the member's claims that this bill will mean the skies will fall in on civil liberties, Housing New South Wales is bound by the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, which limits the release of information to circumstances where there is an imminent and serious threat of harm to a person.

The bill gives Housing New South Wales specific powers to obtain information to deal with tenant fraud where the Privacy Act would limit it in many ways, including in relation to past offences or where an offence may be imminent. The member, with his usual cynicism and negativity, claims that the bill will not allow Housing New South Wales to be proactive in tackling fraud. That is clearly wrong. The bill does the complete opposite: it allows proactive action to be taken by Housing New South Wales. The bill extends the 6696 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

circumstances in which valuable intelligence can be obtained to prevent fraud, and if it occurs we can prosecute. The member for Terrigal used the example of a working couple who lived with a tenant for 12 years. That was an excellent example for him to raise. The bill allows that couple to be sued for taking advantage of the tenant they moved in with. The member for Terrigal then mentioned the tenant who owned 16 properties and demanded to know why nothing was done.

The bill will make it easier for Housing New South Wales to make land and property searches, which would reveal a fraud by an existing property owner. Such searches could not otherwise be made because of the privacy legislation. But I would not expect the Opposition to have bothered looking that up. In talking down this excellent bill the member for Terrigal screeched about how much fraud it might uncover. He demanded that we show him the money. Here it is: We had an amnesty nearly 10 years ago and 4,600 calls were received—about 3,000 were self-nominations and the rest were dob-ins. In the full 12 months after the end of the amnesty the department collected an extra $15 million in rent. The amnesty will allow more moneys to flow into public housing. This time we expect the increase to be between $26 million and $53 million.

The member for Terrigal claims the offences are not tough enough. Again, this is a rubbish statement based on inconsistent and warped logic. Obtaining housing by false statement is an existing offence under section 69 of the Housing Act, but we are now adding to that offence a penalty of imprisonment for three months. Section 178BA of the Crimes Act is a general provision and it will still apply in the most serious cases. The Government is not eliminating that opportunity. This legislation will apply to cases in which it is appropriate that no more than three months imprisonment be sought. The two provisions can work together, and will work together. In addition, they will allow the Department of Housing to choose itself to prosecute more straightforward cases; otherwise, its fraud detection squad would have to hand over all the material it gathered to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police. That would divert resources from my department, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the New South Wales Police Force. The Government is streamlining the prosecution process.

The member for Terrigal said that private landlords do not have similar powers. Of course they do not, and nor should they. Private landlords are in a very different position from that of a public landlord. They do not rebate rent and their tenants are not subject to strict eligibility criteria. The bill addresses the particular complexity and intricacy of public housing, and the two should not be confused. That is why proposed section 72A allows recovery of moneys from persons who live with public housing tenants at the expense of the public at large. Is the Opposition suggesting we should give those people a free ride? They can exert undue pressure on a public housing tenant. At present the only recourse my agency or the law has is against the tenant, despite the fact that the other occupants of the home are the real rorters or cheats. This legislation will allow the department to go after them.

Is the Opposition suggesting the Government should not provide an amnesty? An amnesty will allow the Government to put rental rebates on a solid footing and to recover more moneys for the public purse. Is the Opposition suggesting the department should not have the power to search proactively for those who are defrauding the system? I am confused by the Opposition's arguments. Is the Government too soft, or too hard? I am not sure that members opposite know themselves. I am confused about why all of a sudden the Australian Liberal Party thinks it has become the champion of civil liberties. The last time I checked the party was trying to rip up workers' rights and to destroy decency and fairness in the workplace. One need only look at the party's disgraceful record in the treatment of indigenous people and refugees. It is a bit rich—indeed, it is bordering on outright hypocrisy—for Liberal Party members to shake their fists and scream that they want to protect civil liberties. The Australian Liberal Party has shown that it has no respect for civil liberties. One need only look at the Howard agenda to see that. We have had many debates about these issues. What did we hear from Opposition members in this House? Not a peep. There was not a whimper when their mates tore up workers' rights.

Mr Daryl Maguire: Point of order: Mr Acting-Speaker, the Minister is required to address issues raised by members. I suggest that he is digressing in an attack on a previous Federal Government and raising issues that have absolutely nothing to do with this bill. I ask you to draw him back to responding to the concerns that were raised, as he is required to do.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I am sure the Minister will return to the leave of the bill.

Mr MATT BROWN: That is what we get time and again—not a peep or a whimper about these important issues. The Government is cracking down on cheats. 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6697

Mr Daryl Maguire: Point of order: Mr Acting-Speaker, you have just ruled on a point of order. The Minister is canvassing your ruling. I ask you to require that he address the concerns raised by members in this place.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The Minister will return to the leave of the bill and answer questions raised during the debate.

Mr MATT BROWN: If the member for Wagga Wagga had heard the debate last night he would know that I am addressing exactly those issues. In one breath members opposite say that these new powers are extraordinary, extreme, and beyond any powers granted to private landlords; in the next breath they say that the legislation is too soft. The Government wants the Opposition to work with it in a constructive manner to address tenant fraud. It wants to hear the contributions of other members. The member for Sydney made a contribution to the debate today encouraging the Government to continue with the reform process to ensure that public housing in New South Wales looks after those most in need. Those who want to cheat and rort the system know that they have no place in public housing.

The Government is introducing an amnesty so that people can wipe the slate clean by declaring what they own and earn, so that an independent assessment can be undertaken to establish what rent they should pay so that people in need will not be denied resources. This Government has done a great deal to reform public housing. In just three short years it has implemented some of the most significant reforms in this area that have occurred over about 50 years. It has introduced fixed-term tenancies covering 2, 5 or 10 years, acknowledging that continuous tenancy is not suitable in the long term and not a fair system. It has overhauled the rental system, acknowledging that tenants who can afford to pay more should pay more. The Government has also introduced charges for water use, acknowledging that tenants should make a contribution to their water usage. These reforms have delivered outstanding environmental and economic benefits. They have saved money that can be spent on new houses and reduced water usage by nearly 30 per cent, saving enough water to fill 2,500 Olympic-size swimming pools.

This is good legislation that will empower the Department of Housing to deal with tenant rental fraud. The department will be able to conduct effective searches to reveal the individuals who are selfishly exploiting the public purse. The offences are supported by formidable penalties that will allow the department to evict those doing the wrong thing and to recover lost revenue, which will be used to build more houses for those in need. I cannot emphasise that point strongly enough. About 44,000 people on the register need assistance. The management of my portfolio and the decisions I make have an effect on whether some of these people receive housing assistance. That is why I am determined, as is the Iemma Government, to ensure we do everything we can to assist those who need help most. It is my responsibility to ensure that every dollar spent is spent wisely and that every policy is directed towards providing the most resources possible to those people. This bill builds on that continuing reform agenda. It delivers revenue to build extra houses and improves the integrity of our housing system. I thank all the members who have spoken in the debate. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr Daryl Maguire: Point of order: During the debate I asked several questions of the Minister that I sought to have him address in his reply, relating to Centrelink and the Australian Tax Office. I asked whether he had made inquiries or put the issue on the agenda at the Council of Australian Governments meeting. He has failed to respond to those questions.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Has the Minister concluded his reply?

Mr MATT BROWN: Yes.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put.

Division called for and Standing Order 181 applied.

Noes, 1

Ms Moore

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to. 6698 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

Bill agreed to in principle.

Passing of the Bill

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

[Acting-Speaker (Mr Thomas George) left the chair at 1.34 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]

QUESTION TIME ______

ELECTION CAMPAIGN DONATION REFORMS

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Premier. In light of yesterday's meeting between Labor and Liberal officials to discuss his call for reform of the State's donations laws, will he confirm that his proposed reforms cover neither union affiliation fees nor campaign spending by unions and other third parties? Why does his idea of reform seek to restrict all but union contributions to the Labor Party?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Did members note the comment from the acting director of the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party, who is quoted this morning as saying that he opposes exploring a total ban on donations? I have indicated publicly at press conferences that if one is moving to ban all donations, that includes union donations. Through the process of the upper House inquiry we are testing and examining a proposition of banning all donations.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Ms ANGELA D'AMORE: Mr Speaker⎯

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: The Premier will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The House will come to order. The member for Drummoyne has the call.

Ms ANGELA D'AMORE: Will the Premier update the House on the Government's success in delivering better mental health services?

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Cronulla to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: No wonder he will not be preselected. He treats this issue as a joke. Today I joined the Minister for Health, the Minister for Local Government, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Mental Health) and the member for Drummoyne at Concord Hospital for the release of the second yearly progress report on the implementation of our five-year Better Mental Health Services Plan. There is no higher priority because one in five Australians will experience mental illness at some time in their life. One of the indicators of a civilised society is how we treat the marginalised, the disempowered and the vulnerable.

This five-year, $1 billion plan aims to achieve better support, compassion, care and better health outcomes for people with a mental illness. We have a very clear framework for three important objectives. The first objective is to prevent mental illness or at least intervene in its onset at the earliest possible stage. The second objective is to improve community support to those who need continuous care. The third objective is to expand responses to mental health emergencies. The plan comprises 58 commitments. I report to the House that the second yearly progress report shows that of these 58 commitments 43, or 74 per cent, are complete or ongoing. This is a remarkable result because it has been achieved in just two years of a five-year plan.

I shall outline the key achievements of the plan to date. There have been home visits to more than 200,000 new mothers by representatives of Families New South Wales to help increase the resilience of mothers and babies alike. Perhaps the most important achievement is the almost 1,000 funded places under the Housing 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6699

Accommodation and Support Initiative [HASI]. As the Minister for Police says, that is equivalent to 2½ Royal Prince Alfred Hospitals in the community. More than 2,000 participants have attended School-Link training courses for teaching staff and health workers on how to respond to the mental health needs of students. I refer also to the strengthening of the mental health workforce by more than 200 clinicians who have chosen to move into psychiatry, the allocation of $2 million to upgrade mental health nursing skills and the 11,000 dual diagnosis kits that have been distributed to front-line workers. In addition, the drought assistance package has been extended by an extra $2 million to tackle mental issues in rural New South Wales.

More than 170 young people have been diverted to the Adolescent Court and Community Liaison Program—one-third of those diverted to mental health services. There are now nine psychiatric emergency care centres inside our emergency departments, providing faster and more appropriate responses to people who go to our emergency departments suffering mental illness. These are the hallmarks of the plan and the progress that has been achieved to date. I outline some of the overall results. The suicide rate in New South Wales is the lowest of all jurisdictions and the lowest since 1979. Readmission rates to hospitals within 28 days of discharge from a mental health facility have declined from 13 per cent to 11.6 per cent. That means 500 people per year have been saved the personal crisis of being readmitted to a mental health facility as a result of a relapse or lack of continuing support in the community. Those 500 people would otherwise have finished up in a hospital bed in a psychiatric unit.

The number of in-patient beds in New South Wales is now above the national average. It stands at 33.5 per 100,000 of the population. The national average is 30.9 per cent. New South Wales is now well above the national average when it comes to that area of mental health services: acute in-patient hospital beds. The most significant improvement is perhaps this one: the proportion of patients now treated within their own area health service has increased to 93 per cent. That is as a result of better bed capacity, better management, more health professionals in the mental health area and a better system of management. These are remarkable results, as are the results coming through from the housing accommodation program that I mentioned earlier.

Of those who are participating⎯the 1,000 beds or 2½ Prince Alfred Hospital's in the community— 73 per cent now take part in social and community activities, 94 per cent have established or re-established friendships and 81 per cent have seen a reduction in the time they spend in hospital psychiatric units. Those figures demonstrate that this plan is putting lives back together step by step. These results not only benefit those who endure mental illness but they also give heart to the expert health professionals who work in the area and, most importantly, to the carers and family members. I draw the attention of the House to the comments made by Mr John Mendoza, the Chief Executive of the Mental Health Council, on this plan:

In the long term this investment— that is, the $1 billion investment—

will reduce the impact that mental illness is having in our hospital and prison system.

Professor Ian Hickie, the Executive Director of the Brain and Mind Research Institute, said:

That is the first time we've had a Premier recognise the pain that people with these illnesses have faced and put real dollars to match the rhetoric.

Jeff Kennett, the Chairman of Beyond Blue, also endorsed the five-year plan and $1 billion investment. Mr Gary Moore, Director of the National Council of Social Services, said in the Sydney Morning Herald on 18 May 2006 that the funding boost was a welcome recognition that supported accommodation for people with a mental illness remained a priority because it had been at critically low levels. He said:

The program is making a difference so far.

They are just some of the endorsements of this plan, which is making a real difference to the lives of real people. It is ending marginalisation and ensuring that mental illness is treated like any other health condition: a mainstream health problem to be provided for both in and outside of hospital with care, compassion and ongoing support.

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AUSTRALIA BUDGET

CONCERNED FAMILIES OF AUSTRALIAN TRUCKIES GOVERNMENT GRANT

Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that the leaked 2003 Transport Workers Union of Australia budget document details a $55,000 grant from the New South Wales 6700 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

Labor Government to an organisation called Concerned Families of Australian Truckies as TWU income but only accounts for $5,000 in expenses, will the Premier assure the House that this taxpayers' money has not gone to other TWU expenses such as Labor Party donations?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The allegations have been referred to the appropriate authorities. The Industrial Registrar has advised that the Transport Workers Union of Australia [TWU] was in the process of implementing a number of recommendations proposed by Deloitte, an independent auditor commissioned to conduct a review into the operation of the fund last year. I repeat: last year⎯and the Leader of The Nationals has cottoned onto it in the last few days! The Industrial Registrar further advised that provided the TWU adopts Deloitte's recommendations he is satisfied that there is no requirement or valid reason to take any further action in relation to this matter. I also advise the House that the Federal Industrial Registrar undertook a similar investigation and found that there were no breaches of the Federal Workplace Relations Act. The matter was referred to the police. I am advised that the Commissioner of Police has referred the matter to the Industrial Relations Commission—

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The Premier is confused about the question. The question does not relate to the slush fund, the industrial and training fund; it relates to a government grant to the Concerned Families of Australian Truckies. I assure the House the police have not—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Just to recap: The allegations were referred to the appropriate authorities. I also advise the House that the Federal Industrial Registrar undertook a similar investigation and found no breaches of the Federal Workplace Relations Act.

[Interruption]

There is more—just relax. The matter was referred to the police. I am advised that the Commissioner of Police has referred the matter to the Industrial Relations Commission and the State Crime Command. The Electoral Commissioner has advised there were no breaches of New South Wales electoral laws or New South Wales public funding and disclosure laws. The Government has taken all appropriate measures to ascertain whether there has been any legal action in relation to the activities of the TWU.

Mr Andrew Fraser: Point of order: I refer to Standing Order 129, relevance. The Premier was asked about $55,000 of taxpayers' money given to the TWU. The Premier is talking about donations to the Labor Party. That is a separate issue.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Coffs Harbour will resume his seat. The Premier has concluded his answer.

ALCOHOL-RELATED CRIME

Ms JODI McKAY: My question is to the Minister for Police. Will the Minister update the House on efforts to tackle alcohol-related crime?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: I thank the member for Newcastle for her question, her ongoing interest in issues concerning alcohol-related crime and her constructive engagement on the issue on behalf of her constituents in the electorate of Newcastle. I refer to inner city Newcastle residents, the broader community, the young people who want to socialise and the businesses in the community that employ people and earn an income from the sale of alcohol. The member for Newcastle is to be congratulated on her constructive approach. Alcohol-related crime is a blight on our society. The Government is committed to giving the New South Wales Police Force the powers and resources they need to deal with the consequences of alcohol abuse, both to employ intelligent policing strategies that reduce such incidents before they happen and to use strong new powers to crack down on those individuals causing trouble.

Today I inform the House that, in accordance with our election commitment, 30 new licensing officers will join the New South Wales Police Force and be placed in areas that have high alcohol-related crime levels. It is an election commitment that has been brought forward and delivered earlier than was proposed. This will increase the capacity of the New South Wales Police Force to respond to alcohol-related crime and ensure specialist officers and proactive alcohol management strategies are in place. The crack new team will be able to 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6701

tackle problems relating to alcohol head on and will be able to move to pinpointed hot spots in known locations at defined times. The operational teams will provide direct and targeted operational support. They will conduct targeted operations in consultation with those local area commands identified as having high-risk premises. They will review and respond to requests for assistance lodged by local area commands for support at major events. They will work with the Officer of Liquor, Gaming and Racing to develop and exchange knowledge and experience.

I am extremely confident that the member for Maroubra will welcome this approach. He is another member on this side of the House who works constructively with his local area command and his community on alcohol-related crime issues. That constructive approach is well regarded in the community. I contrast the constructive approach taken by the member for Newcastle and the member for Maroubra with the political interference of members on the other side. What sort of strategy would we get from a government that will never be led by the Leader of the Opposition? I refer to a 1 o'clock news item on 2SM:

I sometimes go back to the Cronulla riots. There was a real question mark about whether the Government didn't want the police to follow those young men out to Maroubra and other places where they damaged all those cars. There is a real question mark that it might have had an electoral backlash in that area. That's why the decision was made not to follow them.

Mr John Watkins: Who said that?

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: The Deputy Premier asks a very good question. It was the member for Epping, one of the biggest critics of the New South Wales Police Force. He has picked up his former leader's policy of political interference in policing, which is reinforced by his current leader.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: The question from the member of Newcastle is about licensing police. It has nothing to do with the Cronulla riots or the member for Epping. The member for Epping was not interjecting. The Minister has simply taken a quote from the radio news today. The Minister is outside the leave of the question.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The question is about alcohol-related crime. The Minister for Police has the call.

Mr DAVID CAMPBELL: Once again another snapshot of what we would see from the Opposition, that is, straight out political interference in police operations. In contrast, our approach is to give police the numbers, the resources and the powers to crack down on these crimes. As the Deputy Premier says, they should back the police, as we do. Already the Government has invested $2 million in the Alcohol Linking Program. During trials of this program, alcohol-related crime reduced overall by 15 percent. The $2.36 million invested in the Alcohol Related Crime Information Exchange Program provides enforcement agencies with information to take action against problem venues. We have established crime prevention partnerships most recently in the Sydney central business district, endorsed and supported by the Lord Mayor of Sydney; in Newcastle, endorsed and supported by the member for Newcastle; and in Parramatta, endorsed and supported via the member for Parramatta.

Liquor accords are in place in 143 communities across New South Wales where licensed premises work with the local community to put in place practical solutions to local problems. A solution may be as simple as changing bus timetables to disperse crowds at closing time. I have asked local area commanders across the State to put plastic cups on the agenda of their local liquor accords, after a spate of glassings late last year in pubs and clubs. I am advised that liquor accords have proven a great source of advice and assistance to local area police commanders on this issue. During 2006-07 we invested $4.9 million in high visibility policing to tackle crime and disorder on our streets, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights in areas with pubs, clubs and bars. I saw this in action when I accompanied police on Operation Viking in George Street late last year. Where possible, the aim is to prevent harm through smarter policing, rather than picking up the pieces later. As usual, the Iemma Government is giving police the powers they need to enforce the law to keep our communities safe. That is why late last year we amended the law to allow police to move on groups of intoxicated people when harm to themselves, to others or to property seemed likely. We are seeing results.

Crime prevention partnership areas are showing reduced rates of alcohol-related results. The Government intends to do more. The Iemma Government will provide 150 new highway patrol officers to target drink drivers who cause danger on our roads; give liquor accords new powers to allow licensees to ban troublemakers from their premises; expand the Safe Party Strategy to reduce antisocial behaviour linked to private parties; reinforce noisy neighbour laws for parties by police refocusing on issuing formal warnings and 6702 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

on-the-spot fines and, if necessary, shutting parties down; and increased support to registered victims groups in their role of preventing alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour and counselling victims. The Iemma Government is committed to driving down alcohol-related crime by ensuring all government agencies work closely with local communities and key stakeholders to come up with the best solutions to target this issue.

We have listened to community concerns about extended liquor trading. There will be no increase in standard trading hours for hotels and bottle shops. Penalties for repeatedly supplying alcohol to minors and intoxicated people will double. This will result in cracking down on the small minority of licensed premises that cause a disproportionate amount of trouble. Whilst the Opposition continues to be the biggest critic of the New South Wales Police Force and the member for Epping treats this Chamber like an audition for Australian Idol, the Government will get on with the job of supporting the largest and best police force in the country.

DEVELOPERS POLITICAL PARTY DONATIONS

Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: My question is directed to the Minister for Planning. With today's revelations that the Minister has called in and will personally sign off on a multi-million dollar development from a person who, having given $300,000, is one of the New South Wales Labor Party's biggest donors, will he finally agree to the Independent Commission Against Corruption's seven-month-old recommendation and implement an automatic, independent process for determining developments from political donors?

Mr FRANK SARTOR: The Opposition cannot help itself. It plays tag team with some of the media. But in no case has it said in this place that I had no reasonable basis on which to make a decision. It has not been able to find one decision I have made that cannot stand on its merits, not one. It is all innuendo.

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

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I have no idea what Jacfin—or whatever the company is called—gave the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, or anyone else for that matter. I do know that Ms Sylvia Hale was found guilty of a breach of the pecuniary interests provisions of the Local Government Act. I know that is a fact. I do know that Mark Davies from Penrith City Council is clearly wrong about some of the comments he has made. Is he a member of the Liberal Party?

Ms Diane Beamer: Yes.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: What a surprise! I bet someone ran into the Chamber with a message to the member for Wagga Wagga so he could make an issue out of it. That great political party that introduced disclosure provisions in the first place—which allows debate on these issues—the Australian Labor Party, is taking further steps to tighten the process. The Premier has announced sweeping reforms to disclosure provisions. I remind the House what John Howard did. Previously more than $1,500 had to be disclosed. John Howard increased it to $10,500.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: Yet those hypocrites on the other side criticise us. The only reason they are even able to ask this question is because of our disclosure provisions.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: My point of order relates to Standing Order 129. The question simply asked the Minister why he is refusing to implement a seven-month-old Independent Commission Against Corruption recommendation. What do you have to hide, Frank?

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

Mr FRANK SARTOR: The more they raise these issues, the more I will expose them for who they really are. Howard increased the threshold; Howard tried to cover it up. I remember when I was Lord Mayor who set up the 500 Club. Who went around town canvassing for money from city developers? They set up these processes and systems and they opposed disclosure all the way through.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Hawkesbury to order.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: And you opposed ICAC. 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6703

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I am coming to that.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: Who has said that we will lower the threshold? Who has said that we will disclose every six months and we will disclose on every development application in the future? In the legislation that will come through shortly, the Premier has foreshadowed that we will disclose donations in the actual development application.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: We have already committed to doing that.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: But you won't have an automatic process.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: How did your fundraiser go? Did you raise a million dollars?

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: Do members remember what he said when the media said to him, "Aren't you being a bit of a hypocrite? You are accepting all this money from developers"? He said, "No, we're not. There is nothing wrong with us because we have got nothing to offer."

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: Standing Order 130 says that the Minister shall not debate the question but shall answer it. The Minister is debating, and constantly debating, the question.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Minister to confine his remarks to the leave of the question. Opposition members will cease making childish interjections.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: The Leader of the Opposition said, "No, we can accept donations because we have got nothing to offer." That is what Barry said. Do they not vote on planning legislation here? There has to be a whole package of planning legislation coming. Are they not going to vote on it? What conversations are you having with your donors, Barry? Let us turn the screws on the Penrith matter.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Let's turn to the ICAC recommendations.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: We will be coming to those but on the way through I am going to make sure that I answer all the issues, not selectively like the Leader of the Opposition, who has nothing to offer anybody. There was an assertion made by a Liberal councillor—probably involved in that scam with that horrible leaflet at election time, who knows, they are all tainted—that the area of this particular site, a five hectare site in an area where two years ago the Government disclosed it would make it all State significant because it is 2,500 hectares—

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Hawkesbury to order.

[Interruption]

Mr FRANK SARTOR: You look like a spiv, you talk like a spiv, you act like a spiv and you are a spiv.

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will come to order. The Minister for Fair Trading will not clap in the Chamber. I call the member for Bathurst to order. I call the member for Hawkesbury to order for the third time.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: The member for Terrigal five minutes ago raised Standing Order 130. That standing order says the Minister may not debate the answer. The Minister has flouted your ruling, and more than that, he has undone all your attempts to improve behaviour in the House. 6704 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

The SPEAKER: Order! Government members will remain silent.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: If he thinks we are going to put up with that sort of behaviour, he has another think coming. The Minister for Planning is the biggest spiv in this place.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: To the point of order—

The SPEAKER: Order! I have not given the Minister the call. Although members may engage in robust debate during question time, rules of debate must be observed. Members will direct their remarks through the Chair. Members will address other members by their correct titles.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I accept your ruling but I want to make this comment on the point of order.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: I draw your attention to the remarks made by the Minister about the member of Hawkesbury when he called him a spiv. That is unparliamentary.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled in relation to the conduct of the House. If a member feels aggrieved he or she is entitled to take a point of order and ask that the matter be dealt with in the appropriate way. The member for Terrigal will resume his seat.

Mr Chris Hartcher: I am taking the point of order about the Minister casting aspersions on the member for Hawkesbury.

The SPEAKER: Order! If the member for Hawkesbury takes offence, he can take a point of order. The member for Terrigal will resume his seat. I call the member for Bathurst to order.

Mr Ray Williams: Point of order—

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.

Mr Ray Williams: Just as the Minister for Planning has offended building surveyors all around the country by calling them fat and lazy, I have been greatly offended by the comments the Minister has made and I ask him to withdraw the comments.

The SPEAKER: Order! A member is entitled to ask for comments to be withdrawn. The Minister has the call.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I am happy to withdraw the comment, but it is one thing for the Opposition to imply improper motives, to slander and to smear the Government and its members but then they become sensitive because some of us happen to know that the member for Hawkesbury from time to time behaves like a spiv.

Mr Barry O'Farrell: Point of order: The Minister has again made offensive comments about the member for Hawkesbury. Mr Speaker, are you fair dinkum about behaviour in this Chamber?

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will withdraw that remark. I ask him to continue answering the question.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: With respect, I talked about his behaviour. I did not accuse him of being a spiv. Mr Speaker, in deference to you I withdraw the remark, but I would like equal treatment for the other side of the House. If I could come to the assertion made by that Liberal in Penrith.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: He made an assertion that this particular site cannot be developed because it falls inside council's biodiversity conservation area and that another section of the site is set aside for an electricity transmission line. Both assertions are wrong. First, my department is unable to find any evidence that it is encumbered in any way by an electricity transmission line. Second, over the last three or four years the original development control plan [DCP] by Penrith Council, which set out a conservation zone, was reviewed and revised not just by us but by Penrith Council and the Federal Government Environment Department. 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6705

Mr David Campbell: Under whose administration?

Mr FRANK SARTOR: Under John Howard—thanks for asking that question. And they collectively came up with a different conservation pattern in that region, which involved significant trade-offs by all the owners in that region, which greatly improved the environmental outcomes. Two things have happened: first, the State has sought to declare—and currently we have a draft State policy on exhibition covering 2,500 hectares dealing with a link road and a whole lot of difficult infrastructure issues, because this area covers four local government areas. The Jacfin company owns two major sites. On one site we want to put a road through, which they object to—so much for deference to Labor Party donors.

In relation to this particular site, it is a residual site, which has an easement through an environmentally sensitive area that has now been agreed—between the Commonwealth and the State and Penrith and the owners—that it should be preserved. Because all of this is in a State significant area, we can negotiate an alternative route to protect the biodiversity corridor, which is why my department is dealing with it in consultation with the Department of Environment and Climate Change. But do these people ring up and ask what the facts are? No approval has been granted. A proposal has been put forward and I do not know whether it has met the adequacy test. It must also address biodiversity conservation. All these processes are being addressed systematically.

[Interruption]

It is not my mobile; it's not mine. It is the member for Hawkesbury's mates or his branch members ringing him.

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.

Mr FRANK SARTOR: I do not dare to say that the member for Hawkesbury likes to threaten to biff people because I might be called to order again. The Government has a number of reforms in the pipeline that will go way beyond what the Independent Commission Against Corruption recommended. They include all the reforms that the Premier has already announced and the planning reforms. That means that the Planning Assessment Commission will deal with 80 per cent of the categories that the Minister deals with now. There will also be joint regional panels dealing with the larger developments currently dealt with by local government. Local government has been much more vulnerable to these issues than the State Government. That process will also be depoliticised, as will processes that are perceived to be more vulnerable to influence. That is what the Government is doing.

At the local level the Government is also introducing planning arbitrators. More appeal avenues will be available. As I said yesterday, the Government is also giving third parties—local residents—the right to appeal if a council significantly breaches a standard. The reforms that the Premier has announced and the reforms to the planning system go well beyond what the Independent Commission Against Corruption recommended. As far as disclosure of political donations is concerned, I open the newspapers daily and read what donations have been made. I do not think we can have more disclosure than we have at the moment. I look forward to having further constructive dialogue with the very temperate, sensible and non-spiv member for Hawkesbury.

ELDERLY PATIENTS MEDICAL ASSESSMENT UNITS

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: I direct my question to the Minister for Health. Will the Minister update the House on the Government's plan to better meet the needs of elderly patients in New South Wales public hospitals?

Ms REBA MEAGHER: I thank the member for her question and for her ongoing interest in the treatment of elderly patients in public health care. Developing new ways to deliver faster and better health care to older people is at the top of the priority list for the Iemma Government. We know that in recent years medical advances and changes in lifestyle have led to better health outcomes. In New South Wales deaths from cardiovascular disease have reduced by 35 per cent since 1995. In the same period, cancer death rates have reduced by 16 per cent for men and by 10 per cent for women. These are outstanding health outcomes that mean people in New South Wales are living longer. The challenge we are now tackling is how to improve care for an ageing population, and specifically for older people with chronic illnesses, such as renal and respiratory disease, arthritis and diabetes. 6706 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

We know that patients aged over 65 occupy half of all New South Wales public hospital beds, and the number of people aged 65 and over will grow by one-third in the next 10 years. The number of people aged over 75 seeking hospital treatment is growing by 20 per cent each year. The average length of stay for patients aged over 75 is more than double that for younger people. Far from being considered a burden on our health system, this knowledge allows the Government to provide dedicated health professionals with the opportunity to offer a better model of care. The Iemma Government is doing that by backing solutions that have been designed and led by our medical experts. To help us deliver faster, safer and better care for older patients with chronic diseases a new type of ward called a "medical assessment unit" has been established. The units are staffed with specialists in caring for older people—specialist doctors and nurses, geriatricians, physiotherapists, social workers and occupational therapists.

[Interruption]

The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Premier will cease debating the issue.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: The purpose of the units is to provide early diagnosis and treatment for older people whose condition is assessed as non-critical by emergency department professionals. I stress that older people who present to emergency departments with life-threatening illness or injury will continue to be treated in the emergency departments. The emergency triage teams will make that decision. However, interviews with older patients and the latest research tells us that many older patients find hospitals stressful and confusing and busy emergency departments are often not the most appropriate place for them to be treated.

The aim of the medical assessment units is to commence specialist treatment earlier and to return patients to the comfort of their home environment earlier. The Iemma Government has committed to the establishment of 16 medical assessment units with a total of 224 beds. They will be supported by an annual investment of $56 million. Some of the units have already opened their doors and are treating patients in our busiest hospitals. These include John Hunter Hospital, Liverpool Hospital, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, St George Hospital, Royal North Shore Hospital, Wollongong Hospital, St Vincent's Hospital, Prince of Wales at Bankstown, Concord Repatriation Hospital and Sutherland Hospital. The feedback from the medical staff who have designed the program and who are leading the care of patients is very encouraging. I recently visited the medical assessment unit at Royal North Shore Hospital.

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order.

Ms REBA MEAGHER: I met with Dr Danny Stiel, the clinical director of the Division of Medicine and Aged Care. He has a very dedicated team of clinical staff providing care at the unit. I was fortunate enough to see at first-hand the way they deliver that care and to speak with some of the patients who have benefited from this new approach. I was very impressed by what they had to say. The Royal North Shore Medical Assessment Unit commenced work on 21 January. In its first five weeks, 105 patients were cared for in the unit. Of those patients, 63 per cent were discharged—mostly to home—within 48 hours. The unit has 17 beds and I am advised that that will be increased to 25 beds ahead of the winter season. Yvonne Herring, the nurse unit manager at the St George Hospital, has said the following about her medical assessment unit:

Patients coming through our Medical Assessment Units are more quickly diagnosed which means we can provide the appropriate care faster.

For the patient…they come into one area set up with all of the medical services they need…Patients are more involved and informed regarding their care…

And there is increased job satisfaction for nurses.

Associate Professor Chris Levi, the director of Acute Stroke Services at John Hunter Hospital, has said the following:

Older patients with multiple acute medical problems are some of the sickest and most vulnerable patients we care for.

There is increasing evidence that the traditional model of acute hospital care where patients can spend extended periods of time in Emergency Departments is less than ideal…particularly for the frail elderly patient group.

The MAUs are new models of care that provide the acutely unwell medical patient with rapid access to expert inpatient and outpatient care.

9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6707

Those endorsements are from the medical professionals who have developed and are delivering this new approach to care. That is what they are saying about the impact on patient services in public hospitals. The next unit will open its doors at Canterbury Hospital next Monday. Further units will be established at Nepean, Westmead, Gosford and Campbelltown hospitals. Care does not end when the patient leaves the hospital. To help patients make a safe and supported recovery we are increasing provision of community care programs that deliver both acute and non-acute care in the home setting. I look forward to being able to provide the House with updates on these better models of care for elderly people.

AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY CORRUPTION-LINKED EXPULSIONS

MEMBER FOR WOLLONGONG DEVELOPER LOAN

Mrs SHELLEY HANCOCK: My question is to the Premier. How can he claim to be genuine about stamping out corruption within New South Wales Labor when his personal representative on the Australian Labor Party Administrative Committee, which last Friday voted to expel individuals linked to the Wollongong corruption scandal, is Noreen Hay, who failed to declare more than $65,000 worth of donations, lobbied local councillors on behalf of corrupt developers and accepted a personal loan from a major Wollongong developer?

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: As I understand the member for South Coast's question, she is criticising the member for Wollongong and me for having voted to expel these individuals.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: What an extraordinary question. The member for Wollongong's declaration has been well canvassed—

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Coffs Harbour to order.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: —but we are still waiting for a response from four members of the Opposition, so far, including one who forgot to declare $40,000, about their declarations. No explanation yet, except from the member for Upper Hunter for $300. We know the explanation for that: A fundraiser was held in his own house; he was the only one who turned up; and the $300—

Mr Andrew Fraser: It was all profit.

Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes, the $300 was his cheque to himself.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING CARE CALL PROGRAM

Ms MARIE ANDREWS: My question is to the Minister for Housing. What is the Iemma Government doing to deliver on its election commitments to provide appropriate housing services to elderly people?

Mr MATT BROWN: I thank the member for her ongoing interest in providing services to the elderly in our community. As our population ages, our responsibility to look after the elderly in our community increases. As a young man I was taught to respect my elders. As I grew older, I learnt we must also show compassion.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mr MATT BROWN: Department of Housing staff do an excellent job in contacting our 60,000-odd tenants who are over the age of 60. Nothing can replace a good neighbour, a good friend or a good family to keep a watchful eye on those around them. The Iemma Government takes its responsibility for seniors seriously. Just look at our investments: We are investing $420 million over five years to build 2,800 homes for the elderly.

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

Mr MATT BROWN: We hear about characters acting like spivs. We have one on the Opposition benches trying to imitate Elvis. A sum of $75 million will be allocated for modifications to buildings, including lifts, bathrooms and rails. Recently I visited the electorate of Maroubra, where I saw some wonderful modifications to seniors' homes. We are developing designated seniors areas so that seniors can live in the same 6708 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

community as people of their age group. One great story is that of a group of seniors in Albury who live in a community of Department of Housing homes. If someone's blinds are not up by 11.00 a.m. they will tap on the door and say, "Good day" to make sure that everything is okay. It is a great example of people looking after people.

Recently some elderly members of our community have passed away in tragic circumstances. They had not been noticed by anyone—family, friends or neighbours—for quite some time. These sorts of stories affect me and I know they affect others in this House. It is very sad to realise that some people live such isolated lives that no-one loves or cares for them, or looks out for them. The Government has taken action to stop this. Every six months, everyone over the age of 60 will be contacted or will make contact with the Department of Housing. This can be done by a phone call, a visit to an office or a signature on a maintenance slip, or one of our departmental staff tapping on a door. To date this policy has been successful 100 per cent of the time, but we know we can do even better. Therefore, to build on the important work of the Iemma Government and to deliver on our commitments, today I announced the successful tenderer for the Department of Housing's Care Call Program, which will deliver a regular telephone service to our elderly residents.

I am pleased to announce that the successful tenderer is the Australian Red Cross. I acknowledge the general manager from this fine organisation, Ken Hastie, who is in the gallery today. The Australian Red Cross has a long history in providing these types of services. Last year Red Cross volunteers made more than one million calls to more than 4,000 socially isolated people. The purpose of this regular telephone call is to make sure our elderly residents know they are important and that the Iemma Government cares—that we care. We will introduce these residents to some support services in other networks. We are identifying tenants eligible for this service, which will be in operation by the middle of this year.

A good example is Ethel, one of our tenants who is 90 years old. She lives alone in Western Sydney. She has been a tenant with the department for more than 55 years. In the past couple of months, because of her age, she has had a couple of falls and is becoming, and feeling, increasingly isolated. Ethel loves living independently and we want to maintain that independence in her life. She is a proud member of her community, someone who has done a lot of volunteer work over the years. It is up to all of us to look out for isolated people in our community like Ethel. The Iemma Government is focused on providing better and more appropriate services to people like Ethel in New South Wales.

DUBBO PUBLIC HOUSING RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

Mrs DAWN FARDELL: My question is to the Minister for Housing. What are the plans of the Department of Housing to improve the living and recreational conditions of Dubbo's Apollo Estate and, in particular, Lunar Park?

Mr MATT BROWN: I thank the member for Dubbo for her ongoing commitment to the community of Dubbo, in which there are some serious housing issues. This Government has made some significant inroads into those communities, one being the Gordon Estate. We have had to make some hard and difficult decisions about that estate. The local member, unlike the bulk of members of the Opposition, has had the intestinal fortitude to be a part of that, and, as a result, we are already seeing some terrific results. For instance, the rates for break, enter and steal offences are down by 30 per cent because of some of the reforms the Iemma Government has made to the Gordon Estate.

Through our reforms we have also initiated a policy whereby homeowners can buy affordable housing. Caveats are on the property, so the only people buying the houses are people who want to live on the estate and make the area their home, their community. The word now is that the Gordon Estate is no longer to be regarded as a disadvantaged housing estate. It is now a functioning community and is going from strength to strength. I have set a goal not only to deliver homes to those in need but also to create and strengthen communities. I assure the member for Dubbo that the Government's focus is not just on the Gordon Estate. It also wants to deliver on all social housing estates, including the important Apollo Estate in the Dubbo area.

Dubbo is a priority location for the Iemma Government's $66 million community renewal initiative to turn housing estates into communities. The purpose of the program is to reduce the gap between disadvantaged public housing communities and the neighbourhoods that surround them. We are working on a vision for the Apollo estate and similar areas across New South Wales putting together working groups of 26 government, non-government and community organisations to deliver this vision. Ms Laurinne Campbell from the Department of Housing in Dubbo leads this vision and I congratulate her on her work. 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6709

Some projects around the Apollo Estate include a nearby park called Lunar Park. We will invest $190,000 to create recreational space for local families and residents. Landscaping materials will be given to a Dubbo men's group to upgrade Wiradjuri park, and a $60,000 upgrade to the local community club to give Apollo Estate residents a better sense of community. The Government's innovative course entitled "Rentsmart" will educate our public housing tenants on how to go about entering the private rental market when the time arrives. This $66 million investment by the Iemma Government is about empowering our tenants to be leaders in their communities, to take control of their lives, and to give them access to other services. The member for Dubbo supports this goal and I know these actions will make a significant difference to her community.

YOUNG OFFENDERS SUPERVISION

Mrs KARYN PALUZZANO: My question is addressed to the Minister for Juvenile Justice. What is the Government doing to supervise young offenders?

Mrs BARBARA PERRY: The Iemma Government is working hard to break the cycle of youth reoffending. One way we are going about this is through the establishment of an innovative Intensive Supervision Program, which is a 2007 State election commitment.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will cease interjecting.

Mrs BARBARA PERRY: The psychologists, social workers and others who will make up the intensive supervision teams will work closely with young offenders, their families, their school teachers, principals and police. They will go into the homes and communities of high-risk young offenders. They will work with young offenders and their families to tackle factors behind reoffending. It continues the Government's record of being tough on crime and its causes. It is based on an intervention called multisystemic therapy, which is generally considered the most effective intervention available for juvenile offenders. Research from around the world shows that such intensive supervision programs have achieved considerable success. This includes research from New Zealand, 30 States in the United States, Canada and nine other countries throughout Europe. These jurisdictions have reported reductions in youth reoffending.

The House would be pleased to know that those reported reductions in youth reoffending amounted to at least 20 per cent of families targeted by this type of intervention. This year's budget allocated $1.4 million for the program and more funding will follow. The House should be pleased to learn that the roll out of this innovative program has passed a new and important milestone with formal training now underway. The program will commence in June. In the course of their everyday work team members will work to help sort out family budgets, provide parenting advice or link young offenders to services like health care and education that, as we all know, is some times a factor behind the poor behaviour of some young people. These are just a few of the everyday examples of some of the crucial hands-on work these specialist teams will perform.

The program will be rolled out initially in Western Sydney and Newcastle, which is good news for our parliamentary colleagues. This initiative will be delivered outside a custodial environment and involves high-risk young offenders. It will be used in homes to tackle criminal influences, whether it is a culture of avoiding school, substance abuse, a violent home atmosphere or peer pressure. This is tough, challenging work. These specialist teams will be available to young offenders and their families for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They will work with each family for up to six months. The Intensive Supervision Program is unashamedly an intervention program. It is a groundbreaking, new program that will address repeat offending among juveniles. I look forward, as should the House, to the first young offenders and their families benefiting from this program.

Question time concluded.

RETIREMENT OF MS PATRICIA BRODERICK, OFFICIAL SECRETARY TO THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK

The SPEAKER: I am pleased to advise the House that after 30 years of service to the Parliament and in particular, to the Legislative Assembly, Ms Patricia Broderick, Official Secretary to the Office of the Clerk, who is in the gallery, will proceed on leave tomorrow prior to her retirement in early July. I am sure all members of the House join me in extending to Patricia all the very best for the future and thank her for her dedication and commitment to the Parliament. Members are invited to join us in the Speaker's garden between 4.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. to wish Patricia well. 6710 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

ELECTION CAMPAIGN DONATION REFORMS

Personal Explanation

Mr BARRY O'FARRELL, by leave: I wish to make a personal explanation. In his answer today to the first question the Premier sought to suggest that the Liberal Party and I disagreed with donation reforms. No such comment was made in today's media either by the interim State director or me.

PETITIONS

Pyrmont and Ultimo Bus Services

Petition requesting improved and expanded bus services for Pyrmont and Ultimo, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Edgecliff Interchange Upgrade

Petition requesting the upgrading of Edgecliff interchange, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Pensioner Excursion Bus Tickets

Petition requesting that South Coast pensioners be able to access the $2.50 pensioner excursion ticket for bus travel, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

South Coast Rail Services

Petition opposing any reduction in rail services on the South Coast, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

CountryLink Pensioner Booking Fee

Petition requesting the removal of booking fees charged to pensioners on CountryLink services, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Hornsby and Berowra Railway Stations Parking Facilities

Petition requesting adequate commuter parking facilities at Hornsby and Berowra railway stations, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Hawkesbury River Railway Station Access

Petition requesting improved access to Hawkesbury River railway station, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Public Library Funding

Petitions requesting increased funding for public libraries, received from Mr Donald Page and Mr John Turner.

Shoalhaven Mental Health Services

Petition requesting funding for the establishment of a dedicated mental health service in the Shoalhaven, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Lismore Base Hospital

Petition requesting funding for stage 2 of the Lismore Base Hospital redevelopment, received from Mr Donald Page.

Breast Screening Funding

Petitions requesting funding for BreastScreen NSW, received from Mr Steve Cansdell. 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6711

Hornsby Palliative Care Beds

Petition requesting funding for Hornsby's palliative care beds, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Hornsby Area Haemodialysis

Petition asking that a public haemodialysis centre be established in the Hornsby area, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.

Tumut Renal Dialysis Service

Petition praying that the House support the establishment of a satellite renal dialysis service in Tumut, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.

Culburra Policing

Petition requesting increased police numbers in the Culburra area, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Rural and Regional Police Resources

Petition calling upon the Iemma Government to allocate more police resources to rural and regional communities throughout New South Wales, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.

Dr Balaji Rao

Petition asking that the police report on the actions of Dr Balaji Rao be submitted to the New South Wales Coroner's Office immediately upon its completion, received from Mr John Williams.

Senior Driver Restriction

Petitions opposing a 10-kilometre radius restriction for senior drivers, received from Ms Pru Goward and Mrs Shelley Hancock.

Licence Laws for Older Drivers

Petition asking for an inquiry into licence laws for older drivers and the implementation of a suitable licensing system for senior citizens, received from Mr John Turner.

Grafton Bridge

Petition requesting the construction of a new bridge over the Clarence River at Grafton, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.

Pet Shops

Petition opposing the sale of animals in pet shops, received from Ms Clover Moore.

Animals (Regulation of Sale) Bill 2007

Petition supporting the right of pet shops to sell pets and opposing the Animals (Regulation of Sale) Bill 2007, received from Mr Steve Whan.

Electricity Infrastructure

Petition requesting the retention of the infrastructure and systems for generating and retailing electricity as public assets, received from Mr John Turner.

Rural Land Valuations

Petition requesting a review of the process for land valuations on rural residential properties and a reassessment of those valuations, received from Mr Andrew Stoner. 6712 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

Shoalhaven River Water Extraction

Petition opposing the extraction of water from the Shoalhaven River to support Sydney's water supply, received from Mrs Shelley Hancock.

National Park Camping Fees

Petition opposing increased national park camping fees, received from Mr George Souris.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Reordering of General Business

Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [3.27 p.m.]: I move:

That the General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) given by me this day [Ministerial Standards] have precedence on Thursday 10 April 2008.

I seek precedence for the motion of which I gave notice because the Premier has lost his moral compass. He no longer knows right from wrong when it comes to public administration in this State. If we look back over the first 12 months of his role as Premier, we can see that New South Wales has been dogged by scandal after scandal: allegations of domestic violence against Paul Gibson and Phil Koperberg, the appalling treatment of whistleblowers Mark Aarons and Gillian Sneddon, Noreen Hay allegedly accepting political loans from major property developers and failing to declare them, and the political appointment of Joe Scimone and other Labor mates. Morris Iemma is not the first Labor Premier to encounter corruption scandal in his own ranks, but unlike Peter Beattie and Alan Carpenter, he refuses to tackle the issues because this Premier lacks moral courage. In fact, when his party faces a crisis the Premier reverts to his famous ostrich-like pose and sticks his head in the sand. The motion of which I gave notice deserves precedence tomorrow because⎯

Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: The Leader of The Nationals should give reasons why the motion of which he gave notice should have precedence. Instead, he is making unsubstantiated allegations, which demean him and the Parliament.

The SPEAKER: Order! As members are aware, I extend a degree of latitude during these debates. However, I ask the Leader of The Nationals to stay within the standing orders.

Mr ANDREW STONER: I forgot the member for Monaro, and his acceptance of donations and sporting tickets from a major developer involved in a controversial development at Tralee.

Mr Steve Whan: Point of order: The Leader of The Nationals is canvassing your ruling by continuing in the same vein. They are ridiculous allegations.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough of the member's point of order. The Leader of The Nationals knows that attacks on other members may be made only by way of substantive motion.

Mr ANDREW STONER: The motion of which I gave notice deserves precedence because the people of this State are interested in stamping out corruption. If the Premier knew about that interest or had the slightest care, he would start by asking his members basic questions about what they knew about the Transport Workers Union [TWU] slush funds extorted from employers and used for Labor election campaigns. He has not done that. The public needs answers to these questions: Did the member for Wollongong speak to her husband, Lee Lawler, who works for the TWU, before she received an improper donation? Did Minister Brown, who is a member of the TWU, know about the slush fund when he accepted the improper donation?

Mr John Aquilina: Point of order: Madam Acting-Speaker, the Leader of The Nationals is using the guise of debate to raise unfounded allegations and to cast aspersions on members of this House. I direct you to the ruling of Mr Speaker, who indicated that if a member wishes to attack another member, he or she should do so by way of substantive motion. The comments of The Leader of The Nationals are totally out of order.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! The Leader of The Nationals will confine his remarks to the motion of which he gave notice. 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6713

Mr ANDREW STONER: The reason I have been forced to move this motion is that the Premier refuses to answer questions in this House about the TWU slush fund and donations to his members. Today I asked him about Government grants, some $55,000 in 2003 to the TWU for an organisation called Concerned Families of Australian Truckies, and the fact that the TWU's own internal document declares only $5,000 of that money spent. That means $50,000 of taxpayers' money has gone to the TWU, for goodness knows what. Maybe it is for campaign donations for Labor members. I have been forced to move this motion because the Premier will not answer that question. Points of order had been taken suggesting that I should move a substantive motion. Now is the opportunity to debate it, to find out about the rottenness and corruption in the New South Wales Labor Government. It is a chance for Labor to tell the House what it knew about the slush fund and what the Premier knew about massive donations from taxpayers to the TWU. [Time expired.]

Mr JOHN AQUILINA (Riverstone—Leader of the House) [3.32 p.m.]: The issue is whether the motion of which the Leader of The Nationals gave notice is in order because it is based on supposition. Even the Leader of The Nationals could not come up with a single fact.

Mr Chris Hartcher: Point of order: The member is debating the motion of which the Leader of The Nationals gave notice, not arguing precedence. He is debating whether it is a hypothetical motion. He should debate whether the matter should have precedence.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! I have heard enough of the member's point of order. The member for Terrigal will resume his seat.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: The Opposition does not want me to speak because it has been caught out with a baseless motion that would not withstand scrutiny on whether it is in order. It has no factual basis. It is all supposition and conjecture. Even the Leader of The Nationals in support of precedence repeatedly said "If the Premier knew this" or "If the Premier knew that". He does not know a single thing about the facts, so how can he seek precedence for such a motion? Yesterday the Leader of The Nationals asked the Premier a question and the Premier answered specifically and directly, "I am satisfied with the integrity of my Government and my Ministers."

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! Opposition members will cease interjecting.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: He said, "I repeat: if the member has information and he wants to make an allegation, there is the forum. He should take 10 steps outside the door and name who it is he is alleging has done something wrong. He should take it to the ICAC—"

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: The Leader of the House has put forward that there are no facts in this motion of which I gave notice. It is a fact that a number of members have declared donations from the TWU.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: Once again, the motion for which the member seeks precedence is based on conjecture. Paragraph (2) calls on the Premier to ask basic questions of Labor members. How does he know the Premier has not done that?

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! Opposition members will cease interjecting.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: He does not know what the Premier has or has not done.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! Opposition members will cease interjecting. The Leader of The Nationals will cease interjecting.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: There is no basis to anything that the Leader of The Nationals has put forward. It is pure conjecture. He is pulling things out of thin air. Today a question was asked of the Premier about this matter and again the Premier answered the question in detail. He gave as much information as was available. He put to Opposition members that if they had anything further to raise, any facts or anything of substance, they could do so in the appropriate forum. In relation to matters raised in the past, the Premier said, "I can also advise that the Federal Industrial Registrar undertook a similar investigation." 6714 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

Mr Andrew Stoner: Point of order: The Leader of the House has asked if I have anything else. I seek leave to table the TWU leaked document.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! There is no point of order. The Leader of The Nationals will resume his seat.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: If the Leader of The Nationals has anything, he should take it to the appropriate forum. He should have the guts to do that. All he has is rubbish. He knows it will not stand up to scrutiny. That is why he does not have the guts and the integrity to take it to the proper forum.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Ms Diane Beamer): Order! Hansard is having difficulty hearing the member for Riverstone, as am I. All Opposition members will come to order.

Mr JOHN AQUILINA: In relation to matters raised in the past, the appropriate authorities have already investigated them, and they were satisfied. The only basis for the motion for which the member seeks precedence would be if the Leader of The Nationals had something new and, if so, he should step outside this place and reveal it.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 37

Mr Aplin Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Skinner Mr Baird Mrs Hopwood Mr Smith Mr Baumann Mr Humphries Mr Souris Ms Berejiklian Mr Kerr Mr Stokes Mr Cansdell Mr Merton Mr Stoner Mr Constance Ms Moore Mr J. H. Turner Mr Debnam Mr Oakeshott Mr R. W. Turner Mr Draper Mr O'Dea Mr J. D. Williams Mrs Fardell Mr O'Farrell Mr R. C. Williams Mr Fraser Mr Page Ms Goward Mr Piper Tellers, Mrs Hancock Mr Provest Mr George Mr Hartcher Mr Richardson Mr Maguire

Noes, 50

Mr Amery Mr Greene Mr Morris Ms Andrews Mr Harris Mrs Paluzzano Mr Aquilina Ms Hay Mr Pearce Mr Borger Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Mr Brown Ms Hornery Mr Rees Ms Burney Ms Judge Mr Sartor Ms Burton Ms Keneally Mr Shearan Mr Campbell Mr Khoshaba Mr Stewart Mr Collier Mr Koperberg Ms Tebbutt Mr Coombs Mr Lynch Mr Terenzini Mr Corrigan Mr McBride Mr Tripodi Mr Costa Dr McDonald Mr Watkins Mr Daley Ms McKay Mr West Ms D'Amore Mr McLeay Mr Whan Ms Firth Ms McMahon Tellers, Ms Gadiel Ms Meagher Mr Ashton Mr Gibson Ms Megarrity Mr Martin

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived. 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6715

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Notices of Motions

Mr NATHAN REES: I seek leave to give notice of a motion that missed the cut-off earlier. As I understand it, mirror legislation that was passed in South Australia earlier this afternoon is complementary.

Leave not granted.

CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO BE ACCORDED PRIORITY

Earth Hour

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT (Marrickville) [3.46 p.m.]: The motion I am putting forward should be accorded priority because it deals with an extremely important issue that is facing New South Wales, Australia and the world. Earth Hour, a global climate change initiative, has captured the imagination of the world. Earth Hour was started in Sydney and it is something that we should be extremely proud of. I think it is incumbent upon the Parliament to congratulate the people of New South Wales who participated—and there were many—and to demonstrate our commitment to increasing awareness about climate change by doing something about it. The House needs to accord this motion priority so we can send a very clear message about the significant threat of climate change.

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues confronting Australia and the world. We saw further evidence of the impact of climate change with Australia having its hottest January on record. The day and night temperatures for the whole of Australia were hotter in January than ever before. That comes on top of numerous other pieces of evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change report released last year said that previous estimates of global greenhouse gas emissions were too conservative. We have also seen the Stern Report, The Inconvenient Truth and the Garnaut interim report. Climate change is a pressing threat and should be debated in the House. Opposition members should support my view that this matter be accorded priority because they would have a chance to place on record their clear and consistent policy on climate change.

To date, the policy and views of the Opposition have been anything but clear. The member for Goulburn is on the record as saying this House should not waste its time discussing climate change—but not too many people would agree with that. The member for Goulburn has also said that the Kyoto protocol is just a piece of paper! The Kyoto protocol is one the most important international agreements and we were all ashamed when the Federal colleagues of this State Opposition were in Government and would not sign it. Yet the member for Goulburn is encouraging her constituents to sign up to her pledge to address climate change. The member's constituents could be forgiven for saying that they will take climate change seriously when the Opposition takes climate change seriously.

Mr Andrew Stoner: This is a frontbench performance.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Leader of The Nationals interjects. One of the reasons the Coalition cannot speak with a clear voice on climate change is that it is entirely divided on the issue. The Nationals' tail is wagging the Liberal Party dog. My motion should be accorded priority because it relates to one of the most important issues confronting New South Wales, Australia and the globe. We need to demonstrate leadership to the constituents of New South Wales. We congratulate the community's efforts during Earth Hour. As this is an issue of utmost importance, I urge that the motion be accorded priority.

Climate Change

Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn) [3.50 p.m.]: My motion should be accorded priority because the internal division in the Government over climate change is now crippling the Government's response to this issue. The Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water is not senior enough to stand up to the biggest climate change critic in New South Wales, the Hon. Michael Costa. The Treasurer has so little respect for the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water and her portfolio that he publicly calls her policies bogus. The Premier did not admonish the Treasurer when he had the opportunity. The Minister is silent on the Garnaut report, which the Government paid for, while the Treasurer publicly condemns it and asks for special deals all in the same breath.

On the one hand, we have the climate change head prefect—the Minister at the junior end of Cabinet— with a total budget of $310 million to spend on climate change initiatives. On the other hand, the Treasurer as recently as today publicly threatened to "take money out of what we're spending on, you know, bogus climate change policies". On that point we agree. The climate change policies promoted by the Government are bogus. 6716 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

They are a sham. The contrast between the two Ministers and their views goes to the heart of the Government's hypocrisy on climate change. The Treasurer rejects scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change. The Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water only yesterday told the Chamber:

The costs of runaway climate change could be so high that a failure to take precautionary measures now would not only be environmentally reckless but would also be economically disastrous.

That is scary stuff. The Minister's statement should be matched by State Government action. It is not. It is matched by more and more empty words, such as claims that greenhouse gas emissions have decreased in New South Wales as a result of the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme. What a joke! This is not the first Minister for the environment to mislead the House on the achievements of the scheme. I deliberately used the word "mislead". The Minister, and her predecessor, told the House that the scheme has been responsible for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. She said, "The scheme has already cut emissions by 60 million tonnes." It has not and she knows it, just as her predecessor knew it did not.

Emissions in this State grow every year. The Minister for Climate Change is stuck with a small budget of $310 million a year trying to pretend that New South Wales leads the world on this issue. The Government's objective is for one naked political purpose: the shoring up of Greens preferences at election time. The Government must laugh at the Greens behind their back. I can imagine the discussion around the Cabinet table: throw the environment movement a few bones, keep them happy, fund their resource centre, pay their salaries. They do it not because they care about the environment or even believe in the urgency of responding to climate change; they do it to shut up the Greens and to get their preferences.

The Minister's most recent announcement related to grants to business to address climate change with, again, a derisory budget of $11.7 million to spend. The money will go to companies such as Kellogg's, Coca-Cola Amatil, Coles, Bunnings and Sara Lee. Members would agree that those companies are not in desperate need of government funding. Some of the companies have turnovers greater than the budget of the Minister's entire department. Those companies are all receiving grants to do what they are already doing. Coles is spending $27 million on energy efficient capital works over the next three years, drawing from its annual profit of $750 million last year. Yet the Government has seen fit to give Coles $90,000 for a water savings project that will save Coles and its shareholders money. Too bad about the New South Wales taxpayers!

Do the grants relate to donations? The money could have been better used elsewhere. In my electorate in Goulburn—a town famous for its water shortage—El Washo Laundry has tried to get financial assistance from the New South Wales Government to recycle its commercial laundry water. So far it has not received a bean. Perhaps El Washo needs to make a political donation to the Labor Party, as Coca-Cola and Coles did. Coles gave $50,000. It has almost doubled its money by receiving a $90,000 assistance grant. Coca-Cola gave $25,000 and got back $50,000. That is a very good return on its money. My motion must be given priority. The Government has to come clean on its climate change policy and resolve its divisions and the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water must be a senior member of Cabinet. The Premier should make the Treasurer the Minister responsible for climate change or gag him.

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 50

Mr Amery Mr Gibson Ms Megarrity Ms Andrews Mr Greene Mr Morris Mr Aquilina Mr Harris Mrs Paluzzano Ms Beamer Ms Hay Mr Pearce Mr Borger Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Mr Brown Ms Hornery Mr Rees Ms Burney Ms Judge Mr Sartor Ms Burton Ms Keneally Mr Shearan Mr Campbell Mr Khoshaba Ms Tebbutt Mr Collier Mr Koperberg Mr Terenzini Mr Coombs Mr Lynch Mr Tripodi Mr Corrigan Mr McBride Mr Watkins Mr Costa Dr McDonald Mr West Mr Daley Ms McKay Mr Whan Ms D'Amore Mr McLeay Tellers, Ms Firth Ms McMahon Mr Ashton Ms Gadiel Ms Meagher Mr Martin 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6717

Noes, 35

Mr Aplin Mr Hartcher Mr Provest Mr Baird Ms Hodgkinson Mr Richardson Mr Baumann Mrs Hopwood Mrs Skinner Ms Berejiklian Mr Humphries Mr Smith Mr Cansdell Mr Kerr Mr Souris Mr Constance Mr Merton Mr Stokes Mr Debnam Ms Moore Mr J. H. Turner Mr Draper Mr Oakeshott Mr J. D. Williams Mrs Fardell Mr O'Dea Mr R. C. Williams Mr Fraser Mr O'Farrell Tellers, Ms Goward Mr Page Mr Maguire Mrs Hancock Mr Piper Mr R. W. Turner

Question resolved in the affirmative.

EARTH HOUR

Motion Accorded Priority

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT (Marrickville) [4.02 p.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) congratulates the people of New South Wales for their efforts on Earth Hour on 29 March 2008;

(2) notes the New South Wales Government's support for Earth Hour and congratulates the Government agencies that participated;

(3) commends the Federal Government for following New South Wales' lead in setting the agenda on groundbreaking climate change initiatives; and

(4) calls on the Leader of the Opposition to once and for all clarify who holds the frontbench position of shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change⎯the member for Goulburn or the member for Castle Hill.

On 29 March about 50 million people around the world switched off their lights for Earth Hour. Earth Hour has captured the imagination of people around the world, and more than 40 countries participated. I congratulate everyone in New South Wales who participated in Earth Hour. We can be very proud that this initiative started here in Sydney. The World Wildlife Fund came up with the idea less than two years ago as a way to raise awareness about climate change and also to encourage people to commit to longer-term action to reduce their energy use. Of course, raising awareness is important, but unless Earth Hour actually acts as a catalyst for people to change their long-term habits it will be symbolic only, and that is not what we want. It is estimated that this year 59 per cent of people in Australia participated in Earth Hour. That is more than half the population.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! Members will conduct their conversations outside the Chamber.

Ms CARMEL TEBBUTT: Energy Australia has said that in Sydney's central business district power use was down by about 8.4 per cent. The national drop in power use during Earth Hour was the equivalent of taking a large coal-fired power station offline for an hour. Across Australia more than 370 cities, towns and communities took part and major property companies participated. Anyone in the city at the time would have seen the changed skyline when all the lights were turned off. The New South Wales Government is a key sponsor of Earth Hour and here at Parliament House all non-essential lighting was turned off for one hour. At the urging of the Premier, government agencies also participated. Among the New South Wales government agencies to turn off their lights were the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the Department of Environment and Climate Change, the New South Wales Ambulance Service, the New South Wales Fire Brigade, Sydney Ports, the Australian Museum, the departments of Commerce and Fair Trading and the Department of Water and Energy, just to name a few.

The list is long, but the extent and scope of the Earth Hour event is possibly best illustrated by the efforts of RailCorp and its staff. Among the many iconic buildings where the lights went out during Earth House was the clock tower at Central Station. Along with the Harbour Bridge and the Opera House, the Central Station clock was switched off for the first time. The RailCorp Earth Hour program involved staff in office buildings, 6718 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

stations, maintenance centres and out-depots. To switch off the Central Station clock the power supply had to be isolated and a separate switch flicked, which was done to the applause of station staff, security and passengers. While most of the work and achievements were behind the scenes and not highly visible to the public—indeed, all operations ran as usual—RailCorp's Earth Hour activities demonstrated willingness from staff right across the organisation to contribute to its energy-saving work.

Earth Hour provides an opportunity for everyone who chooses to participate to reflect on their own energy use and identify opportunities to be more efficient and less wasteful on an ongoing basis. In my own electorate of Marrickville, residents gathered in Steel Park to commemorate and celebrate Earth Hour. Many residents had called in to my electorate office in the week preceding Earth Hour and were asking what they could do to make a contribution both for Earth Hour and following it to reduce their impact on the globe. Earth Hour is symbolic, but symbolism is very important because it inspires people and enthuses them to take further action. But it is not just symbolic. Earth Hour also gives an opportunity and acts as a catalyst for people to change their way of life and empowers them to take small and large steps to reduce their own energy use thereby contributing to lowering our emission levels. There are many, many stories arising out of Earth Hour of individuals and businesses who have used Earth Hour as a catalyst to make longer-term permanent changes. I have shared some of those stories today. For example, government-owned office buildings are among the most efficient in Australia, but we also know there is considerable scope for us to do more.

More than 80 per cent of New South Wales Government-owned offices are rated three or more stars under the National Australian Building Environmental Rating Scheme [NABERS], with 20 per cent of them achieving the highest five-star rating. It is now a national building performance benchmark scheme managed by the New South Wales Government and it has been expanded to include water performance ratings. The New South Wales Government is committed to assisting people to do their bit if they want to reduce their impact on the globe and to reduce their energy use. One of the largest programs under the Climate Change Fund, and certainly the most popular, is the $100 million Residential Rebate Program. This was launched on 1 July last year with rebates for rainwater tanks, followed by the launch of rebates for hot-water systems and insulation on 1 October. This is helping individuals who want to take action to reduce their footprint on the globe and it is supporting individuals through rebates: up to $1,500 to install a rainwater tank and connect it to toilets and washing machines; up to $1,200 to switch from an electric to a solar or heat-pump hot-water system; $300 to switch from electric to gas hot water; and up to $300 to install ceiling insulation.

To the end of March more than 16,000 rebate applications had been received. This shows that residents are embracing this opportunity to reduce emissions and to do something in their day-to-day lives to address climate change. We can all take great heart from this. Initiatives such as Earth Hour should increase the number of people who then make a commitment to do something in their day-to-day life that will reduce their energy use. The New South Wales Government recognises that while it is very important that individuals do their bit, we are not going to address climate change or have the impact we need to reduce our emissions simply by the collective activities of a whole lot of individuals, important as that is. The New South Wales Government also recognises that we need leadership from government. I believe this is one issue where there is the starkest difference between the actions of the Iemma Government and the actions of the Opposition.

This Government has been a leader in addressing climate change. Ours was the first Australian government to establish emission reduction targets. It has set renewable energy targets and led the way in advocating for a national emissions trading scheme. This Government is pleased to acknowledge the Rudd Government's commitment to this issue. The national framework that the Federal Government is establishing provides further opportunities for Federal-State cooperation. The member for Goulburn made a comment about climate change sceptics. We all know that the climate change sceptics are not on this side of the House; they are on the other side. I am astounded that the member expressed surprise that there might be climate change sceptics. On 7 March she said in this place, "There are, of course, sceptics, and quite properly so." It seems to me somewhat hypocritical for the member to come into this place and criticise members on this side of the House for being sceptics because she agrees that it is appropriate that such people exist.

The reality is that we should focus on what scientific research is telling us. It is telling us that collective action by individuals is important, but government leadership is even more important. That is why the New South Wales Government has been a leader in addressing climate change. That is why it announced last December that it would develop an energy efficiency strategy to strengthen this State's economy and to drive down greenhouse gas emissions. Members on this side of the House take climate change seriously. We are committed to being part of a national effort to establish an emissions trading scheme. 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6719

In fact, this State was the leading advocate for the establishment of such a scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This Government recognises that a national approach is essential. We want to work with all governments in Australia to develop the comprehensive suite of policies that we know is essential in tackling climate change. At the same time, Earth Hour provides an excellent opportunity to recognise what has already been achieved and to galvanise action by all sectors of the community for the future. It also serves to remind us that we can all take steps to reduce our energy use and our impact on the globe and to address climate change. That is a very important aspect of Earth Hour. I urge all members to support my motion.

Ms PRU GOWARD (Goulburn) [4.12 p.m.]: I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out paragraphs (3) and (4) and inserting instead:

(3) calls on the New South Wales Government to cease its division over climate change and develop consistent policies across Government; and

(4) demands that the Premier dismiss the junior Minister and make responsibility for climate change a central ministerial portfolio.

I move this amendment because the internal divisions within the Government are crippling the State's response to this issue. I will first address Earth Hour. Despite the fact that we can often create more emissions in 10 minutes than we can save in an hour, Earth Hour is becoming an important occasion on which communities can reflect upon the importance of energy efficiency and the consequences of climate change. It is interesting to note the spread of Earth Hour. The member for Marrickville referred to activities in her electorate. I am working in my electorate with CANWin—which is interestingly headed by Rob Parker, my Labor Party opponent at the last election—to develop a bipartisan celebration hour next year. Despite the fact that it is in some senses symbolic rather real in its achievements, Earth Hour is an important development in public appreciation of the importance of climate change.

However, we should focus on the internal division within the State Government about this issue. The Minister responsible for this area is regularly insulted and sidelined by the Treasurer and, by default, the Premier. The Treasurer has so little respect for the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water that he has publicly called her policies bogus. The Premier, given every opportunity to admonish the Treasurer for his comments, has not done so. So we are left with the clear knowledge that the Premier sides with his Treasurer. The Treasurer has also called Tim Flannery an idiot. I could go on listing the Treasurer's criticisms, particularly his concerns about Professor Ross Garnaut's report on climate change and his response to the release of the report on the importance of a national emissions trading scheme. He said that he was concerned that it would cost too much and that power generators in New South Wales should be exempted so that he can sell them for a better price. Obviously, in so doing, he has made a joke of the scheme.

At the same time, we have heard nothing from the Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water. Having financed the project undertaken by Professor Garnaut—who is respected around the world as our leading public policy economist—the Minister might have come into the Chamber to address his report and to offer the New South Wales Government's support. Instead we have heard nothing. I fear that that is because she has already been done over by the Treasurer and other senior Ministers of this Government who have only ever seen climate change as a political plaything to shut up the Greens—who gave the Labor Party its preferences at the last election—and to ensure that nothing is achieved. The last thing they want is for something to be achieved.

What did they do? They gave the Minister $310 million over four years to spend on climate change initiatives. That money was given to companies that are already doing what they are now being paid to do by this Government. It is a travesty to provide $11.7 million to companies such as Coles and Coca-Cola to do things they were very proud of already having done. Coca-Cola and Coles see themselves as world-leading green companies. Coles spends million of dollars each year on energy-efficiency programs, so it did not need the $90,000 or the $40,000. Likewise, Sara Lee did not need $143,000 and Kellogg's did not need the almost $500,000 provided by this Government to do what they were going to do anyway, what they said they believed in and what they see as an important part of marketing and promoting themselves as environmentally sustainable companies that respect the environmental concerns of the people who buy their products.

Companies can pay no greater compliment to their customers. Small businesses and industries all over New South Wales are desperate for money to enable them to engage in climate change abatement activities, such as water recycling in Goulburn, which does not have a lot of water to throw around. We do have a 6720 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

commercial laundry business and the proprietor has tried everything and gone everywhere to get money. He has not received a cent; in fact, he probably does not even register because I suspect that he does not donate to the Labor Party. On the other hand, Coles has been given $90,000.

The other contrast and conflict in the Government's policies is that we have a decaying public transport system. Everyone knows we cannot be serious about climate change if we do not have a good public transport system and do not get cars off the road instead of simply claiming reductions in greenhouse gases are the equivalent of getting cars off the road. How many times have we heard the figures—which someone makes up while playing cards at lunch—to explain the impact of the greenhouse gas abatement scheme? The one thing that the Government could do to encourage private vehicles off the road would be to get people on to trains and buses. That does not happen because it costs money and it requires a real commitment. It also means having a bureaucracy that can deliver instead of one so staffed by political appointees that it does not know how to administer an office with 10 staff let alone a public service department with thousands of staff.

So, what must be focused on is the contradiction between what the Government says it believes about climate change and what it delivers, and it delivers very little—$310 million when we are talking about a national emissions trading scheme, which could be $7 billion in a bad year or $20 billion in a big year. All this Government can talk about is $310 million. It does not talk about changes to the transport system that might make a difference. The conflicts within the Government are serious. There is no doubt that the New South Wales electorate is conscious that the Treasurer not only opposes the science of climate change, despite the comments of the member for Marrickville—the new Deputy Premier—but also rejects the responsibility of the States.

In other words, funding Ross Garnaut was just another trick, just another way of helping Kevin Rudd have something to say during the election campaign. People at the top of this Government never believed they would ever have to take any notice of it or do anything about it. The first time Kevin Rudd comes up with something real, which is the detail of the national emissions trading scheme, is the first time we hear from this Government. However, we do not hear from the climate change Minister. Instead, we hear from the Treasurer, who says we cannot afford that. Did the New South Wales Government not know that it was going to cost money? Did the New South Wales Government not know that a national emissions trading scheme, which it championed and which it knows in this State alone costs $100 million a year, was going to cost money?

Instead of having responses to it, instead of having plans to deal with it, instead of having plans to enable small business throughout New South Wales to deal with it⎯not Kellogg's, Coles and Coca-Cola Amatil; they are proud of their record on this and are doing it themselves—and instead of having a transport system and an energy sector ready to respond to it, the Government has sat on its hands. In classic Labor style, it has become a climate change denier. It cannot keep using this rhetoric and bobbing around with its silly little programs. When it comes to the tough end of the debate, it cannot muster the money or the intellectual argument. It is a disgrace!

Mr DAVID BORGER (Granville) [4.22 p.m.]: I am pleased to support this motion. I acknowledge all the people across New South Wales who did something about climate change through Earth Hour. When I was Lord Mayor of Parramatta the council was involved in that program, and it continued this year. It is great to see young professionals in commercial office buildings in the Parramatta central business district being responsible enough to want to do something to effect change. I am pleased that the member for Goulburn raised her belief that the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment had not addressed the Garnaut report. I do not know where the member for Goulburn was on 26 February. However, during question time that day the Minister gave the House a detailed response to the Garnaut review. The Minister stated:

The Garnaut report clearly shows the ramifications of years of ignoring the science, ignoring the experts, and ignoring the international effort to work towards a solution, which is why we are in the trouble that we are in today. New South Wales has been a national and world leader in tackling greenhouse gas emissions. We initiated one of the world's first mandatory carbon emission trading schemes that has already cut emissions by more than 60 million tonnes, that is, the equivalent of taking more than 12 million cars off the road in one year.

The Minister was correct to say that we cut those 60 million tonnes out of the environment. I presume that the member for Goulburn was not present in the Chamber that day. However, it is great to see the member for Goulburn stepping up to her shadow portfolio responsibilities today.

Mr Steve Whan: That's a first! 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6721

Mr DAVID BORGER: It has been a long time coming. Members would be forgiven for having wondered who is the shadow Minister for Climate Change and the Environment. It appears that some members opposite are having an identity crisis. On the one hand, the member for Goulburn has launched a ferocious attack on the Government's excellent efforts to work with businesses to fight climate change. Apparently, according to the Opposition's new climate change policy—although I use the word "policy" loosely—the Government should simply leave business to its own devices when it comes to tackling this most urgent issue.

The logic appears to be that the Government should simply ignore the fact that this sector of our community includes some of the biggest water and energy users. As a result, it would appear fairly obvious⎯even to the Opposition⎯that the biggest energy and water savings can therefore be made by working with business. That is not so, according to members of the Opposition, who see no merit in encouraging leading edge technology and projects to slash water and energy use. The member for Goulburn has obviously failed to realise the importance of engaging all sections of our society in efforts to fight climate change.

If the member for Goulburn had delved into the details of the Green Business Program before firing off her press release, she might have realised that this is not a blank cheque. For every dollar the Government provides, business is contributing $2.26. The investment by business in these projects is worth more than $26 million. Businesses are also required to contribute a minimum of the first two years savings in water and energy costs towards the project. The Opposition spokesperson argues that, in effect, because businesses are already doing work to improve their environmental performance, the Government should not help them. So, does the Government just abandon them and provide no incentive for assistance to develop programs that help our environment and help to create jobs?

The Green Business Program is a small part—just 9 per cent—of the $340 million Climate Change Fund. The vast majority of that fund is used to support families and schools in the community with projects to save energy and water and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It appears that the member for Goulburn has the title of shadow Minister for Climate Change and the Environment. However, the plot thickens when one looks at how busy the member for Castle Hill has been lately on environmental issues. The Government thought the member for Castle Hill had been dumped from the environment portfolio in favour of the member for Goulburn. He certainly appears to be a very active shadow Minister if you consider his output.

Since the last election, the member for Castle Hill has lodged 14 freedom of information inquiries relating to the environment and the member for Goulburn has lodged none. The member for Castle Hill has asked 42 questions on notice on the environment, while the member for Goulburn has asked just 20. On the count of direct ministerial correspondence about non-electorate environmental matters, the member for Castle Hill has written three letters and the member for Goulburn has written—you guessed it—zero. I have not mentioned the number of questions without notice that the member for Goulburn has asked on the environment. Again, a big zero. Just like in her heroic battle against the forces of darkness—Greg Smith and his right-wing hordes during preselection for the seat of Epping— [Time expired.]

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [4.27 p.m.]: I am delighted to join in congratulating the people of New South Wales for their efforts during Earth Hour on 29 March 2008. I note, as I already have in this place, the residents of Avalon held a terrific Earth Hour celebration on the sands of Avalon beach. It was a magnificent evening. The only electricity was that provided by the electrical storms out to sea. The second part of the motion notes the Iemma Government's support for Earth Hour. It should be pointed out that Earth Hour was not an initiative of the Iemma Government. It was an initiative of the World Wildlife Fund and Fairfax media. Therefore, we should be congratulating them. We should also be congratulating the kids and the ordinary people of New South Wales, the local communities, who made Earth Hour happen. Although the Government responded, it did not lead on this matter. It is important to note that local communities made Earth Hour the success it has been.

I also have a bit of a problem with commending the Government, I am disappointed to say. I will commend the Government after I am convinced there has been a real change. Two things need to be done in relation to climate change. The first is to recognise the need to adapt and the second is the need to do something about our reliance on coal. In relation to adaptation, I have already spoken in this House about the critical need for a new coastal policy that responds to the new information we have from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. There have been four such reports since the coastline management manual and the coastline hazards policy were introduced by the Greiner Government. Our planning needs to be updated urgently to account for things such as the Venice effect that threatens many homes in low-lying areas around the New South Wales coast, including my community of Pittwater. This is a real risk. I note the decision of His 6722 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

Honour Justice Biscoe in the Land and Environment Court in Walker v Minister for Planning relating to the Sandon Point development. Justice Biscoe found that the Minister had failed to consider climate change⎯

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted and matter lapsed.

GAMING MACHINES AMENDMENT (TEMPORARY FREEZE) BILL 2008

Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill without amendment.

CRIMINAL CASE CONFERENCING TRIAL BILL 2008

Bill received from the Legislative Council and introduced.

Agreement in Principle

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [4.30 p.m.], on behalf of Mr David Campbell: I move:

That this bill be now agreed to in principle.

As the Criminal Case Conferencing Trial Bill was introduced in the other place on 2 April 2008 and is in the same form, I refer members to the second reading speech of the Attorney General, which appears on page 40 of the Hansard galley for that day. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Greg Smith and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

CRIMINAL CASE CONFERENCING TRIAL BILL 2008

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [4.31 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Criminal Case Conferencing Trial Bill 2008, which is a very important piece of long-overdue criminal justice legislation. This bill amends the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 in order to establish a 12-month trial scheme commencing on 1 May 2008 limited to certain indictable offences being heard in the Local Court at the Downing Centre or at Central Local Court, Sydney, to encourage early pleas of guilty. This will be achieved by providing for a trial scheme of compulsory pre-committal conferences and codification of sentence discounts for guilty pleas.

This bill limits the maximum discount for defendants pleading guilty to criminal charges to the first available opportunity at the Local Court stage of criminal proceedings⎯that is, before the actual committal hearing. About four years ago the Government agreed to fund extra staff for the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] and Legal Aid for criminal case processing, but then failed to enact the essential and necessary legislation to give the process real teeth. As a result of the Government's procrastination, the criminal case processing scheme was only partly successful. This caused much wrangling between the Government and the Director of Public Prosecutions over budget money.

Clause 17 of the bill provides, in most cases, for a discount of 25 per cent, which must be given if the offender pleads guilty before committal. The bill contains provisions to allow the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Crown Prosecutor to object to the matter being dealt with in this manner if the early guilty plea is an inevitable decision against an inevitable conviction and, therefore, a discount of that size should not be given. A discount of only up to 12.5 per cent will be allowed if the offender pleads guilty at any time after committal. When considering what discount applies, the court must consider the discount proportionate to the remaining benefit of the plea. Even after an offender has been committed for trial he or she may be able to establish entitlement to a discount of between 12.5 per cent and 25 per cent if it can be demonstrated that substantial grounds exist for allowing the greater discount.

The burden of establishing substantial grounds lies with the offender on the balance of probabilities. Substantial grounds are limited to four circumstances as follows. First, if an offer to plead guilty to a lesser 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6723

offence was made and recorded at the compulsory conference, which will be established under this legislation, and the offender subsequently is found guilty of that alternative offence. Secondly, if an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offence was made and recorded at the compulsory conference and refused by the prosecution, but later accepted before trial. Thirdly, if an offer to plead guilty to an alternative offence is made for the first time and accepted after committal, and the offender had no reasonable opportunity to plead guilty before committal. Fourthly, if the offender was found initially unfit to plead and later pleads after being subsequently found fit to plead.

There are a number of arguments in favour of this legislation. First, there is the saving of time and expense. The criminal justice system is expensive. Years ago criminal trials were assessed at costing $20,000 a day. The figure now would be much higher when all costs involved are taken into account. Secondly, there is recognition for early contrition. Thirdly, and probably most importantly to many, is early closure for victims of crime. Early guilty pleas will allow victims of crime to not have to worry or have the pressure of attending court to give evidence and be cross-examined. Often cases are not heard at the original trial date and are adjourned. Victims then often have to be interviewed several times, sometimes by different prosecutors, which can be quite distressing. Saving victims of crime suffering that stress is a great point.

Costs to the court and the parties involved will be reduced because up to 50 per cent of criminal prosecutions turn into pleas of guilty on or just before the first day of trial. Costs incurred in the preparation of such trials are significant. The allocation of staff, whether by police, by representatives from the Division of Analytical Laboratories or other forensics services, and by the prosecution and defence, are quite significant. In those cases when a plea is made at an early stage there will be a significant cost saving. These new measures will help also to alleviate victims of crime and their families suffering the stress of the impending trial and will give them early closure. It will save lay people also from the stress, trauma and inconvenience of having to attend to give evidence at the trial.

There are some arguments against the process and there has been criticism that the whole system of plea bargaining or charge negotiation⎯whatever it is called⎯means that criminals often are given much less serious sentences for the crimes they have committed; that the punishment does not really fit the crime. Some people would say there should not be such an attraction in obtaining early pleas. I believe the majority of people would reject that and say that one could never be certain about what will happen in the criminal trial process. Very strong prosecution trials sometimes could result in a perverse verdict, leading to a not guilty finding and a serious criminal walking free. It is good to get a guilty plea to then be able to say that at least justice has been done and it will help the healing process. The community will see that the criminal justice system is succeeding in finalising cases. Punishments will be imposed on criminals to discourage them from future criminal behaviour, to protect the community by putting them in jail on occasions and, further, by providing them the opportunity to be rehabilitated and leave their incarceration as decent citizens, which some do achieve.

In my experience, in folklore and analogy judges have been criticised for being too willing to hand down sentences that are too light and this has caused considerable community outrage. The appeal system available to the Crown does not remedy that situation, because even if the Crown succeeds on an appeal against inadequacy of sentence the court is limited to the bottom of the range available to the original sentencing judge. The House will hear more about that at a later stage. Under the current system judges from time to time give a 25 per cent discount, even when it may not be warranted. Other judges give little discounts and sometimes appeal courts find they have been too hard and not generous enough. A plea of guilty certainly saves the community and the criminal justice system much money and inconvenience.

Large discounts may be given because the prosecution was not prepared to accept a plea to a lesser charge at an earlier stage. This may be because witnesses seem ready to give evidence and seem credible, but as the trial approaches some lose their nerve and some get sick, die or disappear, while others are "got at" by criminal elements. Unfortunately, that happens and the Crown is often happy to cobble a plea of guilty to anything that is relevant to the criminal conduct to achieve a result that does some justice to the victims and the community. The bill provides no guidance to the interpretation of the no reasonable opportunity test to offer an earlier plea under section 15 (5) (c). Indeed, judges may be inconsistent in their interpretation of the discount that should be proportionate to the remaining benefit of the guilty plea.

Nevertheless, the bill will significantly improve the current system, which is not working. Four years ago discussions took place, but the Government baulked at the eleventh hour and it did not introduce complementary legislation to make mandatory the allocation of the maximum discount at the pre-committal stage. Negotiations have been done administratively through criminal case conferencing, which was not 6724 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

generally compulsory at the Local Court unless the defendant had legal aid, and attendance at a case conference was a condition for the grant of legal aid. It did not bind the defendant to a plea of guilty at that stage and often did not stop the defendant from being given rather large discounts at a later stage. I have researched case conferencing, and Annmarie Lumsden of the Legal Aid Commission produced an excellent paper in 2006 for the College of Law in which she highlighted the situation very well when she said:

Criminal Courts statistics for 2003 revealed that of the 2,102 matters committed for trial to the District Court, only 578 or 27.5% actually proceeded to trial. In 263 or 12.5% of those matters, no charges were proceeded with.

That is generally because the Director of Public Prosecutions no bills the case on the basis that there are no reasonable prospects of a conviction, or other discretionary matters cause him to no bill the matter. Ms Lumsden further found:

Statistics also indicated that in 2002/2003 there was a plea of guilty on the first day of trial in 49% of State matters before the District Court and 40% of Commonwealth matters.

In late 2003, Legal Aid undertook a comprehensive study of the impact of late pleas of guilty in matters listed for trial in the District and Supreme Courts in August 2003. There were two significant outcomes of the analysis. The first was that 87% of legally aided trials assigned to private practitioners resulted in a plea of guilty on the first day of trial.

There might be a temptation for some counsel to milk the brief because in recent years the Bar has been squeezed as a result of the abolition of much of the tort law and workers compensation work. In addition, many accused persons do not come to the realisation that they are facing trial and perhaps conviction until very late in the process: until they see the whites of the eyes of the prosecutor, the judge, and the empanelling of the jury. Often it is not until the adrenaline is pumping and counsel says, "If you plead guilty, you will probably get only this amount and you will get a discount", that the accused decides to plead guilty. Accused persons are often referred to as punters, not in the derogatory sense that it describes a gambler, but they gamble on the various reasons as to why cases do not proceed. As I said 263 cases, or 12.5 per cent, did not proceed in 2003. There is one chance in eight that the case will not proceed or that it will be adjourned, which postpones the final outcome. Ms Lumsden further found in the study:

The second [outcome] was that in 68% of matters where a plea of guilty was entered, the indictment was changed on the day of the trial.

The reason for that is that often the Crown Prosecutor in the trial is not appointed until late in the process. The Crown Prosecutor holding the brief may be prosecuting another trial that runs for longer than anticipated and the brief may have to be passed on to another prosecutor at the last minute. A better system would be to determine who would prosecute earlier, but there are insufficient prosecutors to have the luxury of giving them a few matters each. They are all busy and briefs move around amongst solicitors and barristers for both the Crown and the defence, depending on commitments in other matters.

The figures set out in the study confirm what was common knowledge within the profession, that is, a significant number of matters committed for trial result in a plea of guilty or do not proceed because the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions no bills or directs no further proceedings on the day or on the eve of the trial. The figures from the study also highlighted a significant resources issue for criminal justice agencies: a large number of matters were being prepared for trial that did not proceed. Both Legal Aid and the Crown not only brief in-house Crown prosecutors or public defenders but also they brief private counsel and private solicitors in the case of legal aid. Ms Lumsden's paper continued:

By about April 2004 there had been a 20% increase in matters committed for trial to the District Court, compared to the previous year, with pleas of guilty on the first day of trial approaching 58%.

The situation was getting worse in the sense of wastage. I continue:

In April 2004 the Attorney General established a Criminal Case Processing Committee [CCPC] consisting of senior representatives of justice agencies and the courts. The brief of that committee was to formulate a statutory model to reduce the number of matters that were committed for trial, prepared as a trial, but did not ultimately proceed as a trial. The purpose was to provide enhanced justice outcomes through greater charge and sentencing certainty and to significantly reduce the cost associated with late pleas. The model was to focus on improving four areas.

The first was to determine the appropriate charge at the earliest opportunity. The second was to provide the Crown brief to the defence expeditiously. The third was to introduce a formal process for negotiation of charges, facts and/or jurisdiction at an early stage of the proceedings. The fourth was to ensure that those who plead guilty early receive an identifiable discount for the utilitarian value of the plea.

The policy intent was to shift matters that were committed for trial, prepared as a trial, but did not ultimately proceed as a trial, to an earlier stage in the timeline. Despite extensive consultation with a large number of stakeholders, at the 11th hour the New South Police Minister withdrew his support for the statutory model and the Criminal Case Processing Bill—

9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6725

which was a draft bill at the time, as I understand it—

was not introduced into Parliament. The administrative model was formulated to substitute the statutory model. An advantage of the statutory model was certainty—

That is what this bill should achieve once enacted—

However there are many that argue that the case conferencing model is a better one. Relying on the common law, it has the advantage of providing greater flexibility in that it maintains the prospect for the accused to be given the maximum discount for the utilitarian benefit of the pleas at common law, without the rigid sanctions of the statutory model. Significantly, case conferencing retains the improved disclosure by the New South Wales Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

As to the comment about the common law being less rigid, it seems to me that there was never a compulsion on judges to give a 25 percent discount. I notice in some of the media, and it may well be in the speech of the Attorney General in the other place, the suggestion was that it was up to 35 per cent. In Thompson's case the court said between 10 per cent and 25 per cent. I think 35 per cent was discussed in Thompson's case and some of the parties argued for that figure, but the court came down to a maximum of 25 per cent. Other factors can earn accused persons discounts, such as assisting the authorities in finding co-accused and giving evidence against co-accused who are higher up the criminal chain. Another excellent paper on this subject was given by Sophia Beckett, a solicitor from the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales, and issued by the Public Defenders Office. The paper repeats many of the matters I have already referred to and which I will not go over, but Sophia made some points that are worthy of mention. Looking at the case conference procedure she wrote:

The scheduling of face-to-face conference prior to committal—

That is what is established in the bill: compulsory conferences, in many cases by the magistrate, before the actual decision on whether there will be a committal, where both the Crown and the defence are represented. She continued:

The scheduling of the conferencing aims to shift the activity that usually occurs in the weeks before the trial, to the weeks before the committal.

It is often the days before the trial. In fact, it is often the day before the trial or the day of the trial, or sometimes during the trial. She continued:

The factors needed to achieve meaningful negotiation at this stage are:

The service of a complete brief of evidence—

I do not think that is happening under the bill. It will be a mini brief in a sense. It will have a lot of the necessary material, but it may not have all the supporting corroborating statements on matters of that sort. That is how the earlier negotiation was and it might still be the case. It is difficult, for example, to have all the transcripts of tape recordings, listening devices or telephone intercept evidence available quickly because it is labour intensive. It is often difficult to have certificates from the drug analytical laboratories available setting out exact quantities of material and percentages. Sometimes all you really need is the confirmation that something is methylamphetamine or heroin or whatever in a drug case. It is difficult to get DNA results quickly—

[Interruption]

This family-friendly activity is getting a little bit over the top. She continued:

That practitioners seriously analyse the brief and in the case of the defence obtain full instructions— that was often a problem because the accused did not have any money and the Legal Aid Commission often did not come in to assist in committal proceedings. Extra money was given to the Legal Aid Commission to assist and on occasions that involved public defenders and Crown prosecutors—

That practitioners be of sufficient seniority, on both sides, to have the confidence to make an assessment of the brief and any prospective trial, and to be in a position to come to a binding agreement.

To that end both the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Legal Aid Commission recruited experienced practitioners at an appropriately high level who were able to satisfy that. The Chief Magistrate issued a practice note. The system worked as well as it could from an administrative basis, but without the carrot of having to plead at an early stage before achieving the full discount and with the leniency applied by many judges accused 6726 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

persons were procrastinating and the system did not work as well as it should have. The legislation will go a long way towards improving that situation. It has taken a long time for the Government to introduce the legislation, but I am pleased to say that the Opposition does not oppose it. I do not think the House will spend too much time in further debate of the bill.

Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [4.57 p.m.]: I am extremely happy to speak in support of the Criminal Case Conferencing Trial Bill 2008. It is with much pleasure that I speak to the great initiative that formalises and gives structure to the improved workings of the criminal justice system. The bill will have the effect of bringing to the front end of the trial many criminal trial processes that happen one year or 18 months later, depending on the particular court. The advantage of such a change is that the prosecution and the defence now have the incentive of sitting down, focusing on the issues in dispute and having a conference to determine whether there is any prospect of early resolution. As the member for Epping would know, the prosecution guidelines for the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] explicitly say that the DPP is to actively take part in plea negotiation and a form of conferencing. The bill formalises that procedure.

Criminal trials have become much more complicated over the years. Instead of trials taking two or three days—as they would have taken 10 years ago when I first started prosecuting—they are now taking up to five days. There are many more procedures and the judge has to give many more directions. In particular, sentencing now involves much more case law. The cost of criminal trials is rising all the time. At some stage we should consider how we are going to make sure the criminal justice system works more efficiently, so that people get better value for their money. The idea of bringing parties together to discuss the issues is a great initiative. Many years ago the committal consisted of a process where any witness for the prosecution could be called, including victims. The matter would come before the court and the defence solicitor would write on the back of the service document "all witnesses". All witnesses were then required to appear and the committal hearing could take five or six days.

Reforms ensured that the complainant in a criminal trial could be called only at committal under finite and defined circumstances. That reduced the committal procedure to perhaps one witness and the tender of a brief. These days the vast majority of committal proceedings involve the tendering of a brief of evidence. Previously parties would not hold a conference and talk about the matter. They would have the matter committed to trial and sort it out after the committal hearing. That was the practice for a long time, and to a large extent it is still the practice today. Matters are committed for trial and negotiations take place. Counsel are briefed after committal and hold a meeting with the Crown Prosecutor at the arraignment stage. By that stage, a great deal of preparation has been done by the Director of Public Prosecutions and Legal Aid. The matter has gone through many sets of hands at both those agencies, incurring huge costs, and no discussion has taken place.

The bill will bring the committal stage process forward and significantly improve the efficiency of the process. The most important part of the bill relates to discounts provided for an early plea. The benefits to all concerned are numerous. An early plea saves victims the trauma of having to relive their attacks in court and alleviates the need for victims to prepare themselves for a trial. As the member for Epping said, victims may have to attend up to six conferences and relive the events. By the time they get to court they have told eight or nine people about their experience. The bill has the potential to improve that situation. It will save the court, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and Legal Aid time and money, and relieve police of administrative duties, such as, gathering evidence and rounding up witnesses. It will reduce the risk of wrong charges being laid, thereby ensuring meaningful plea negotiations are entered into at an early stage.

The bill produces three categories of discount. First, an accused who pleads guilty before the committal will receive a discount of 25 per cent. Second, an accused who pleads guilty after committal may be granted a discount of between 12.5 per cent and 25 per cent in certain circumstances. Third, an accused who pleads guilty after committal may receive a maximum discount of up to 12.5 per cent. I will address the issue of substantial grounds. A discount of greater than 12.5 per cent but no greater than 25 per cent may be allowed for a guilty plea after committal if substantial grounds exist for allowing a greater discount. The Government recognises that in certain circumstances it may be unfair to deny a person a greater discount because of the timing of the plea. The four substantial grounds are, one, where an offender offers a plea of guilty to an alternative offence and later is found guilty of that alternative offence. That includes the statutory and common law alternative counts and reflects the common law, as it stands. If an offender offers to plead to an alternative offence and is later found guilty of that offence, the judge will take that into account. That situation will obviously attract a larger discount than 12.5 per cent.

The second substantial ground is where an offender offers to plead guilty to an alternative offence before the committal and the offer is refused by the prosecutor but later accepted after the committal. That 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6727

situation will obviously attract a discount. It may be that one prosecutor does not accept the plea but later another prosecutor does. As those factors are outside the control of the offender, in fairness the discount would prevail. The third ground relates to where an offender offers to plead guilty to an alternative offence for the first time and it is accepted after the committal for trial and the offender had no reasonable opportunity to offer that plea of guilty before the committal. That covers the situation where the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has reviewed the case after committal and found that following the review it will accept the plea. In those circumstances it would be fair to offer a discount of between 12.5 and 25 per cent because it was beyond the control of the offender.

The fourth ground is where an offender is found unfit to be tried for an offence by the District Court but subsequently pleads guilty to the offence when he or she becomes fit. This ground allows for the situation where a person is found unfit to stand trial after a fitness hearing but subsequently becomes fit and goes on to plead guilty to the offence. It is not the intention of the Government to punish people who cannot understand the nature of the proceedings or the charges preferred against them. Those four grounds cover the middle ground where factors outside the control of the offender are such that they are unable to plead guilty before the committal. However, in a situation where an offender is represented, in the majority of cases by Legal Aid, attends a conference and has a meaningful and constructive conference, one of several courses of action can occur.

One, the matter can proceed to committal for trial and the issues are focused. That means that the prosecution and the defence know more about the matter and can focus on the issues. Two, the offender pleads guilty to an offence, which means not only a secure plea and a discount, but also any dispute about the facts on sentencing can be resolved. I can say from experience that sentence hearings can go for days if the facts are in dispute. The complainant may need to be called to court to give evidence on a sentence hearing to resolve peripheral or major facts, but not the elements of the offence. I am pleased that the disclosure certificate contains an allowance to include any disputes on the facts on sentence. That means the sentence proceedings will be shortened, the complainant may not have to be called for sentence proceedings and the matter will proceed to finalisation earlier.

From my experience having worked in the criminal justice system for 12 years, I am particularly pleased with the bill. When I was on the local courts circuit I conducted a similar operation informally. The results were significant. If I held a conference with the Legal Aid solicitor or duty solicitor and the client, the potential for early resolution of the matter was significant. The matters committed for trial were the ones that generally ended up running as trials, not the ones that resolved themselves in the days leading up to the trials. Traditionally, serious negotiation and discussions between the prosecution and the defence have been carried out in the weeks leading up to the trial after the Crown Prosecutor has received a brief. That situation cannot continue. This bill makes provision for serious negotiation to occur at the beginning of the proceedings. The parties can sit down and attempt to resolve the matter. Matters that will be committed for trial are those that involve genuine disputes and differences, and where an accused exercises his rights and defends the matter.

The bill produces a significant cultural shift in the way the legal profession approaches matters when representing their clients. It will achieve that cultural shift by making sure that clients are advised that a criminal case conferencing system is in place to resolve matters earlier. In this way agencies such as the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and Legal Aid will not spend six months preparing for a trial, subpoenaing witnesses who may be interstate or overseas and preparing a matter for arraignment. Crown Prosecutors will not have to read the briefs to familiarise themselves with the case and police will not have to spend time rounding up extra evidence. All of those things will occur only if a matter goes to trial. I am very pleased to support this bill. I am very pleased that this initiative has finally come to fruition. I am very confident that it will achieve results in the three courts mentioned. From my experience, it is a significant improvement to the criminal justice system and I have great pleasure in commending the bill to the House.

Mr BARRY COLLIER (Miranda—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.09 p.m.], in reply: I thank the member for Epping and the member for Maitland for their very good contributions to the debate on the Criminal Case Conferencing Trial Bill 2008. They brought to the debate their experience with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions—one as a Senior Crown Prosecutor and one as a solicitor. I note the Opposition supports the bill. The purpose of the bill is to establish a 12-month trial scheme commencing on 1 May that will codify the discounts on sentence to be allowed by the courts in respect of guilty pleas, will reduce the maximum amount of sentence discount that may be allowed for guilty pleas in those proceedings, and will require the legal representative of an accused person and the prosecution to participate in a compulsory conference. The Criminal 6728 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

Case Conferencing Trial Scheme applies to proceedings for indictable offences where committal proceedings for the offence will be heard in the Downing Centre Local Court or Central Sydney Local Court and the accused is charged between 1 May this year and 1 May 2009.

A compulsory conference is to be held between the legal representative of an accused person and the prosecution before the accused is committed for trial. The conference is to determine whether there are any offences to which the accused person is willing to plead guilty. These are to be recorded in a compulsory conference certificate after the conference and filed with the court. Before the compulsory conference is held, a copy of a brief of evidence must be served on the accused person or his or her legal representative. The legal representative of the accused person and the prosecution are to be present at the compulsory conference. The compulsory conference certificate is admissible as evidence before a sentencing court only for certain limited purposes relating to the imposition of a lower penalty for a guilty plea.

The bill provides rate discount of 25 per cent if the offender pleads guilty at any time before committal. A discount of up to 12.5 per cent may be allowed if the offender pleads guilty at any time after committal. However, a discount greater than 12.5 per cent but not greater than 25 per cent may be allowed if substantial grounds exist for allowing a greater discount. Certain offences are excluded from the trial, such as life sentence offences, which presently include the offence of murder, certain serious heroin or cocaine trafficking offences and an offence under section 61JA of the Crimes Act 1900, as well as offences under Commonwealth law.

The bill is an important milestone in the development of criminal law procedure in New South Wales and makes fundamental and important reforms to the laws concerning sentencing. It must be remembered that this scheme has always been about pleas of guilty and the value that comes from that plea being entered at the earliest possible stage. It was never intended that the scheme would apply to people who always intended to plead not guilty and wish to go to trial. Going to trial is the right of every person charged with an offence in New South Wales and the law in this State does not punish a person for exercising their right to defend themselves against criminal accusations.

Some people have said that this is going soft on criminals, but that is not so. The proposed amendments are designed to provide a person who wishes to plead guilty with a real opportunity to do so prior to committal for trial. The amendments are also designed to encourage the prosecution to increase the accuracy of the charges laid and ensure they have the available evidence to support the charges at an early stage. To that end, there will be greater consultation between the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions at the time of charging the person to encourage accuracy of the charge and appropriate preparation of evidence to support it. There will be clear involvement of more senior and experienced practitioners early in the process to engage in meaningful negotiation while the matter is still at the local court level.

The need for such a scheme as this is quite clear. Of the 1,839 cases committed for trial to the District Court in 2006, fewer than 500 actually resulted in a trial. Of the remainder, approximately 1,000 resulted in a plea of guilty and almost 300 were no-billed by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The two main components of the present trial are the compulsory conference and the mandatory discounting regime on sentencing. Both of these initiatives are expected to result in savings in time and resources to the agencies involved in the criminal justice system, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Legal Aid Commission, and will save victims the trauma of having to wait, often for months and sometimes years, until the eve of the trial only to hear that the offender has pleaded guilty.

Also, the trial will save police time. Whilst the police will still need to prepare a brief of evidence prior to the conference, it will save time later in the process. The trial will reduce the time spent in preparing matters for trial, including late requisitions, attending conferences with the Director of Public Prosecutions, marshalling civilian witnesses, responding to subpoenas, handling and transporting exhibits, investigating alibis and attending mentions and listings for trial. The police will also benefit from not having to roster police officers and detectives off duty for trials for lengthy periods of time—usually weeks but sometimes months—only to find that the trial does not proceed after a late plea of guilty.

A significant part of the trial involves the Director of Public Prosecutions providing police with pre-charge advice as to the appropriateness of the charge. That will help ensure the correct charges that fit the evidence are laid in the first place. The bill provides for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Commissioner of Police to enter into a memorandum of understanding in relation to requests for advice by 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6729

police officers to the director on any matter that could be the subject of a compulsory conference. What is significant in bringing forward this bill is the support of groups that deal with victims of crime on a daily basis. Mr Ken Marslew, AM, from Enough is Enough, said of the proposed trial:

It is simply a better way to deal with the process. It will cut down on some of the anxieties suffered by the victims as a guilty plea will speed up the process and with the discounts clearly defined hopefully bring greater consistency to the sentences.

Mr Howard Brown from the Victims of Crime Assistance League said:

There are clearly times when discounts are appropriate, to save Victims and Witnesses the trauma of giving evidence being one, but, unless this is done at committal, when all the Crown evidence is laid out for the accused to be able to make a rational decision to plea, then we are not serving Justice.

But it is not only the victims of crime who support criminal case conferencing as proposed in this bill. The Law Society of New South Wales also welcomed the proposal when it was announced. President Hugh Macken said:

The requirement for an early compulsory case conference between the prosecution and defence will greatly streamline the criminal law processes and allow early attention to focus on the real issues between the parties and the speedy resolution of matters.

In fact, this bill has been developed through a significant consultation process. Late last year consultation was undertaken based on a draft bill. This included consultation with the key stakeholders such as the Chief Magistrate of the Local Court, the Chief Judge of the District Court, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Legal Aid Commission, the Aboriginal Legal Service, the New South Wales Bar Association, the Law Society of New South Wales, the Hon. James Wood, AO, former judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court, and the New South Wales Police Association. Victims groups consulted include the Homicide Victims Support Group, the Victims of Crime Assistance League [VOCAL] and Enough is Enough, who all support the scheme.

I will now summarise the benefits of this trial. By encouraging early pleas we are saving victims the trauma of having to relive the attacks in court. We are alleviating the need for victims to prepare themselves for trial only to find that the accused pleads guilty on the first day of the trial. As the member for Epping said, often it is only when the accused arrives at the door of the court and the jury is being empanelled that the penny suddenly drops that the trial day has arrived and the accused realises that he or she is on trial. It will save the court, the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions time and money and it will reduce the risk of the wrong charges being laid in the first instance, thereby ensuring meaningful plea negotiations are entered into early.

The member for Epping raised the issue of section 17 (5) (c) in relation to substantial ground. That section relates to reasonable opportunity, and "reasonableness" is a well understood concept of law. Of course, what is reasonable in one situation may not be reasonable in another. The special ground in section 17 (5) (c) that allows an accused person to receive a discount for a plea entered after committal only applies in rare circumstances where there is another charge that could not originally have been contemplated that may arise at a later stage due to the changed circumstances. This could be, for instance, an ex officio indictment on a charge that was not related to the original charge. It is important to emphasise that it should only apply where the offender had no reasonable opportunity to enter a plea to a charge before committal and can only do so after committal. It should only apply for a charge that could not reasonably have been within the consideration of the accused at the time of the conference.

It is anticipated that if the accused expects to benefit from the criminal case conferencing scheme he or she will have to demonstrate full and forthright cooperation in the case conference. If an accused choses not to cooperate, he or she cannot seriously expect to receive the benefits of a large discount at a later stage. The member for Epping also raised the issue of the nature of the brief, suggesting that it may well be a mini brief. I am advised that it is not a mini brief. I refer the member to clause 8 of the bill, which provides that a brief of evidence is to consist of:

(a) any written statements taken from persons the prosecutor intends to call to give evidence in proceedings for the offence or offences, and

(b) copies of any document or other thing identified in such a written statement as a proposed exhibit or advice as to where any such document or thing may be inspected.

The legislation goes on to provide that a copy of the brief of evidence must comply with any requirement applicable as prescribed by the regulations. We are looking at a full committal brief being provided to the defence. As I said, it involves everything, and particularly the evidence that the prosecutor intends to adduce to 6730 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

prove the commission of the offence or offences. That is all the documents and material that the prosecutor will put before the court to prove each element of the offence or offences as the case may be. This is a significant milestone in the development of the criminal justice system in New South Wales. As a barrister who practised criminal law with both the Legal Aid Commission and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and as a solicitor who practised criminal law, I know that this bill will save time and effort and it will assist victims. I have great pleasure in commending the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Passing of the Bill

Bill declared passed and returned to the Legislative Council without amendment.

SUPERANNUATION ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 2008

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from 2 April 2008.

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [5.21 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Superannuation Administration Amendment Bill 2008. The Opposition has reservations about this bill, and I will deal with those reservations in detail. It is alarming that the Treasurer is proposing to give himself the ultimate authority to access the superannuation reserves of public sector employees and to transfer these funds to other accounts. The Opposition will move an amendment to this bill because it does not believe that the public can be assured that the Government is acting in the best overall interests of public sector workers. In fact, it may be using this process as a budgetary tool.

This bill proposes a number of amendments to the Superannuation Administration Act 1996. Schedule 1 [6] (a) provides that the SAS Trustee Corporation may transfer surplus funds between State sector employers' reserve accounts with the approval of the Treasurer. I will come back to that point. Schedule 1 [6] (b) provides that the corporation may debit all or part of the surplus funds of a non-State sector employer—that is, a local council—and return it to that employer if it is requested. Schedule 1 [2] inserts a two-year time limit for people to lodge a dispute with the corporation. This will apply under the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906, the State Authorities Non-contributory Superannuation Act 1987, the State Authorities Superannuation Act 1987 and the Superannuation Act 1916. Items [3], [5] and [7] of schedule 1 make statute law revision amendments following the enactment of the First State Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Conversion) Act 2005. Items [4] and [8] of schedule 1 update references to the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002.

The bill will have the effect of allowing excess funds to be recorded on the State sector balance sheet, which will reduce the State's unfunded superannuation liabilities. I should provide some context. The State Government has a number of accounts within its pooled superannuation funds. Of these individual accounts, four have defined benefits. These are funded through a mixture of returns on existing assets, future contributions and earnings. The State Government has a gap of approximately $17 billion in its ability to meet these obligations, but on current projections in the budget papers it expects the gap to close by 2030. Australian Accounting Standard AASB 119 is the universal accounting standard. The State Government has a different approach to its forward estimates, and I will address that issue later.

Some State Government and council funds have assets and no liabilities, and those funds cannot be released. The bill's proposal to release those funds makes eminent sense. The bill's provision allowing the SAS Trustee Corporation to debit all or part of these funds at the employer's request seems sensible, provided they are returned solely to contributors. The initial briefing I received indicated that that applied only to nil-liability accounts. However, the bill is broader than that and the Opposition is happy to consider it. The concern that is not necessarily addressed is whether councils could use the funds to prop up ailing investment portfolios. The Government should answer that question. How many are there? What sort of accounts are involved? Who would receive the funds? What is the total amount? What is the purpose? 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6731

The request to introduce a two-year time limit to lodge a dispute with the SAS Trustee Corporation— which is designed to align this legislation with the Commonwealth superannuation law—is also commonsense and reasonable. The Police Association agrees with the two-year limitation on appeals, and it is most impacted by this provision. It states that it is "a satisfactory period and is consistent with time frames allowed for in like schemes". As I said, the Opposition has some concerns and several unanswered questions must be addressed. It is not clear exactly what accounts or funds are directly impacted. We have the broad context, but not the specifics. What accounts are planned to be debited or credited?

We obviously do not have the in-depth analysis that is available to the Treasury and we are not sure where the funds will go. Again, the Opposition understands the broad context but does not have the specific detail. Nor does it have details about the formal process to be undertaken to determine the ongoing surplus assets. Members on this side of the House understand that there are references to various accounting standards and independent advice, but we do not have the details. The Opposition's primary concern is exacerbated by the fact that the surplus could be determined by reference to critical accounting standard AASB 119, but not necessarily utilising the requisite discount rate. Schedule 1 provides:

Surplus funds are funds that exceed the amount required to meet the current and future liabilities under the scheme to which they relate as determined in accordance with Accounting Standard AASB 119: Employee Benefits or another standard prescribed by the regulations.

That is important because the accounting standard has a much more conservative discount rate. That must be put into context. There is the potential without some comfort given to the public and the members of these superannuation schemes that this could be the thin edge of the wedge. In the 2007-08 budget the Government amended the assumptions underlying the calculation of its provision for unfunded superannuation. This is for the forward estimates. The forward estimates changed the investment return assumption from 7.0 per cent to 7.7 per cent, increased the discount rate from 7.0 per cent to 7.3 per cent and increased pensioner mortality rates. All of these changes had the impact of significantly reducing unfunded superannuation liabilities. I understand that an independent consultant was used. However, the report reflected only on the discount rates; it did not make a comment on why that discount rate was used.

That means that over the four years prior to last year's budget the Government had made an average contribution of $1.3 billion towards the reduction of its unfunded superannuation liabilities. Yet after the revised assumptions the Government commissioned a new report. It changed three critical assumptions and, voilà, we do not have to contribute as much. Last year the Government did not allocate anything. It just transferred a particular fund that had been set up to address unfunded superannuation primarily. Going forward to the estimate period, the rate the Government has contributed has gone down to $0.9 billion. So, over four years an extra $1.6 billion was found for the State budget. In this context that becomes very important.

I do not necessarily want to use this defence, but it is appropriate. The Howard Government rate and the discount rate used in other States are markedly different. The Howard Government used an investment return assumption of 7.5 per cent; the discount rate was 6 per cent, and pensioner mortality was falling, not rising, as one would expect with a rising population. The discount rate used in the New South Wales budget of 7.3 per cent—again, this is for the forward estimate period—was significantly higher than those used by the other States. Victoria's was 5.95 per cent; Tasmania, 5.7 per cent; South Australia, 5.9 per cent; the Australian Capital Territory, 6 per cent; and the Queensland Government has no unfunded liabilities. The Western Australian rate is not available.

Running through that one sees that the New South Wales rate is almost 1.3 per cent higher than in any other State. If the Treasurer applies that when determining how much to put into the State budget, clearly he does not have to put as much in. If he increases the discount rate on that, he does not have to put as much in. I have concerns because I do not have the intricate details of what Treasury is doing in relation to the bill, but as it stands it appears to be building on this form of financial engineering. If one looks at the surpluses—and again this builds on the general concern about these transactions—they are really only estimates. To determine a surplus one has to ask an actuary. An actuary will run through a model that will make a number of different assumptions and then the actuary will create an asset.

Mr Michael Daley: That is what happened.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: I understand that. As at 30 June 2007, which was mentioned in the first speech, the surplus assets were determined at $699 million. Last week, in Treasury's briefing, they were $350 million. In 12 months, the same assets had moved $350 million. The year before that they were $284 million. So, they 6732 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

moved from $284 million to $699 million and then down last week to $350 million, and it may well be less than that. The point is, are they really surplus? If you have that sort of volatility in relation to this group of assets that you are trying to put from one account to another, there has to be a question on the surplus. What is ultimately driving this bill? Are we moving assets to make an impact in relation to this budget or are we acting in the best interests of New South Wales public policy?

So, in that context the Opposition proposes an amendment that is, I understand, in the course of being agreed to in principle by the Treasurer. That is to provide more surety to unfunded public sector superannuation liabilities. It will be words to the effect that in any given year that a transfer occurs the Auditor-General will undertake a performance audit or similar of these transfers in accordance with section 38B of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983. Why do we want the Auditor-General involved? Quite simply, we want him to sign off on the efficacy and appropriateness of these transactions. The community deserves to know that the transactions are in the broad public interest and, quite simply, we need independent verification. The Auditor-General can, in providing a performance audit, determine whether Treasury, in constructing these transactions, is doing so economically, is using the appropriate discount rate, is using the right reference to accounting standards and is overviewing the determination of surplus with efficiency. That is, is Treasury operating in the broader, long-term interests of members, not necessarily dictated to by short-term interests, in compliance with all relevant superannuation and trustee laws, and not against members interests: We think that is in the public interest.

The Auditor-General can look at it in more detail by going through a performance audit and confirming the calculation of the surplus funds. He can confirm the ongoing use of appropriate discount rates and the arm's-length nature of the process and he can provide public comment on the change to accounts and confirm that the interests of employees and retired employees are not adversely affected. We want transparency. We want the people of New South Wales to understand that this transaction is entirely consistent with good public finance policy, that it is not at the behest of a Treasury objective solely driven by current budgetary pressures. If that transparency were present, we would support the bill.

However, it is difficult not to have some concerns about the transaction, and we have outlined them. In relation to the moving of superannuation that has a material impact on unfunded superannuation obligations, it might make good sense but all we ask is that it is done in accordance with the public interest test, not solely a Treasury or budgetary test. We are concerned for the many public servants who may be impacted by this transaction and who have faith that they will receive the superannuation they are owed on retirement. I understand the State has guaranteed all those obligations but they have every right to question why some of their funds would be moved, and I believe the Auditor-General can provide that confirmation.

As the bill stands, public sector workers could not be assured by an arrangement that would allow the Treasurer to move surplus superannuation funds from account to account when the value of the surplus changes on quite a regular basis. We again highlight that the surplus as determined by Treasury is arbitrary and may well move on a volatile basis. The KPMG partner whom I spoke to about this transaction said it is unusual and warrants several questions, many of which we have raised in debate today. The Coalition would oppose the transfer of the surplus funds unless the amendment is approved and the Auditor-General provides the requested transparency, but we support the other tenets of the bill as they stand.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON (Shellharbour) [5.38 p.m.]: I support the Superannuation Administration Amendment Bill 2008. The bill seeks to amend the Superannuation Administration Act 1996 to enable the SAS Trustee Corporation, known as the STC, to return non-State sector surplus employer reserves to funding providers with the approval of the Treasurer; to enable the STC with the approval of the Treasurer to transfer surpluses between State sector employers reserve accounts within the pooled fund so that the State sector can record additional financial assets that are in excess to individual State sector employer superannuation funding requirements and the State sector balance sheet; and to insert a time limit of two years within which a person aggrieved by a decision made by the STC can lodge a dispute against that decision with the STC Disputes Committee.

The member for Manly asked whether we are acting in the best interests of public policy. Clearly, the answer is yes. I would have thought that 18 years in the banking industry and a degree in economics would have helped him to come to that conclusion of his own accord, but clearly not. Perhaps later I may have to provide assistance to the member for Manly. The STC Trustee Corporation is a trustee of a number of closed defined benefits superannuation schemes. The proposed amendments will allow the transfer of surplus funds between the reserves of the State sector employers and the payment of surplus funds in the reserves of non-State sector 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6733

employees to those employers. Surplus funds are those funds that exceed the amount required to meet current and future liabilities under the scheme to which they relate as determined in accordance with accounting standard AASB 119 Employee Benefits, or another standard prescribed by the regulations.

It is clear that the member for Manly needs a little lesson in understanding what is a defined benefits superannuation scheme. First, the STC 2006-2007 report to members contains a comment on the various schemes run by the STC and the advantages of a defined benefits scheme. The report states that a defined benefits superannuation scheme differs from an accumulation scheme in that a member's entitlement is calculated, using a formula, based on a percentage of a member's salary for each year of the scheme membership. Upon the employee's retirement, the employers superannuation scheme funds the retiring employee a percentage of their final wage as a pension, indexed by the consumer price index [CPI] for the remainder of their life.

The report notes that this entitlement is immune from poor investment performance because benefits are calculated using this formula. The entitlement is inflation proof as the value of the retirement benefit goes up in line with salary increases, and a member's pension goes up each year in line with consumer price index increases. The provisions in the bill include allowing the Treasurer to direct surpluses to other State super accounts and will not jeopardise members' entitlements in any way⎯that is, the fund's ongoing liabilities. Existing members' entitlements are funded. The proposal is that any surplus in the account⎯that is, the balance of the account net of any ongoing liability, otherwise known as the surplus⎯can, in the case of State Superannuation, be directed to other State Super accounts. In the case of non-State sector employer reserves⎯that is, local councils⎯those surpluses are to be returned to the funding provider. I would have thought that is pretty clear.

Mr Mike Baird: It is, yes; very clear!

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: Pretty clear.

Mr Mike Baird: So how do you calculate it?

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: For the benefit of the member for Manly, I will provide a few working examples.

Mr Phillip Costa: Speak slowly.

Ms LYLEA McMAHON: I will speak slowly. The proposal is that agencies such as the Department of Commerce that at 30 June 2007 had a $253 million surplus in its account⎯that is, $253 million net of all outstanding liabilities⎯may have that surplus directed to other State accounts to meet similar obligations. The value of current assets and future liabilities will be taken into account when these decisions are being made. As stated by my colleague the member for Strathfield, a power currently exists for one State employer to move money between its own accounts. In other words, the Department of Commerce can move a surplus from one of its defined benefits schemes to another scheme in its own name.

In the report on New South Wales State finances for both 2005-06 and 2006-07 the accounting standard AASB 119 has been used when noting the State's superannuation position. In earlier reports such as the 2004-05 report, the State's position was noted as total assets minus total liabilities. I can confirm that the Government will use appropriate accounting standards in these transfer calculations. The difference is that the AASB 119 accounting standard will not allow for any agency superannuation assets to be counted if they exceed all past and future service liabilities. In addition, the Treasurer supports calls for the Auditor-General to confirm that any transfers comply with the appropriate accounting standards. That should satisfy the second question of the member for Manly. This reform will better reflect the State's total superannuation position.

To help the member for Manly further, I will provide another working example. The University of Wollongong is a place where excellent economics degrees can be obtained. I am sure it would be happy to enrol the member for Manly in an economics course for a bit of a brush-up, if he required it. The University of Wollongong Sports and Recreation Association as at 30 June 2007 had gross liabilities of nil. Its assets totalled $28,445, future liabilities were nil and a reportable surplus was nil because it was unable to report. So, the un-reportable surplus is $28,445. Without this bill, that unreportable surplus would just sit in that account and not be able to be accessed by the University of Wollongong Sports and Recreation Association. 6734 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

Returning that surplus to that university sports association will enable that association to be able to purchase sporting equipment⎯cricket bats and basketballs⎯and repair the gymnasium. I am sure that the University of Wollongong, with the Opposition's generous support for this bill, will happily consider enrolling the member for Manly for any postgraduate economic courses. We are acting in the best interests of public policy. I hope this little lesson in defined benefits superannuation assisted the member for Manly. I trust the Opposition will support this bill.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [5.46 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Superannuation Administration Amendment Bill 2008 because I harbour the concerns expressed by the member for Manly regarding transfer of surplus funds, especially in relation to superannuation funds that have outstanding unlimited liability. I am concerned that the State Government has introduced this bill about the transfer of surplus funds, particularly as it forms the main object of this bill, and also because it seems to be the Government's motivation to fix up its precarious economic budget position as opposed to doing what is in the best interests of the account holders within those funds.

As I have said, I am particularly concerned with that provision of the bill regarding the transfer of so-called surplus funds. To date the State Government has not adequately outlined the accounts that will be impacted, which funds are to be debited and credited, or the processes to be undertaken to determine the ongoing surplus assets. That causes a great deal of concern to me. My concern is exacerbated because it appears that the surplus will be calculated on a particular accounting standard. I note that the member for Shellharbour, who spoke in relation to accounting standard AASB 19, did not relate to the fact that⎯

Mr Michael Daley: It is AASB 119.

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: Whatever the number is.

Mr Michael Daley: Whatever it is⎯that is exactly right!

Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN: I do not know the accounting standards off by heart. The member for Maroubra might think he knows them off by heart, but I accept that I do not know them off by heart. I acknowledge that. However, my concern is that the State Government, even though it says it is applying that accounting standard, is not applying the requisite or appropriate discount rate. It is determining its own discount rate. This concerns me because it appears to be setting a very concerning precedent to have the State Government determine its own discount rate for these funds. Why is the State Government not applying the discount rate applicable to that standard? Why is the State Government applying a discount rate that exceeds what any other Australian jurisdiction has applied for such procedures? That causes me enormous concern.

I understand from the excellent contribution by the member for Manly that the discount rate of the so-called requisite standard of 1.3 per cent is above that used by any other Australian jurisdiction. This is concerning because it represents financial engineering at its very worst and represents a raid on superannuation funds. It exposes individual account holders to an uncertain future and it exposes taxpayers to a growing pool of unfunded liabilities potentially. Whilst the financial engineering allows the Treasurer to go on a potential spending spree, it leaves fund account holders and taxpayers open to increasing liabilities, which will have an impact on the Government's off-budget balance sheet by increasing the liability of the overall balance sheet of the State. It is economically irresponsible to raid superannuation funds in this way to cover up for the State Government's economic position.

The State Government has received record revenues but regrettably it has squandered them. It is of concern that the central premise of the bill on changes to the management and operation of superannuation funds is being driven by the State Government's need to manage its budget position as opposed to motivation to maintain the interests of individual account holders, who will have so-called surplus funds removed from their superannuation accounts, at a discount rate determined by the Government, not by accounting standards. I ask the Government to explain why it is applying a discount rate that is not equivalent to the standard it is supposedly using to the transfer of funds. Why is it quoting a standard but not applying the relevant discount rate? I am concerned also that the total allocated amount defined as surpluses for the purposes of the amendment were halved in the past week or so.

The Government seems to have revised down its total amount in relation to the overall surplus funds. Why did it announce a figure a week or so ago and now halve the figure? The fact that the State Government has revised what it has defined as a surplus amount demonstrates the flimsiness of the Government's accounting 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6735

practices on this occasion and its dodgy economic standards. I want an explanation for this. I want to know why it has applied a discount rate that is not commensurate with the standard and why it revised down hundreds of millions of dollars in the last week in relation to the surplus of funds. Without an adequate explanation the community has every right to feel both exposed and sceptical about the Government's actions. I support the comments of the member for Manly and congratulate him on the way he continues to keep the Government financially accountable.

Openness and transparency with respect to economic issues should be a given but, regrettably, the Government's preference for cutting corners and, with this bill, raiding superannuation funds are dangerous precedents that will have dire consequences for our State and future economic viability. I urge the Government to explain the issues raised thus far by Opposition members. Account holders in those funds and every taxpayer in New South Wales deserve to know why the Government has applied this discount rate, why it has downsized the overall surplus funds by hundreds of millions of dollars, which demonstrates the flimsiness of its accounting practices. They want to know why the Government is motivated by trying to maintain a budget position as opposed to what is in the best interests of the account holders.

The Opposition does not oppose the other major measures in the bill that relate to the introduction of the two-year time limit and other provisions. The Opposition has major concerns with provisions in the bill that refer to the transfer of surplus funds, which is a central and concerning aspect of this bill. Even if we gave the Government the benefit of the doubt for a second, why will the Government not explain its motivation and justification for the discount rate, why the surplus funds were suddenly downgraded and why it has not followed the accepted practice of having a discount rate commensurate to the accounting standard? In the absence of any explanation, that aspect of the bill can be regarded only as a raid on superannuation funds to meet the Treasurer's budgetary requirements as opposed to maintaining the strong position of those superannuation funds and the State's balance sheet. The Government has a lot of explaining to do. I support the concerns expressed by the member for Manly in relation to the bill.

Ms TANYA GADIEL (Parramatta—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.55 p.m.]: I speak in favour of the Superannuation Administration Amendment Bill 2008. An important part of the reforms created in the bill will be to allow non-State sector employers to apply to have their surpluses returned. As mentioned by the member for Shellharbour, a member of a defined benefit superannuation scheme has a great level of certainty around his or her entitlement. These non-government employers, which include councils, have in some cases put more money than is needed in their accounts to meet their obligations. There are some examples where employer accounts have no liabilities or, more to the point, they no longer have any members to provide a defined benefit for.

Clearly, where there is an asset and no liability an employer should be able to recover that asset. If the employer is a council, this money could help fund community projects or other worthwhile initiatives. If this reform does not go through, this money will just sit in an account managed by the State Authorities Superannuation Trustee Corporation [STC]. It was interesting to note the contributions of the member for Manly and the member for Willoughby. The chicken-little scenario that the sky will fall in and there is a raid on superannuation funds by the Government is clearly ridiculous and definitely scaremongering. They sat together like two peas in a pod, backing each other up in the debate⎯the two young ambitious Turks, vying for the leadership. However, only one has the support of David Clarke and I regret to inform the House that it is not the member for Willoughby. [Quorum called for.]

[The bells having been rung and a quorum having formed, business resumed.]

The member for Terrigal can give it, but he cannot take it! He is upset because I was not talking about him as a future leader. Aside from the predictions of the two chicken littles on the other side, or Tweedledee and Tweedledum, according to today's Australian Financial Review:

The former New South Wales Auditor-General Tony Harris says there seems to be no ulterior motive in this bill, just the tidying up of the books.

It is pretty clear that that is the case.

Mr Mike Baird: So he is not 100 per cent sure?

Ms TANYA GADIEL: The member for Manly should listen; he might learn something. He might learn how to serve his constituents better. The councils that will benefit from this reform include Woollahra City Council⎯I am sure he has friends over there⎯ 6736 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

Mr Mike Baird: Plenty.

Ms TANYA GADIEL: —Canterbury City Council, Cessnock City Council and Dungog Shire Council. Parramatta City Council will be able to apply to have more than $200,000 returned, which will be of benefit to my constituents. As members are aware, Parramatta is a thriving city largely due to our Government's commitment to its growth. The Government has moved the New South Wales Police Force headquarters and the Attorney General's Department to Parramatta. Soon the Sydney Water Corporation will also call Parramatta home. In addition, with the building of the Justice Precinct, Parramatta is now the third largest legal precinct in Australia. The future of our city is bright and we are proud of the important place it occupies in our nation's history.

It was the land on which Parramatta city now stands—after Captain Arthur Phillip discovered it—which sustained the colony. As I have outlined many times in this place, Parramatta is the city of firsts. Parramatta City Council has capitalised on our unique history in its efforts to drive our community forward. Whilst the council does an outstanding job in many areas, I know that many of my constituents are annoyed that many suburbs still do not have curbing and guttering or footpaths. They are also annoyed about the level of graffiti around town, particularly on the fences of residences along Victoria Road. Local residents would like to see a clean up of graffiti. Equally, the chamber of commerce feels strongly that there should be closed-circuit television in the vicinity of the Parramatta mall. Parramatta City Council could use $200,00 for any one of those projects.

I now turn to the other significant reform in the bill. It allows for the insertion of a two-year time limit within which a person aggrieved by a decision made by the State Authorities Superannuation Trustee Corporation can lodge a dispute against that decision with the State Authorities Superannuation Trustee Corporation Disputes Committee. This will harmonise the STC dispute resolution processes with those of the Commonwealth. For all those reasons I commend the bill to the House.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [6.02 p.m.]: I speak on the Superannuation Administration Amendment Bill 2008. The State Authorities Superannuation Trustee Corporation [STC] is the trustee of a number of closed defined benefit superannuation schemes. The proposed amendments will allow the transfer of surplus funds between the reserves of State sector employers and the payment of surplus funds in the reserves of non-State sector employers, particularly local councils, to those employers. "Surplus funds" are defined as:

Funds that exceed the amount required to meet current and future liabilities under the scheme to which they relate as determined in accordance with Accounting standard AASB 119: Employee Benefit— made by the Australian Accounting Standards Board as in force from time to time—

or another standard prescribed by the regulations.

The transfer of surpluses between State sector employers' accounts within the pooled fund allows the State sector to record additional financial assets that are excess to individual State sector employer superannuation funding requirements to be recorded as an asset on the State sector balance sheet. This is the underlying reason for the bill. In introducing the bill, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that as at 30 June 2007 the STC held $699 million in financial assets for and on behalf of the State sector employers that could not at the moment be recorded as assets on the State sector balance sheet. I query why a figure that is over nine months old was quoted when we all know that investment markets have experienced substantial volatility and market correction over those nine months. I echo the calls by the member for Manly for accurate and up-to-date figures to be quoted. All too often the Government relies on out-of-date and incorrect statistics.

The bill also inserts a time limit of two years within which the person aggrieved by a decision made by the STC can lodge a dispute against that decision with the STC Disputes Committee. I commend the Government for making that time period consistent with Commonwealth superannuation law and call on it to undertake similar action in relation to other legislation where there are inconsistent time periods that serve no purpose or public interest. I also note that that time period and the provisions potentially apply to all members of Parliament elected in this place prior to the March 2007 elections, as all those members of Parliament could become aggrieved persons. Therefore, I suggest that all members take a special interest in this legislation.

I wish to make two further comments. The first is in relation to some phraseology used in amending a series of other Acts relating to the disputes mechanism. The provision reads, in essence, "If STC makes a decision under this Act in relation to a contributor or other person", or in one of the other amended Acts, "in relation to an employee or other person". My question is whether the notice in question needs to be provided to 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6737

all contributors or other persons affected in a beneficial way, for example, where money may be transferred from one fund into their fund. As I read the provisions at the moment, it certainly seems to require that members or contributors of funds that are the beneficiary of money being transferred in, would need to receive notice in writing of the decision, the right to dispute the decision and the time within which the notice of dispute must be served on the STC. That is on a strict and common sense reading of the legislation. However, perhaps it has not been properly thought out in the sense that I cannot see the rationale for requiring it. It seems an unnecessary administrative expense.

My second comment about the mechanism is that the Auditor-General should play a role, particularly where the State Government is an employer in relation to one or more of the superannuation funds. It is appropriate for the Auditor-General to play a role to avoid potential conflict of interest, or potential perceived conflict of interest, and thereby increase public confidence and the confidence of employees and individual contributors. Arms-length processes should be encouraged wherever possible. In that sense, I thoroughly agree with the comments of the member for Manly. As he foreshadowed, the Opposition will be moving an amendment when this bill reaches the upper House.

The speech of the member for Shellharbour was unnecessarily condescending and immature. Without giving a serve back, which I could easily do, I note that the member for Manly, the member for Willoughby and I all have experience in the private sector in the financial services industry. I believe our experience is in excess of that of Government members. The immature and condescending language and tone used by the member for Shellharbour was inappropriate and highlighted her lack of experience and understanding of how this place should work.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.10 p.m.], in reply: If there is such a wealth of financial knowledge on the Opposition benches, I would have thought the offerings of the three members who spoke on behalf of the Opposition would have been less curious. Their offerings were underpinned by the efforts of the member for Willoughby. When I pointed out to the member that she had quoted the wrong accounting standards, she threw her arms up in the air and said, "Oh, whatever." That is typical of the Opposition, which tries to make something out of nothing. They have done it again in respect to this bill, which is not exceedingly complicated although members of the Opposition have tried to make it seem so. It is not rocket science. The bill implements simple, but significant, amendments to important legislation. For example, for non-State sector employees the bill will amend the Superannuation Registration Act 1996 to enable the State Authorities Superannuation Trustee Corporation [STC] to return non-State sector surplus employer reserves to funding providers, with the approval of the Treasurer.

As my colleague the member for Parramatta said, entities such as Cessnock City Council have more than $200,000 in assets in their superannuation funds and no further liabilities. They could have the money transferred back to them in accordance with the provisions of the bill. The funds will be unlocked for councils and other relevant entities to spend on their residents. The funds do not come to the State Government. It is not a windfall to the State Government. If, as the Opposition suggests, councils and other entities are not able to use those funds, the necessary implication is that funds will remain locked away forever. The funds were accumulated for a specific purpose, but the purpose no longer exists. Councils and residents should be able use them. The bill also enables the State Authorities Superannuation Trustee Corporation with the approval of the Treasurer to transfer surpluses between State sector employer reserve accounts within the pooled fund.

On 30 June 2007 the State Authorities Superannuation Trustee Corporation held $699 million in financial assets for and on behalf of State sector employers that could not be recorded as assets on the State sector balance sheet. That is despite the State sector having contributed the funds to the pooled fund. This surplus was calculated from accounts, which, at 30 June 2007, held more than $4.9 billion. As the member for Shellharbour said, because of accounting standard AASB 119, funds held by a government agency in a superannuation account cannot be counted as assets if they exceed all past and future service liabilities. The money is there but it cannot be counted as an asset. It makes no sense and those funds should be able to be so counted. An article in today's Australian Financial Review states:

Treasurer Michael Costa said a new bill gave the Super Trustee Corporation the ability to transfer surpluses between agencies, but the money would stay in a State super account.

The Department of Commerce, which had a $250 million surplus at the end of last financial year, had more than five times its future requirements for the diminishing number of staff in defined benefit schemes. Mr Costa said that money ought to be transferred to the super account of another agency.

6738 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

I reiterate on behalf of the Government that the money will not go into consolidated revenue. It does not provide a windfall to the Government. I note that the member for Manly in the article I have referred to and at the outset of his speech put a question to the House as to the motivation for the mechanisms outlined in the bill. The member asked whether it was simply a case of the Treasurer giving himself the ultimate authority to access superannuation funds. I note further that the member for Manly tried to suggest again in his speech and in the article that this was simply a measure to address short-term budgetary needs. The budget delivered for 2006-07 was in surplus and has been forecast to be in surplus in the forward estimates. Again I say for the benefit of the Opposition that transferred funds must remain with the reserve accounts within the pooled superannuation fund. It is duplicitous for the member for Manly to ask a question about the motivation for the mechanisms and to suggest that it is simply a case of the Treasurer trying to get his hands on some funds. I know that the member for Manly had a briefing on Friday. The briefing note that he and Government members received states:

Any state sector surpluses identified for a transfer must be transferred to another state sector account.

There will be no power created and it will not be possible for surpluses to be transferred to consolidated revenue.

That is simple. I reiterate that these amendments have nothing to do with the soundness of State Super today or at any time in the future, despite the member for Manly mischievously raising it as an issue. As the member for Shellharbour said, the amendments will not jeopardise members' entitlements in any way.

Mr Mike Baird: Point of order: The member for Maroubra is misleading the House. He must confirm whether, if they move these funds to other State sector accounts, those assets have an impact on the State budget. I ask that he answer the question.

ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! The member for Manly has not been a member for long. There is no point of order.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: This bill is about employers and the financial position of their accounts. Employers are informed of the extent of the surplus on their superannuation position statements. These statements are prepared using accounting standard AASB 119 by an actuary for the State Authorities Superannuation Trustee Corporation at the end of the financial year. The member for Willoughby asked a question about the discount rates that are to be applied. I can tell the member that they are calculated on advice from Mercer, a very well respected independent and international firm of actuaries. Mercer gives the requisite advice and recommends the discount rates. Those rates comply as the accounting standard, with the Commonwealth 10-year bond rate, requires them to. This is an objective, not subjective, test. This is a good, simple move that adds clarity to the financial position of State agencies. To add further comfort and to reiterate that this is a responsive and responsible State Government, I can confirm—as did the member for Shellharbour and the member for Manly well knows, having had discussions with the Treasurer's office this afternoon—that we will use appropriate accounting standards for these transfers.

We will support calls for the Auditor-General to confirm that all transfers the subject of the bill have complied with the appropriate accounting standards. The member for Parramatta was right to point out in relation to some contentions made by the member for Manly that the former New South Wales Auditor-General, Tony Harris, said there seemed to be no ulterior motive in the bill, just a tidying up of the books. It does not deserve the histrionics that have been displayed by Opposition members. One of the amendments in the bill will insert a time limit of two years within which a person aggrieved by a decision made by the State Authorities Superannuation Trustee Corporation can lodge a dispute against that decision with the STC Disputes Committee. Amending the Superannuation Administration Act 1996 by inserting a two-year time limit within which an aggrieved person can lodge a dispute against an STC decision will enable a fairer review of the original decision than a review taking place many years thereafter, as now occurs on occasions.

The Commonwealth regime stipulates a limit of two years in which an aggrieved person can make a complaint to the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal about the trustee's decision. The State pooled fund schemes should also have a two-year dispute lodgement period. Allowing for a two-year period within which to lodge a dispute is therefore consistent with Commonwealth superannuation law. Currently there is a clear inconsistency between the provisions for the State Authorities Superannuation Trustee Corporation and Commonwealth regulated superannuation funds. The bill also makes miscellaneous minor amendments to the Superannuation Administration Act 1996 that will correct references to other Acts that have become outdated or are no longer appropriate. They are minor but important measures being undertaken by a Government that continues to look at its own regimes to make sure they become increasingly effective. I commend the bill to the House. 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6739

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Passing of the Bill

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

HOUSING AMENDMENT (TENANT FRAUD) BILL 2008

Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill without amendment.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (ELECTIONS) BILL 2008

Message received from the Legislative Council returning the bill with amendments.

Consideration of Legislative Council's amendments set down as an order of the day for a future day.

FINES AMENDMENT BILL 2008

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from 2 April 2008.

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [6.21 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Fines Amendment Bill 2008. The Opposition supports the tenets of the bill, which, on the whole, seek to tighten the laws to prevent motorists avoiding fines by improving the processes relating to the administration of penalty notices and fines enforcement by addressing fine avoidance practices, improving the options for resolving outstanding fines, and facilitating improved administration by the State Debt Recovery Office. Of course, we do not object to ensuring motorists pay fines if they break the law. However, the Government must ensure this revenue is reinvested back into road safety. We will address that issue in our response.

The Office of State Revenue estimates that in 2006-07 approximately 20,000 matters could not be resolved, which equates to around $3.5 million in lost revenue. Motorists have avoided fines by supplying incorrect addresses, stamping mail "return to sender", failing to notify authorities of a change of address or saying someone else was driving the vehicle at the time of the offence—the famous incident of Mr Einfeld comes to mind. Although the State Debt Recovery Office goes to every effort to data match the fine recipient, thousands of people are getting out of paying their fines.

On this evidence it is clear that the law needs tightening. Loopholes must be closed so that road rules can be enforced. The bill proposes several amendments to the Fines Act 1996, which will assist motorists in paying fines. These include items [2] and [8] of schedule 1, which will enable motorists to pay penalty notices in instalments—and we encourage that because some fines have increased to very significant amounts and not every family is in a position to meet the cost of some of those penalties when they are applied; and items [4], [10] and [11] of schedule 1, which will allow recipients of fines to elect to go to court to dispute the fine, even after it has been paid. Sometimes people will pay a fine, not realise they have paid it and then want to dispute it later.

The bill proposes added responsibility for motorists, who will now be responsible for notifying the Roads and Traffic Authority if their address changes. If a fine is sent to the address held by the Roads and Traffic Authority it will have to be paid. If the owner of a vehicle was not driving when the offence occurred he or she will have to provide the correct name and address of the person driving his or her vehicle. If a motorist provides the incorrect details he or she can then be prosecuted under the Fines Act. The bill proposes expanding the powers of the State Debt Recovery Office in this process.

Currently, the State Debt Recovery Office has difficulty prosecuting if motorists nominate another driver as the driver who committed the offence. The bill proposes giving the State Debt Recovery Office the 6740 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

authority to investigate statutory declarations if there is cause for concern. As I understand it, that process could take 12 months, and sometimes even after 12 months the matter may not have reached a conclusion. If there is cause for concern, giving the State Debt Recovery Office the power to investigate a matter is a good thing. Schedule 2 amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to confirm that a police prosecutor can act on behalf of the State Debt Recovery Office.

The campaign within the broader community must ensure that motorists are aware of the changes contained in the bill. We do not object to motorists being made more accountable. However, it is important that all motorists are aware of, and understand, their new responsibilities. Therefore, there is an onus on the Government to undertake an education campaign in some way, shape or form, and we believe there should be advertising to cover a range of needs. For example, motorists who do not speak English as their first language or motorists who are young or elderly may not know the onus is now on them to notify the Roads and Traffic Authority of a change of address. The law should be framed to catch out those who are deliberately trying to avoid paying a fine and not those who are simply not aware of some of the changes. We encourage the Roads and Traffic Authority to make every effort to ensure motorists are very clear on what the new law requires them to do.

In regard to the revenue these fines will raise, every year the Iemma Government receives a windfall in revenue from traffic infringements. In February the Daily Telegraph reported that fines to drivers had tripled to $312 million in just six years. That is $35,580 every hour that is collected from motorists in New South Wales. Speeding infringements, from both police-issued fines and fixed-speed cameras, increased from 460,067 offences to 642,461 in six years. Parking fines—the bane of my existence—increased from 466,105 to 1,206,322 over the same period. A significant revenue benefit flows to the Iemma Government from fines and we believe the onus must be on the Government to reinvest that back into road safety. The Government claims to do just that. On 17 March a spokesman for the Roads and Traffic Authority said:

Money generated from school zone infringements is returned to school zone safety.

However, the public rightly remains sceptical. The President of the NRMA, Alan Evans, also echoed this general public concern in relation to the collection of fines and reinvesting the revenue back into road safety. He said:

Motorists really have become a milch cow. What bothers us most is how little of this goes into road improvements.

I have spoken in the House about a school zone in Condamine Street, Manly Vale, in my own electorate, which has proven to be dangerous to both motorists and pedestrians. There have been two fatalities and dozens of injuries at the site. In one month, eight motorists were fined for exceeding the speed limit in the school zone by between 15 and 30 kilometres per hour. If the Government were serious about improving road safety across the State it would respond to the community's pleas for flashing lights in this school zone. Any school zone that does not have flashing lights should be immediately prioritised for some of this revenue from fines. The Minister for Roads continues to ignore calls about this problem, but generally seems to take pride in not responding to constituent concerns in relation to some of these issues.

We support the bill. As an overall principle we believe the tenets make sense and the move to tighten the law for motorists who break the law is obviously supported. We recommend the Roads and Traffic Authority ensure that motorists are clear about their new responsibilities and undertake an education campaign as part of that process. We reiterate our call for the Government to reinvest some of the windfall in the revenue from fines that it receives back into roads and, importantly, improve pedestrian and driver safety.

Mr DAVID HARRIS (Wyong) [6.28 p.m.]: The Fines Amendment Bill 2008 makes a number of important changes. It ensures people do not avoid their fines; it provides clarity in the enforcement and payment process; it enables prosecutions to occur; and it ensures that the legislation remains up to date. The bill contains six broad proposals, two of which relate to fines avoidance. Currently most penalty notices and reminder notices are served by mail. If a penalty notice is returned to the State Debt Recovery Office as "return to sender" mail the notice is not validly served and cannot be enforced. Some notices are sent to the wrong address because the fine recipient failed to notify the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] of a change of address. Other instances involve the fine recipient supplying a false address or deliberately returning mail unopened, knowing it relates to a fine. In these cases the statutory limitation period will often expire before the notice can be served.

The bill deems penalty notices and penalty reminder notices to have been validly served by mail, despite being returned to the sender, if the notice is sent to the address provided by the fine recipient or is the 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6741

address recorded by the RTA. I believe that is a very important amendment. It closes the current loophole that allows people who do not inform certain agencies of their change of address to use that to avoid paying fines. The amendment does not extend to enforcement orders, which will continue to require actual service before enforcement action such as cancellation of a person's drivers licence can be taken. In other words, enforcement orders will continue to operate in the same way as they have operated in the past. However, penalty notices cannot be written off by recipients who claim they did not receive them if it is known the notices were sent to the correct address. The second anti-avoidance measure relates to operator onus provisions. For some offences, such as speed camera or red light camera offences, the owner of the vehicle is deemed to be guilty of the offence unless he or she provides the name and address of the person in charge of the vehicle at the time of the offence. As the member for Manly pointed out, that provision could be deemed to be the Einfeld amendment, given the famous case that brought that aspect to attention.

The State Debt Recovery Office has encountered problems in prosecuting persons who falsely nominate another driver to avoid the fine and licence demerit points. The bill amends the Fines Act to create an offence of knowingly providing false or misleading information in a statement nominating another person as the driver. The offence would be subject to a maximum of 50 penalty units, currently $5,500, and would be easier to establish than the similar existing offence under the Oaths Act. In addition to these two anti-avoidance measures, the bill contains measures to enhance flexibility and fairness in the fines process. This will assist people who are genuinely trying to pay their fine but may be experiencing financial difficulties. It will also assist persons who wish to take a matter to court after additional information becomes available.

The majority of fines under penalty notices and penalty reminder notices are paid on time. In other words, most people try to do the right thing: they try to make sure they meet their commitments. However, in some cases the person alleged to have committed the offence seeks to have the matter referred to a court after the fine has been paid. This may occur because additional information becomes available to the person. For example, instances have occurred in which the person named on the penalty notice was initially unaware of the notice because the fine was paid by a family member. There would be many examples of parents settling a debt for their child, and of a child paying the debt so his or her parents do not find out about the fine. The amendment allows the fine amount to be refunded and demerit points withdrawn until the matter is decided by the court.

The bill contains measures that provide greater flexibility in the fines enforcement process, which is welcome. The bill allows time to pay orders to be varied if the fine defaulter's financial circumstances change. It also allows the part payment of penalty notices. Facilitating part payment at an early stage of the fines process will allow people on lower incomes and those suffering financial hardship to begin to meet their obligations in a manageable way. As we know, sometimes people do not have enough cash to pay a fine straight away. They then put off paying the debt while they try to get the necessary funds, but in the end they get themselves into more trouble. The provision will allow people to make a part payment, to show that they are serious about meeting their debt.

The bill makes amendments to the Fines Act to recognise the expanded role and integrated functions of the State Debt Recovery Office. The State Debt Recovery Office was originally established as an agency within the Attorney General's Department, and the Infringement Processing Bureau was originally part of New South Wales Police. Both are now part of Treasury and have been integrated as the Fines Division of the Office of State Revenue. The bill amends the Fines Act to recognise this situation and to remove redundant legislative requirements. The final proposal in this bill relates to police prosecutors. It has been a longstanding practice of the State Debt Recovery Office to use the services of police prosecutors in the Local Court when prosecuting matters that have been the subject of a penalty notice.

Despite this practice being supported by decisions of the Supreme Court, a small number of magistrates have used their discretion to refuse leave for police prosecutors to appear. Refusal of leave to appear imposes additional costs on prosecuting authorities and could result in charges being dismissed due to the absence of an appropriate representative. The bill therefore provides a statutory right for a police prosecutor to appear for the prosecutor in proceedings for an offence in relation to which a penalty notice has been issued. The bill makes important changes to ensure people cannot avoid their fines, whilst providing flexibility in the fines process for those who are genuinely trying to meet their obligations. I welcome the proposed initiatives. I believe they are sensible and will make the process a lot easier for all those involved. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne) [6.36 p.m.]: The Fines Amendment Bill 2008 implements a number of improvements to the enforcement and administration of penalty notices. It also contains provisions recognising the role of the State Debt Recovery Office. The State Debt Recovery Office is the central agency 6742 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

that coordinates the fines enforcement process. Both the State Debt Recovery Office and the Infringement Processing Bureau have been integrated as the Fines Division of the Office of State Revenue. The bill amends the Fines Act to recognise this integration and remove unnecessary legislative references. The Government is committed to ensuring that the fines process is fair and efficient, to ensure that people cannot avoid their fines and that people facing financial hardship are accommodated appropriately.

The bill contains six proposals that address fines avoidance practices. People will no longer be able to avoid their fines by marking the penalty notice or penalty reminder notice "return to sender". The bill makes amendments to the Fines Act to address the problem of people falsely nominating another driver to avoid a fine or demerit points. The bill also enhances flexibility in the fines process. It makes amendments to ensure that payment of a fine does not prevent a person from exercising his or her right to have the matter dealt with by a court. Another amendment will allow a person to pay by instalments, or to have time to pay orders varied to accommodate the person's changing financial circumstances. The bill also contains provisions to formalise the longstanding practice of the State Debt Recovery Office using the services of police prosecutors in the Local Court. The bill is part of the Government's ongoing commitment to improving the system for administering penalty notices and enforcing fines. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.38 p.m.], in reply: I note that the Fines Amendment Bill 2008 is relatively uncontroversial and that Opposition members have given it their in-principle support, for which I think them. I thank the members for Manly, Wyong and Drummoyne for their contributions to the debate. Given that the amendments are relatively uncontroversial and simple, my comments in reply will be brief. The Fines Amendment Bill 2008 implements improvements to processes relating to the administration of penalty notices and fines enforcement. The bill contains proposals to provide greater flexibility for people attempting to resolve outstanding fines, including allowing the part payment of fines in some circumstances, providing greater flexibility in the use of time-to-pay orders, and extending the circumstances under which an alleged offender can elect to have a penalty notice dealt with by a court.

The bill strengthens provisions relating to fines avoidance practices by deeming a penalty notice to have been properly served if it has been posted to the address provided by the fine recipient or to the latest address held by the Roads and Traffic Authority; creating an offence for providing false or misleading information in a statutory declaration; and authorising police prosecutors to represent prosecuting agencies in matters relating to penalty notices. The remaining provisions of the bill improve and clarify administrative arrangements of the State Debt Recovery Office following its integration with the Infringement Processing Bureau. The bill reflects the Government's ongoing commitment to ensuring that the fines enforcement system remains fair and efficient, and I commend it to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Passing of the Bill

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

STATE REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2008

Agreement in Principle

Debate resumed from 2 April 2008.

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [6.40 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in this debate on the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. The bill seeks to provide tax concessions and first home buyer benefits to those with legitimate claims, to prevent duties avoidance practices, which are costing the State millions of dollars every year, and to extend some payroll tax provisions. The Opposition does not oppose the tenets of the bill and supports its objectives. It is pleased that the Government is taking some steps to make the First Home Buyers Grant more equitable. However, much more needs to be done to improve housing affordability and to ease the housing crisis. The bill amends seven Acts that relate to the administration of taxes and first home 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6743

benefits. Schedule 1 outlines the changes to the Duties Act 1997. These include clarifying the duties concession for people buying their first home. There are anomalies that render some first home buyers ineligible for the concession because of the form of land title under which the new home is held. This bill will correct that.

The bill also extends the duties concessions for transfers out of a deceased estate and it introduces a duty exemption for pharmacists who incorporate. This amendment was made for the legal profession a few years ago. The bill also tightens some loopholes, such as in relation to land rich duty. The law requires that when a company is sold and it owns the land it occupies the new owner must pay stamp duty on the land as well. However, parties often avoid paying this duty by drawing up a declaration of trust so that the legal title is still in the name of the previous owner. That often involves families, friends and associates. It is clearly done to dodge this tax. This results in one of the biggest areas of tax avoidance in the State. According to the Office of State Revenue, more than $50 million in revenue was lost last year as a result of this practice. This bill will close that loophole.

The bill also introduces a concession on the duty payable for registration of a motor vehicle that has been modified for use by a person with a disability. This concession means that up to $25,000 spent on modifying such a vehicle is exempt. That is commonsense and welcomed by members on this side of the House. Schedule 2 amends the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000. With housing in such short supply, some young couples—particularly those in rural areas—are forced to build on their parents' land. They have not previously been entitled to the First Home Buyers Grant because they do not own the land on which they are building. The bill amends the legislation to allow the grant to be claimed in these circumstances. The Opposition also welcomes that amendment.

Schedule 3 makes an amendment to the description of family membership plans in the Health Insurance Levies Act 1982 to utilise a definition used in Commonwealth legislation. Schedule 4 outlines changes to the Land Tax Management Act 1956. The amendment clarifies that land tax must be paid on each property, even if a single place of residence is claimed over adjoining properties. If people are lucky enough that their property sits on two or three titles, this bill provides that that would constitute a single residence. The idea is not to attack individual property holdings. If there is a principal place of residence, it will qualify.

Schedule 5 amends the Payroll Tax Act 2007 to clarify an exemption relating to the wages paid by not-for-profit organisations and to modify the payroll tax grouping provisions to align them with systems in Western Australia and Victoria. Schedule 6 relates to the Taxation Administration Act 1996 and clarifies when tax officers may disclose information under taxation laws. Finally, schedule 7 amends the Unclaimed Money Act 1995 to extend Commonwealth laws relating to unclaimed money to superannuation providers. The bill also contains various housekeeping and statute law revision amendments, including the repeal of the Debits Tax Act 1990, because the tax under that Act has been abolished, and the repeal of the Stamp Duties Act 1920 because it has been replaced by the Duties Act 1997.

The Opposition calls on the Government to consider further amendments in relation to stamp duty. New South Wales Property Council Executive Director Ken Morrison told the Australian Financial Review yesterday—and he has been saying it for a long time—that stamp duty definitions should be harmonised with those in force in other States. He said that "governments tend to move fast to plug leakages, but impediments to efficient business practices also need to be addressed". Harmonisation of stamp duty definitions would assist in that regard.

I refer now to the housing crisis and the impact of stamp duty. The amendments extending the eligibility of the First Home Buyers Grant are a step in the right direction—to use a slogan previously used. However, much more needs to be done. Housing in New South Wales is scarce and house prices are sky high. Sydney has the highest number of households experiencing mortgage stress in the country. A Housing Industry Association report released last August stated that 41.1 per cent of households are experiencing mortgage stress. There were 3,935 writs of possession in New South Wales in 2007. So almost 4,000 New South Wales families lost their homes last year. It is alarming that the Government requires only 5 per cent of houses in housing developments to be affordable.

Mr Geoff Corrigan: What is the Opposition's plan?

Mr MIKE BAIRD: I thank the member for Camden for that interjection. I did not think he was listening. The figure in London is much higher—50 per cent. Even in South Australia the figure is 15 per cent, which is three times what is required by the New South Wales Government. Professor Julian Disney, who 6744 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 April 2008

chaired the State Government's housing affordability taskforce in the late 1990s, told the Sydney Morning Herald, "disturbingly little has been done since then ... New South Wales is dragging the chain badly". In 2006 the amount of land developed in Sydney was roughly the same as that developed in Adelaide. New South Wales also has the highest infrastructure charges in the country, at around $43,000 per residential lot compared with $8,000 for Victoria and none for Perth. Only 29,300 new homes and units were built in New South Wales in 2006-07, compared with 53,000 in 1995 under the Fahey Government. That is the lowest level of residential construction in New South Wales since the Australian Bureau of Statistics started collecting data in 1969. So we do have a crisis.

CommSec economist Martin Arnold said publicly that housing construction in New South Wales was weak and there was little incentive for investors to build. He said, "You are really on the back foot in New South Wales." Further to the interjection about the Opposition's plans, in June last year the New South Wales Coalition recommended that the Iemma Government adopt a shared equity program to help get first home buyers into the market. The Opposition examined the program and believes that it has significant merit. The shared equity scheme was introduced in Western Australia last year after Perth experienced escalating real estate prices similar to those in Sydney. The Western Australian Government's First Start scheme allows the Government to buy a portion of a home with eligible first home buyers. That portion can be bought from the Government at a later date. I call on the Iemma Government and members opposite to give young couples and families a much-needed leg up by purchasing part of a property for eligible first home buyers. It is a commonsense measure that will not only provide thousands with a home to call their own but will also drive jobs, investment and growth. I offer that little plan for members to consider.

The profile of homelessness is changing in this State. People suffering mortgage stress who have jobs are being forced onto the street in large numbers. I mentioned yesterday's release of the findings of the National Youth Commission inquiry into youth homelessness. The figures in the report are staggering. The number of homeless youths across the nation has doubled in the past two decades. The Opposition has called on the State Government to hold a New South Wales summit to address homelessness. The bill proposes to modify the payroll tax grouping to align it with the legislation in other States. As the Government seems keen to bring New South Wales into line with other States, I call on the Treasurer to cut the State's payroll tax rate, which at 6 per cent is the highest on the mainland. In Victoria it is 5.05 per cent and in Queensland it is 4.75 per cent. Payroll tax accounts for a third of New South Wales' tax revenue. Payroll tax collections in the current budget will increase by a total of 29 per cent, or $1.6 billion, over the next four years.

Before the recent election, the Premier said he "would love to cut the 6 per cent payroll tax rate when there was a lift in economic projections and a rise in GST payments". The newspapers state that the Treasurer is expecting a budget surplus that is several times greater than the $506 million predicted last December. Now is the time for the Premier to honour his commitment to cut payroll tax. Here is an opportunity to do so, and I am sure that that is what he will do. He said he will do it, and we call on him to do it. He should honour his promise, particularly as his brilliant Treasurer we hear is talking about a surplus several times greater than $506 million, or about $2.5 billion. With a surplus of that size, they could start cutting payroll tax. The reality is that New South Wales-based small businesses are paying almost 10 times as much in State taxes as their Queensland counterparts. A 12-employee firm in Sydney pays approximately $25,600 in State taxes, compared with only $2,600 it would pay if it were based in Brisbane. That is an indictment on the Government. We wonder why businesses move from New South Wales and set up in Queensland. The statistics speak for themselves. The New South Wales Government is by far the most unpopular State government among small and medium businesses, with a rating of minus 40 per cent.

[Interruption]

I am reading the statistics. Members opposite should listen. The New South Wales Government has recorded the lowest confidence level of any State or Territory for 11 of the last 12 quarters, according to the Sensis Survey of May 07. I can provide a copy of that to Government members. Amending the payroll tax groupings through this bill is worthwhile, but cutting the payroll tax is substantially more important. It should be an imperative in the coming State budget. The Opposition supports the tenets of the bill and calls on the Government to accept its responsibility to provide affordable housing to New South Wales families and provide a fairer tax system for New South Wales businesses.

Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN (Camden) [6.51 p.m.]: I have been watching The Fibros and the Silvertails, a film about western suburbs people such as the member for Manly. I will put my notes aside for the moment and deal with one aspect of the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, which contains improvements 9 April 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 6745

for seven Acts. The bill contains a number of duty concessions. I will address just one, the concession that assists a person with a disability when registering a motor vehicle. I am sure the member for Manly raised this point in his contribution and congratulated the Government on it. The bill introduces a concession on the duty payable for registration of a motor vehicle that has been modified for use by a person with a disability. That is a very important modification.

The bill also contains measures that will benefit first-home buyers. The bill provides a first home owner grant to be claimed by a person who builds or purchases a home on land owned by another person, and allows the First Home Plus concession to be claimed on multiple occupancy land. Those are two very important concessions. I know that the Treasurer, to his great credit, introduced the concession for the registration of a modified motor vehicle. I am sure that the Opposition supports the Government on this very important concession.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [6.53 p.m.], in reply: I thank the members for Camden and Manly for their contributions to the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. The bill provides tax concessions and first home benefits for people who have legitimate claims and addresses tax avoidance practices by those attempting to avoid their legal responsibilities. The bill clarifies the eligibility for First Home Plus by applicants buying a home on multiple occupancy land; extends duties concessions for transfers out of deceased estates; clarifies the types of charitable and benevolent bodies that are eligible for exemption from duties; provides a new duties concession for an applicant to register a motor vehicle modified for a person with a disability; and allows a first home buyer to remain eligible for the First Home Plus grant if an additional purchaser is added as a purchaser for finance purposes only.

The New South Wales Government with its stamp duty exemptions and grants to first home buyers has the most comprehensive and generous scheme for first home buyers in the country. I am proud to say that the amendments further clarify and extend those concessions and reiterate the Government's commitment to looking after people who are attempting to buy their first home, particularly young people in the regions. The bill also contains provisions to address practices used to avoid land rich duty by the declaration of a trust, and to prevent the use of contrived arrangements to obtain a duties concession for partitions of land. The remaining provisions of the bill clarify the extent of the principal place of residence exemption from land tax for two adjoining properties used as a single residence, confirm that exemptions from land tax for non-profit organisations can apply to land controlled by a strata scheme, make statute law amendments to the Payroll Tax Act as part of the ongoing project to harmonise payroll tax administration, make a number of minor amendments to clarify the legislation and improve administrative provisions, and repeal the Debits Tax Act 1990 and the Stamp Duty Act 1920. I commend the bill to the House.

Question—That this bill be now agreed to in principle—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Passing of the Bill

Bill declared passed and transmitted to the Legislative Council with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

The House adjourned at 7.00 p.m. until Thursday 10 April 2008 at 10.00 a.m.

______