21125

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday 10 March 2010

______

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

The President read the Prayers.

CRIMES AMENDMENT (POLICE PURSUITS) BILL 2010

CRIMES (ADMINISTRATION OF SENTENCES) AMENDMENT BILL 2010

Bills received from the Legislative Assembly.

Leave granted for procedural matters to be dealt with on one motion without formality.

Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

That the bills be read a first time and printed, standing orders be suspended on contingent notice for remaining stages and the second readings of the bills be set down as orders of the day for a later hour of the sitting.

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Second readings set down as orders of the day for a later hour.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT

The Clerk announced the receipt, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, of a performance audit report of the Auditor-General entitled "Improving the Performance of Metropolitan Bus Services: NSW Transport and Infrastructure", dated March 2010, received and authorised to be printed this day.

LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

Membership

Motion by the Hon. Don Harwin agreed to:

That Ms Parker be discharged from the Legislation Review Committee and Mr Khan be appointed as a member of the committee.

Message forwarded to the Legislative Assembly advising it of the resolution.

BUDGET 2009-2010

Production of Documents: Disputed Claim of Privilege

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [11.04 a.m.]: I seek leave to amend Private Members' Business item No. 239 outside the Order of Precedence for today of which I have given notice by inserting after the word "privileged" in line 4 of paragraph 1 the words ", other than in respect of Energy Australia pages 149-157, Integral Energy pages 184-185 and Country Energy pages 231-238,".

Leave granted.

Motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce agreed to:

1. That, in view of the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter, Sir Laurence Street, dated 11 December 2009 on the disputed claim of privilege on documents relating to the 2009-2010 Budget, this House orders that the documents considered by the Independent Legal Arbiter not to be privileged, other than in respect of EnergyAustralia pages 149-157, Integral Energy pages 184-185 and Country Energy pages 231-238, be laid upon the table by the Clerk.

2. That, on tabling, the documents are authorised to be published.

21126 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

UNPROCLAIMED LEGISLATION

The Hon. Peter Primrose tabled a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 9 March 2010.

PETITION

Unborn Child Protection

Petition requesting that the House uphold the sanctity of human life, defend the fundamental right of children to be born and reject all attempts to initiate legislation that emulates the Victorian Abortion Law Reform Act 2008, and encourage ways and means of promoting to the people of New South Wales that every baby deserves to be protected and nurtured from conception, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Withdrawal of Business

Private Members' Business item No. 229 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by Dr John Kaye.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1 to 3 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

FIREARMS ACT 1996: DISALLOWANCE OF FIREARMS AMENDMENT REGULATION 2009

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing orders the question is: That the motion proceed as business of the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

That the matter proceed forthwith.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.10 a.m.]: I move:

That, under section 41 of the Interpretation Act 1987, this House disallows the Firearms Amendment Regulation 2009, published on the New South Wales Legislation Website on 13 November 2009 and tabled on 24 November 2009.

This regulation seeks to allow security guards, if authorised, to possess and use pistols and certain shotguns that they are currently not permitted to use. It will expand the range of weapons available for security guards to use in carrying out their duties and to store in their homes. The change means that security guards can use high-powered handguns and shotguns. We must ask why such a regulation is necessary. What significant event has occurred to warrant New South Wales gun ownership laws being watered down? Why would we encourage the circulation of high-powered firearms within the community when we should be doing the opposite? Since the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 it has been clear that there was a loophole in those laws; and while we banned semiautomatic long arms, we did not ban semiautomatic short guns, which is clearly needed. What we are seeing here is a weakening of the laws, not taking them in the direction of ensuring that public safety is the top priority.

The types of firearms that this regulation would allow individual security guards to own are the same types of firearms used by Allen Xiang. Armed with five loaded handguns, Mr Xiang, on 21 October 2002, killed two classmates and wounded five others at Monash University. In the six months before these killings Mr Xiang became a licensed gun owner and bought seven firearms, including a CZ 9-millimetre handgun that was used in the shooting. Prior to the shootings he had become a member of the Sporting Shooters Association and had attended target practice. Ammunition holsters, firearm cleaning instruments and another two Beretta pistols were also found in his home. These are some of the weapons that security guards can now use under the regulation we are debating. 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21127

The regulation will also allow security guards to own the same type of weapons used on 13 March 1996 by Thomas Hamilton, who shot and killed 16 children, one adult and then himself in Dunblane Primary School, Scotland. This was the deadliest single targeted mass murder of children in the history of the United Kingdom. Hamilton used two 9-millimetre Browning high-powered pistols and two Smith and Wesson 357 magnum revolvers. Again, these are the types of firearms that the Government thinks is okay for New South Wales security guards to use. Again, I remind members that it has not been established why security guards need to have a wider choice of weapons. They are already armed; they already have many weapons to choose from. Why should these extremely dangerous weapons be made available to security guards? Crime statistics show that more of these weapons are being stolen and are moving into the illegal market.

Theft of firearms is on the rise across Australia and particularly in New South Wales. What these weapons have been used for, and the fact that more of these weapons are falling into illegal hands, is relevant to this debate. A report by the Australian Institute of Criminology showed that 1,712 firearms were reported stolen in Australia between 2007 and 2008. This was an increase of close to 200 from the previous year. Almost a quarter of these thefts occurred in New South Wales. More recently, on 20 October 2009, 12 semiautomatic high-powered Glock handguns were stolen from the security firm with the interesting name of Westshore in Morley, Western Australia. Over a period of six weeks from November to December 2009, 18 firearms were stolen from private residences in Mount Isa, Queensland.

On 13 January this year the Sydney Morning Herald reported that in New South Wales there is a growing trend for criminals robbing armed vans and stealing the guns of private security guards. So it is obvious that changing the regulation to allow security guards to access a wider range of dangerous weapons will result in more of these weapons ending up in circulation. That cannot be disputed. Less than 70 per cent of stolen firearms are recovered by police. It is believed that the majority of them make their way onto the black market. This situation is bad enough without a further dilution of gun control laws by unnecessarily putting high-powered weapons into the hands and homes of security guards. It is clear that the theft of guns is on the rise and that security guards are being targeted by individuals looking to get their hands on these weapons.

In light of this, it is expected that a responsible government would introduce regulations to remove high-powered firearms from circulation and make it tougher to access them. We should be seeing legislation come before this House if the Government and the Opposition are sincere when they take up their law and order agendas. That is where we need to tighten the current laws. As I said, this regulation will facilitate increased circulation of these firearms. This is not the first instance of the New South Wales Government introducing legislation or regulations that weaken the gun ownership laws. New South Wales has the dubious distinction of being the first State to water down the national uniform gun laws adopted after the Port Arthur massacre. Let us remember that those national uniform gun laws were a big breakthrough. As I have said before in the House, and I am happy to say it again, it is to the credit of the former Prime Minister, John Howard, that after much public pressure—I certainly acknowledge that—he followed through and brought forward national uniform gun laws in the face of incredible and often angry opposition.

In this debate the Government should set out why it has chosen to weaken the gun control regulatory regime, because that is the outcome we are facing. The Government should put on the record what groups requested the changes and what discussions were held with the security industry and other interested parties. We need more information. After the Port Arthur massacre the public desire for stronger gun control laws was apparent. Indeed, that public concern provided the impetus for State and Federal members of Parliament to back national uniform gun laws. Fourteen years later the New South Wales Government—and, I suspect, the Opposition—appears to have forgotten the lessons of that time.

In New South Wales the double standards are particularly troubling. Let us remember that this regulation will result in more powerful firearms in circulation. For a government and an opposition that have injected heavy doses of law and order rhetoric into every election campaign since 1995, the great contradiction that the party leaders refuse to deal with is that while they talk up their commitment to get tough on crime they are unwilling to introduce tight gun control measures. What we have seen in incremental measures in recent years is a weakening of gun control measures. This regulation should be disallowed. Security guards currently can access a wide array of weapons. The proposed changes will not make our community safer. Indeed, the result will be more guns, both legal and illegal, in circulation. I commend the disallowance motion to the House.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [11.20 a.m.]: I am astounded every time Ms Lee Rhiannon trots out this garbage. I do not think she has any understanding of some of the terms she uses. Does she know the difference between a high-powered handgun and one that is not high powered? I bet she cannot tell me. Every time Ms Lee 21128 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

Rhiannon believes she needs a few more votes for her Senate campaign she trots out something that is popular within her own minor party's interests. It is no small thing that generally speaking both sides of politics—the major political parties in this country and in this State—will have no truck with the sort of garbage that Ms Lee Rhiannon trots out in relation to firearms legislation. New South Wales has some of the toughest legislation of any of the States in this federation. My colleague, the Hon. Roy Smith, has sought to correct some of the anomalies in that legislation.

When the legislation was cobbled together, based on a template that had been put together during the Unsworth years by the Howard Government in 1966, no consultation was held with the people who understand and know what it was all about, that is, licensed firearm owners. We do live in a fairly safe society, part of which safety is provided by security guards. Provided the licensing and selection of security guards is controlled tightly, whether they carry a high-powered weapon as referred to by Ms Lee Rhiannon—in other words a .38— or a .357 is probably of very little consequence to the average citizen in this State. It may well be of consequence to miscreants armed with illegal high calibre—not high power—handguns who want to hold up armoured vehicles but it is probably of no significance to the broader population in this State because this is a reasonably safe State. There is certainly no correlation between law abiding firearm owners and the criminal element. The criminal element do not register their firearms or apply for licences. Once again Ms Lee Rhiannon is trying to stir up some interest for her own election benefit in the Senate. The Shooters' Party rejects her assertions in this debate and will be voting against her motion.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [11.22 a.m.]: I speak on this issue as a candidate in the State election when Unsworth was our Premier. I am not sure of the year.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It was 1988.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: Thank you.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Who won that election?

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: I am speaking about firearms. An enormous rally of approximately 5,000 people was held in Tamworth and I was the person who spoke for firearm control. In those days I perceived a lot of work had been done in relation to the firearm control proposals to ensure that those who should and could own firearms, would own firearms, but the political process at the time was far too difficult for that to be implemented.

[Interruption.]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Catherine Cusack that she should not interject.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: I have no hesitation in defending the Firearms Act as it stands now. I believe it has been done with massive consultation and for a purpose. I agree that the firearms amendments are an important component of the growth of that particular bill. Before I was interrupted I was saying that the rally of 5,000 people came from all walks of the political world. They were members of the Australian Labor Party, the Shooters' Party, before it became structured, the Nationals and the Liberal Party. At that time, because of the perception that the rights of people were being threatened, an incredible amount of anger was shown at the rally. I might add that it taught me not to be afraid of standing on my feet ever again. I do not know whether other members were there but it was a very exciting meeting. People had been trucked in from all over the State.

The Firearms Amendment Regulation 2009 made a series of minor amendments to the Firearms Regulation 2006, when finally a process was put in place. This included, for example, updating the name of the Illawarra Regional Shooting Association Incorporated to reflect its current organisational structure. Are we going to disallow that? Another change to the regulation specified the offences that disqualify applicants who are subject to a good behaviour bond for such offences from getting a firearms licence or permit or from being involved in a firearms dealing business. That sounds very sensible to me. Such a provision had been included in the regulation in 2006 but operational feedback determined that clearer expression was required.

It is important to remember that regulations like the Firearms Regulation 2006 are not static documents. They are relied upon constantly in this case by police on an operational level to ensure the smooth functioning of a strong regulatory model. Minor tweaks such as those outlined are necessary and will be necessary from time 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21129

to time. I have not covered the entire gamut of required changes, but they will be necessary. The firearms regulation is essential for the safety of the people of New South Wales and for appropriate access to guns by those entitled to have them. Disallowance motions to sensible and necessary improvements to the regulation are a nonsense. For the reasons I have outlined I oppose the motion.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [11.26 a.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I indicate that it will not be supporting the motion, as I indicated earlier to Ms Lee Rhiannon. Quite simply, in relation to interstate visitors coming to New South Wales to be involved—

Ms Lee Rhiannon: That is not the one I am speaking to. There are two regulations and that is the wrong one.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I have been given it by your office.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Don't be rude when I help you.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Opposition does not support the motion of Ms Lee Rhiannon. The Opposition does not believe that the Greens motion will in any way strengthen firearms laws in this State or increase confidence in the community that matters relating to firearms are being taken seriously. We are looking at a move to strike out the good behaviour bond component, which recognises that those who have received good behaviour bonds for less serious matters may be able to apply for a shooter's licence, depending on the views of the Commissioner of Police at the time. Ms Lee Rhiannon is trying to revert to an earlier situation in relation to firearms in New South Wales. The Opposition believes that the current legislation is sufficient to address the concerns of most people in relation to firearm safety in New South Wales.

This motion also relates to security guards as employees and their possession of certain types of firearms. At the end of the day the final decision rests with the Commissioner of Police in terms of a person's suitability to lawfully have access to firearms. The motion refers to shotguns and other prohibited pistols. The responsibility should rest with the Commissioner of Police to determine whether a person is sufficiently trained and qualified to have access to firearms and a need to have firearms in conjunction with their job, and we should not try to second-guess that process.

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [11.29 a.m.]: I concur with the remarks of the Hon. Christine Robertson. Barry Unsworth was the member for Rockdale at the time when the people of New South Wales made clear their position. Members may recall that in mid 2009 a three-month firearms amnesty was held across New South Wales. The amnesty resulted in the surrender of approximately 20,000 unwanted firearms, all of which were securely destroyed by the New South Wales Police Force. As part of the amnesty, the New South Wales Firearms Registry wrote to all firearms licensees and permit holders. That provided an opportunity for the Police Force to audit the firearms register and ensure that the details held for all firearms licensees and permit holders were accurate.

The New South Wales Firearms Registry also encouraged the public to phone or email it with any firearms-related queries to ensure that people were fully aware of their obligations under law. Following the amnesty, operational police commenced a four-year program of safe storage audits across the State. This is a massive undertaking by police, and one that is not taken lightly. The audit provides an important opportunity for police to communicate with firearms licensees one on one, and to make sure they are complying with their obligations. Under the Firearms Act, police must also seize any firearms they find that are not kept in accordance with safe storage guidelines.

It is also pleasing to note the recent success of our specialist police squads in removing illegal firearms from our streets. For example, in December 2009 detectives from the Firearms and Organised Crime Squad charged two men, including a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang, following an operation targeting the alleged manufacture of submachine guns. Following the arrests, police searched two properties in western Sydney. The searches resulted in the seizure of items including a submachine gun, numerous rifles, a loaded shotgun and firearm parts. As a result of that, operation charges were laid and illegal firearms were removed from Sydney's streets. That type of proactive operational policing is ongoing throughout New South Wales. Police have a constant focus on identifying and removing illegal and/or misused firearms from our streets. Again, it is important to highlight that such operations are supported by the strong legislative and administrative framework that the Government has in place governing the use of firearms in this State. I oppose the motion. 21130 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.32 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party does not support the motion moved by the Greens to disallow the Firearms Amendment Regulation 2009. The regulation contains many valuable provisions, and it would be a great pity if it were disallowed. A major provision in the regulation deals with the quality of a person who could be a security guard, such as whether the person is subject to a good behaviour bond and so on. The regulation states that offences in respect of prohibited plants or drugs would affect the eligibility of a person to operate as a security guard in New South Wales. That provision may not worry the Greens so much. However, many people would not want a security guard to have been convicted of an offence involving the use of drugs, or have committed any offence under any Australian or overseas jurisdiction involving the infliction of actual bodily harm upon a person, kidnapping, abduction, stalking, intimidation, threatening to commit or conspiring to commit an offence, fraud, dishonesty or stealing. Why would the Greens want to disallow that provision? I commend the Government for introducing this very important regulation and I support its retention and operation in legislation.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.33 a.m.], in reply: I thank members who participated in debate on the motion. The debate has been quite informative and provided an opportunity to place some historical issues on the record. First, Mr Robert Brown's comments were, again, revealing. He failed to deal with the substance of the debate.

The Hon. Robert Brown: Because there is no substance in the debate.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: There most definitely is substance in the debate. I urge Mr Brown to listen and, if necessary, to read Hansard when it is published. Mr Brown handled the matter by trying to sidestep the issue with a few technical comments about firearms, rather than addressing concerns about the expansion of the number and types of weapons in circulation. All members who spoke in the debate failed to deal with the very worrying increase in weapons theft. If members are sincere about beating the law and order drum they should surely deal with that issue—firearms are deadly and their use may have tragic consequences. If members are serious about law and order they need to commit to ensuring that gun control measures are at the top of the range and are enforced.

Mr Brown said "it's garbage" and then misled the House by claiming that New South Wales has the toughest gun control legislation in the country. That is not the case. I admit that it was good to get on the record Mr Brown's description of Mr Ray Smith's moves that led to a weakening of firearms control legislation as "removing the anomalies". That was classic political speak from someone who maintains that there is too much spin in politics! Mr Michael Gallacher's approach demonstrated the sloppiness that he so often brings to debate. Reverend Nile's contribution underlined how disastrous a Liberals-Nationals government would be—the best thing for New South Wales would be to have a hung Parliament. I paid Mr Gallacher the courtesy of giving him the two regulations. He became confused—that is fair enough; we all make mistakes—but he then tried to attribute blame. That is nothing unusual. The debate became really interesting with the comments of Ms Christine Robertson and Mr Shaoquett Moselmane. They really worked on rewriting Labor's electoral history in this State as it unfolded at the 1988 election. Ms Catherine Cusack made an interesting interjection, and two Labor members made interesting comments.

The Hon. Christine Robertson: Were you in it?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am not sure what "it" is.

The Hon. Christine Robertson: In 1988?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, I was.

The Hon. Christine Robertson: You were in Tamworth, were you?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: No, not in Tamworth. In response to the interjection, I will describe what happened in Sydney because Ms Robertson raises an interesting issue. In Sydney the Shooters Party staged a huge protest outside Parliament House. It was angry about what the Unsworth Government was proposing. I was working with the Coalition for Gun Control at that time and its supporters were at the protest, but certainly not in the same numbers as supporters of the shooters. The police were in attendance.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: That was funded by the Labor Party, wasn't it? 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21131

Ms LEE RHIANNON: No, it was not.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Yes, it was.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: No. The police were worried about our safety.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Catherine Cusack that she should not interject.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The police were worried about our safety and suggested that it would be safer if we left. They escorted us away from the protest.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: With handcuffs—that is an unusual escort.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Come on, Michael! I am happy to acknowledge the interjection by someone who thinks he is the Leader of the Opposition in this House. Mr Unsworth was sincere about gun control.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: He was not.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: He most definitely was. Members need to remember what happened in the 1980s—there was a series of massacres.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: He was desperate, that is what he was.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Ms Cusack can argue about the tactics, but I will list the massacres that occurred to which Mr Unsworth responded. In 1981, six people were killed at Campsie. In 1984, six were killed at Wahroonga. In 1984, seven were killed at Milperra. In 1987, six were killed at the Top End in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. In August 1987, seven were killed in Hoddle Street, Melbourne. In October 1987, six were killed at Canley Vale. In December 1987, nine were killed in a massacre in Queen Street, Melbourne. There was a climate of concern a little similar to that which occurred after the Port Arthur massacre. There had been massacre after massacre, and Mr Unsworth came forward with a plan for gun control. Yes, it caused angst amongst a number of shooters and, as we know, Labor lost office. That is playing out to this day with the deals we see being done between Labor and the Shooters Party. It has gone down in Labor history that it lost the 1988 election because of the stand Mr Unsworth took on gun control measures.

I remind members of what was going on in 1987. It is actually fairly similar to the politics of today, when we have a Labor Government that is out of touch with its own constituency and has deserted its supporters on so many fundamental policies. It is a very tired Government and one that is out of touch with the electorate and its traditional Labor voters. The 1988 election was a disaster for the then Labor Government. It suffered a 10.3 per cent swing against it and Labor's primary vote dropped below 40 per cent, I think for the first time during the extended period it had been in government. Twelve Ministers lost their seats. In the Hunter, Labor lost the seats of Cessnock, Newcastle and Swansea—something that this Government could well be facing again in next year's election. In Newcastle and Swansea the swing was more than 20 per cent, and we hear rumours that Labor's polling shows it faces similar problems now.

Clearly that result would have shocked Labor, but when they started examining the reasons for their defeat they could not come to grips with what had been happening in the lead-up to the election. There was a big workers compensation battle in 1987. My recollection is that there was a huge march across the Harbour Bridge by unions and working people taking a stand against the Labor Government because it had deserted them on a key issue on which people believed Labor should deliver. Labor ended up with the very simplistic analysis that the fault lay with Unsworth's support for gun control measures. That has played out to this day and we see Labor bending over backwards to do deals with the Shooters at every turn. The situation in New South Wales is not healthy and the debate today has reflected that. In the scheme of things this regulation is not a huge change in the direction that gun control measures are taking in this State, but it certainly weakens those controls and adds to the worrying development that the once-uniform gun control measures are being further weakened by this Labor Government.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided. 21132 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

Ayes, 4

Mr Cohen Ms Hale

Tellers, Dr Kaye Ms Rhiannon

Noes, 32

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

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

MOBILE PHONES IN THE CHAMBER

The PRESIDENT: Twice this morning and twice yesterday mobile phones rang aloud in the Chamber. Members should ensure that while they are in the Chamber their mobile phones are set on silent mode. In future, any member whose mobile phone rings aloud in the Chamber will be placed on a call to order.

FIREARMS ACT 1996: DISALLOWANCE OF FIREARMS AMENDMENT (INTERNATIONAL VISITORS) REGULATION 2009

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing orders the question is: That the motion proceed as business of the House.

Question put.

Division called for and Standing Order 114 (4) applied.

The House divided.

Ayes, 4

Mr Cohen Ms Hale Tellers, Dr Kaye Ms Rhiannon

Noes, 32

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

Question resolved in the negative. 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21133

SYDNEY OLYMPIC PARK AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL 2010

Second Reading

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.55 a.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Robertson: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I bring before the House a bill to amend the Sydney Olympic Park Authority Act 2001. The Sydney Olympic Park Authority Amendment Bill 2010 supports the New South Wales Government's intention that Sydney Olympic Park be the State's premier event precinct, and its commitment to build on the legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games to create a modern and vibrant town centre at Olympic Park. Amendments to the Act were required to reflect changes and ongoing development at the park; to alter the Act's wording to reflect the introduction of a residential development within the park; to clarify the objects and functions of the authority; and to protect the name "Sydney Olympic Park".

These amendments deal with noise management issues and support the holistic plan for the future of Sydney Olympic Park as the newest suburb of Sydney. The bill will provide legal protection for the status of Sydney Olympic Park as the State's premier event destination, allowing major events to proceed without the potential for noise-related litigation to be used to impede that status. The noise-related amendments are consistent with other major event precinct legislation for both Luna Park and Mount Panorama. This does not imply that noise control will cease at the park—far from it. It will still be a requirement for events to be consistent with the approved Event-Noise Management Framework Plan for Sydney Olympic Park.

The consent authority to the noise management plan is the Director General of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, which allows for an objective and independent overview of the plan as well as implementation of any required changes. This is the same framework that has successfully managed events such as U2 concerts, State of Origin matches, André Rieu concerts and myriad other events. This amendment will not affect noise management of the Sydney 500 V8 Supercars race, which is governed by the Homebush Motor Race Authority Act. Importantly, the bill is reserved for major events, for example, those designed for more than 10,000 patrons. Maximum noise limits will still apply.

We have a responsibility to residents and businesses to adhere to the prescribed legal decibel limit. Another physical provision to limit noise includes smarter urban planning, with buildings acting as noise barriers between the event precinct and residential developments. These amendments are designed to allow Sydney Olympic Park to continue to be Sydney's epicentre of major public events. This bill is being introduced to support the growth and development of the precinct, essentially setting up a framework that supports and protects the continued success of commercial operations, whilst also supporting the establishment of a new residential population at Sydney Olympic Park. It is about making sure that potential residents move into the area with their eyes wide open.

This is an important amendment in the development of Sydney Olympic Park as a premier place of sport, recreation and entertainment, and as a centre of jobs and of homes for the people of western Sydney. The introduction of this bill forms part of the New South Wales Government's commitment to ensure that Sydney Olympic Park becomes a vibrant centre within metropolitan Sydney, with plenty more André Rieu concerts. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [11.58 a.m.]: The New South Wales Liberals-Nationals Coalition supports the Sydney Olympic Park Authority Amendment Bill 2010. When the Government does something good—and that is not often—the Coalition supports it. The object of the bill is to amend the Sydney Olympic Park Authority Act 2001 as follows:

(a) to make provision for the management of noise emissions in respect of major events carried on at Sydney Olympic Park, and

(b) to expand the functions of the Sydney Olympic Park Authority to include the function of promoting, coordinating, organising, managing, undertaking securing, providing and conducting residential facilities, and

(c) to make other minor amendments to facilitate the administration of the Principal Act or by way of statute law revision.

The Government claims that this bill is designed to support efforts to make Sydney Olympic Park the State's premier event precinct and to build on the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games to create a modern and 21134 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

vibrant town centre at Olympic Park. The principal Act was introduced in 2001 to manage the development and use of Sydney Olympic Park, promote and manage events, protect and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the millennium parklands, and operate and maintain public transport facilities within the precinct. Amendments to the principal Act were required to reflect changes and ongoing development at the park. These amendments alter the Act's wording to reflect the growing residential development within the park, clarify the objects and functions of the authority, and also further protect the name "Sydney Olympic Park".

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

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______

MAJOR EVENTS AND TOURISM

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question is directed to the Minister for State and Regional Development. How will the Minister run the diminishing events agenda in New South Wales when the Premier maintains control of Events NSW Corporation and he will chair only a subcommittee comprising the tourism Minister, the arts Minister, the Minister for Western Sydney, and the sports Minister, all of whom have run events within their portfolios? What does that leave for the Minister for State and Regional Development other than hospitality?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The member has his facts wrong. If he had taken the opportunity to attend the 10 Big Ideas to Grow NSW conference being conducted currently at the Mint building and actively led by Patricia Forsythe, he would have heard that the Premier had stated the case somewhat differently. I suggest he wait to read that particular report. However, the arrangements mean there will be two shareholders, of which I will be one.

GORE HILL CEMETERY AND MARY MACKILLOP

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Lands. Will the Minister inform the House on what action the Government is taking to preserve the first resting place of Blessed Mary MacKillop?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the member for his question. I am aware of his long-term devout interest in this subject.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I saw Johnno here earlier.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I mentioned it to Johnno on my way out to Gore Hill cemetery. The imminent canonisation of Mary MacKillop, soon to be Australia's first saint, is wonderful news for all Australians, particularly for all Australian Catholics. Recent events have renewed interest in all aspects of her remarkable and truly unique life. Whilst the remains of Mary MacKillop now rest at the Memorial Chapel in North Sydney, it is a little known fact that Mary was originally buried in the Catholic section of the Gore Hill cemetery, a few miles north of the chapel. The Gore Hill Memorial Cemetery is a dedicated Crown Reserve established in 1868 and managed by a volunteer community trust appointed under the Crown Lands Act. That cemetery was closed as an active cemetery in 1974. Attempts were made by the then Coalition Government— heritage vandals that they were—to remove the monument and return it to a rest park. The community fought this proposal and today we have a great example of a Victorian-era cemetery, which includes the resting places of a number of notable citizens.

On her death on 8 August 1909 Mary MacKillop was originally buried at Gore Hill cemetery, surrounded by previously departed Josephite nuns. The cemetery has a special section behind the Jesuits, which is located close to the road. If visitors enter via the western gate, they will find this site immediately there. Unfortunately, Mary's grave began to suffer from the love and excess devotion of the faithful, and concerns were raised when soil began to disappear from the gravesite. In 1914 it was decided to remove her remains to the present resting place at the Mary MacKillop Memorial Chapel, Mount Street, North Sydney. The Keneally Government is ever mindful of the need to maintain and preserve these historic sites around the State. For this reason, this morning I signed a licence agreement with the Catholic Cemeteries Board to help maintain and preserve Gore Hill cemetery, particularly the Catholic section. 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21135

The Catholic Cemeteries Board was established by Cardinal Clancy in 1996 and has managed a number of cemeteries across Sydney, including the Catholic portions at Rookwood, Liverpool and Field of Mars. The Gore Hill Memorial Cemetery, as a closed cemetery, relies largely on government grants and community donations. Operational cemeteries receive ongoing income to help maintain the grounds. The historic Gore Hill closed cemetery does not enjoy this benefit and has no opportunity to receive such funds. On my approval to redirect funds, and with the licence agreement in place, the Catholic Cemeteries Board in consultation with the Gore Hill cemetery trust will commence restoration and clearing works in accordance with the existing plan of management and landscape objectives of the cemetery. A key part of this task is to ensure the security and preservation of Mary MacKillop's original resting place. This will free those volunteers of the Gore Hill Cemetery Trust to focus on community liaison and to assist visitors to the cemetery.

The Catholic Cemeteries Board will be represented on the Gore Hill trust, which is working towards a new plan to guide the management of the cemetery over the course of the next decade and beyond. The preservation and maintenance of the original gravesite of Mary MacKillop is of great cultural and historical importance for New South Wales. It is a focal point for the cemetery and will help to ensure the entire cemetery is properly maintained and preserved. The Keneally Government has brokered a deal that facilitates the expenditure of funds by an operational cemetery to one constrained by income and capacity to maintain and preserve the cemetery's heritage values. I place on record the excellent spirit of cooperation between the Catholic Cemeteries Board and the Gore Hill Memorial Cemetery Trust in working with the Government to secure this new management arrangement. I will ensure that the House is kept apprised of the developments.

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY COINSURANCE

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware of the submission by Macquarie Generation and others to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission seeking recognition of a proposed coinsurance arrangement between gentraders and generators that would provide exemption from the cartel conduct provisions of the Trade Practices Act? Will the Treasurer advise the House of the rationale behind the decision, including whether it was sought by the intending purchasers of the electricity assets? Will he assure the House also that this is not an anti-competitive strategy that will impose higher electricity costs on the people of New South Wales? What will be the impact of this strategy on the reserve prices of the electricity assets?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the member for his interest in this particular matter. Coinsurance arrangements for the gentrader component of the transaction will have strong public benefits. They support competition and new entrants in our market and maximise transaction value—a win for customers and for the people of New South Wales. To embed competition to our electricity market the New South Wales Government is separating the output of our power stations into more competitive-sized trading blocks. To support this more competitive market structure the coinsurance arrangements assist potential bidders who do not have an existing portfolio of generation assets to manage the risk of plant outage. They also maintain the benefits of a large-scale operation.

The New South Wales Government and its advisers are engaged in an ongoing dialogue with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission regarding its coinsurance proposals. The Government is confident of the public benefits of these arrangements. As part of the authorisation process the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission routinely seeks feedback from market participants who provide opinions to the competition regulator. These opinions are one part of a detailed process. The commission may choose to accept, reject or modify any of the third-party suggestions it receives in the market sounding process. Regardless, the Government will remain engaged with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to ensure we get the best deal possible for the people of New South Wales.

BARANGAROO REDEVELOPMENT

Ms SYLVIA HALE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Planning. Last Friday after receiving his authorisation the Barangaroo Delivery Authority contracted with Lend Lease to develop stage one of Barangaroo. However, Lend Lease's proposed development departs from the 2006 approved concept plan and, if it proceeds, requires significant amendments. In light of the pre-existing contract, how will the Minister bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to consideration of any amendment of the concept plan? Is the Minister aware that it was precisely the issue of apprehended bias on the part of the former Minister for Planning that resulted in the Catherine Hill Bay development coming to grief in the Land and Environment Court? 21136 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Point of order: The question is clearly out of order as it contains argument.

The PRESIDENT: Order! May I have a copy of the question? Members who continue to interject will be placed on a call to order. I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order. The terms "impartial" and "unprejudiced mind" could be construed as being argumentative. Consequently, with those two terms excluded the question is in order and the Minister may answer it.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the honourable member for her question because this is an important issue for Sydney. This is a $6 billion project, which will include 20,000 people working on site, yet despite the facts, some misinformation is being circulated about it. In a recent Stateline program Paul Keating did a wonderful job of explaining it—to which Miranda Devine suggested that all of Sydney should be one council run by Paul Keating as Lord Mayor. Members will have noted the public comments being made about Barangaroo. I am advised that 60 per cent of the online voters to the Sydney Morning Herald support the contentious part of this project: the hotel—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Are you following the polls now, Tony?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Yes, I am following the polls. The Government is doing very well in the polls. Kristina Keneally is doing a wonderful job of making this a real competition, and that is really worrying the Opposition. Madam President, I appreciate that interjections are unruly and I should not be answering them. I will return to the member's question. Some of the comments being made are highly unhelpful. The fact is that more than 50 per cent of this site, which currently looks like an aircraft carrier, will be returned to the public for the first time in a century. The wharf area, where the hotel is to be located, is half a hectare in size but 3½ hectares will be returned to the harbour, which is a net increase of an extra three hectares into the harbour. If members were to look at the plan they would see that it will bookend to Mrs Macquarie's Chair and the Botanic Gardens on the other side of Sydney. It is a very good concept. I suggest members take the time to take the Barangaroo walk, which is now open to the public, or ride a bike there—both of which I did last weekend—and have a good look at the area. The approved concept plan allows for a mixed-use development on this 22-hectare site—

Ms Sylvia Hale: It is about the height, the floor space ratios, and the densities—

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Do you want me to answer the question? If the member keeps interrupting she might have to give me an extension of time. The approved concept plan allows from mixed-use development on the 22-hectare site, with a maximum of 489,500 square metres of gross floor area within eight blocks, and approximately 11 hectares of new public open space and public domain. The approved scheme responds to the demands for commercial floor space in the Sydney central business district and reinforces Sydney's status as a global city. It will also provide a wide range of new recreational, educational and tourism facilities in the central business district. As I have said, it will be a focus for the financial industry in Australia and south-east Asia.

Most elements of the Lend Lease plan already fit within the requirements of the Barangaroo Part 3A Concept Plan approval. However, specific elements will require amendment as part of a formal public planning process. Areas of discussion will include the scale and placement of specific elements of the proposal, the mix of uses, public space at ground level and connections to the city and public transport. The Barangaroo Delivery Authority and Lend Lease will refine the plan and prepare a submission for planning scheme amendment and the Government will receive independent advice on that.

CENTRAL COAST NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE TEAM

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I address my question without notice to the Minister for State and Regional Development. Will the Minister please update the House on recent state development initiatives to support major events in New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: This morning I met with David Gallop, chief executive officer of National Rugby League [NRL], to discuss the prospect of getting a team on the Central Coast. I also recently met with representatives of the Central Coast Bears Rugby League Club, including former representative players Greg Florimo and David Fairleigh— 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21137

The Hon. Rick Colless: Are you switching codes Macca?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, I am very catholic. My colleague Tony has inspired me this morning.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Where did you meet them?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: In their offices. The Bears have been crafting a business plan to support their bid to gain entry into the NRL for the 2013 season. Discussion centred on the benefits to local business and the community of an NRL team based at Gosford, and on how the New South Wales Government would be able to assist with the bid. The Bears have had a 100-plus year history with rugby league and already have many supporters throughout northern Sydney and the Central Coast.

In a recent poll of more than 8,000 Daily Telegraph readers, a whopping 78 per cent of respondents said they support the idea of a NRL franchise based on the Central Coast. The new team intends to be based at Gosford and will represent a catchment area of over one million people from the Harbour Bridge to Lake Munmorah. Currently the almost 7,000 young footy players from the region have been forced to move elsewhere for the opportunity to experience top level rugby league, and it is our hope that soon that will no longer be the case.

Local residents would definitely know, and the NRL itself has acknowledged, that the Central Coast, with its purpose-built facilities and strong rugby league supporter base, is an ideal location for a new franchise. Let us not forget that sitting in the heart of Gosford is one of Australia's best regional sporting venues, the Bluetongue Central Coast Stadium, which has a crowd capacity of more than 20,000 and is the perfect home for a new franchise. The Bears also have a long list of supporters in the rugby league community, such as television personality and former international Peter Sterling, former Kangaroo Brad Clyde, and St George Illawarra Dragons super coach Wayne Bennett.

The Government is currently looking at ways to allocate resources to assist the Bears in getting over the line, such as new business assistance or regional development grants. Real economic benefits would flow from locating an NRL team on the Central Coast, such as increased employment and tourism, which would provide a significant boost to the local economy. The Bears will be submitting their formal bid to the NRL during 2010 and as Minister for the Central Coast and Minister for State and Regional Development I will support them in every possible way to strengthen their bid to give the Central Coast residents a rugby league team of their own. I look forward to updating the House on progress in the near future.

REGIONAL AIR SERVICES

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: I direct my question without notice to the Hon. Tony Kelly, representing the Minister for Rural Affairs. It was reported in January that the Government was negotiating with an airline to restore commercial flights from Dubbo to Bourke, Cobar, Walgett, Coonamble and Lightning Ridge. Given that the Minister described the news last month that daily air services are about to resume between Cooma and Sydney as "fantastic", when can the people west of Dubbo expect to see the restoration of their air services?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the honourable member for his question, which I will pass on to the responsible Minister for a response. However, for my own part I know that those services were originally run by Air Link Airlines, and the fellow in charge was David Miller. For decades it was a very good feeder service from places such as Cobar, Coonamble, Coonabarabran and Bourke, all of those areas, into Dubbo. That was taken over by Rex Airlines, which has now closed down all those services. That is unfortunate: there is a big demand for the services.

One company—which I think might have been Brindabella, although I am not 100 per cent sure— indicated that it was interested in taking over the services but only on condition that the Government underwrite the takeover. The Government pointed out that while quite a number of flights each year are undertaken by government employees to that area, it could not underwrite air services and that that had never been done before. The position, as I understand it, is that the interested company would take over provision of the services only if the Government would underwrite those air services.

HOUSING FINANCE

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Will he inform the House of the latest economic statistics in today's Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] release of the New South Wales 21138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

seasonally adjusted housing finance commitments for January 2010 relating to construction and purchase of owner-occupied dwellings showing a decrease of 7.3 per cent from December 2009, which is well down on January 2009 figures and which continues a downward movement evident since October? Will he confirm that his 2009-10 mid-year review's estimate of purchaser transfer duty of $3.25 billion is achievable?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am really pleased that the Hon. Greg Pearce wants to talk about the most recent statistics because, as members know, I have a great deal to say about all the good news being presented as New South Wales leads the recovery of the nation.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Good news!

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Good news indeed. In the context of economic news that has been released today, I want to talk in particular about the latest consumer confidence data.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: My point of order is in two parts—the first is relevance and the second is that the Minister is debating the question. Clearly, the Minister was debating the question. In respect of relevance, the Minister said, "I want to talk in particular about the latest consumer confidence data." The Treasurer cannot state what he wants to talk about: he must answer the question that has been asked of him, even though he does not like it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister should continue to be generally relevant in answering the question.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am happy to inform the House in relation to all the good news about the New South Wales economy, so let us begin by examining growth, which in New South Wales was 3.9 per cent over the first half of this year.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: No, no. That is not what I asked about.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The reason that Opposition members start baying and becoming uncomfortable is that New South Wales has significantly stronger growth than any other State in the country. The growth of 3.9 per cent for the first half of the financial year is higher than that of Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia for the same period. Growth in New South Wales in the first half was twice the growth experienced in Western Australia and 4.5 times that experienced in Queensland. It is no wonder that Opposition members are so uncomfortable. In the December quarter alone New South Wales growth was 2.4 per cent compared to 2 per cent nationally. Unlike other States, New South Wales growth is broad based, with the Government, households and businesses all contributing significantly to the State's growth in private investment and household consumption.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. I have asked the Treasurer about a very worrying trend in housing finance statistics that indicates a decrease of 7.3 per cent over the last month. That is a matter of great importance in terms of the budget. I ask him to address the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister should continue to be generally relevant.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: In relation to the New South Wales building and property sectors, which are very important sectors, New South Wales building activity in the September 2009 quarter increased by 5.7 per cent from $230 million to $4.28 billion whereas the national increase for the same period was only 1.6 per cent. New South Wales construction activity increased by 2.4 per cent in the December 2009 quarter, which is a better result than that for Queensland and Western Australia, and represents $8.9 billion of construction activity in the last three months of last year. On a trend basis, construction work undertaken in New South Wales increased in nine consecutive quarters. New South Wales residential building approvals increased by 3.4 per cent for January 2010 and by 94.8 per cent over the 12 months to January 2010.

STATE ECONOMY

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Will he further update the House on the latest economic data for New South Wales?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: But wait—there is more good news for New South Wales! In breaking news just an hour ago, the latest consumer confidence data from the Westpac-Melbourne Institute 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21139

consumer sentiment index indicated that, not surprisingly, consumer confidence increased by 0.2 per cent in March to 117.3 points. Westpac's chief economist, Bill Evans, stated, "This is a solid result given the backdrop of a fourth official rate rise." Confidence is very important, so let us talk a little bit about confidence. Recently there has been some media speculation about confidence. Indeed, I note that Tony Abbott has no confidence in Barry O'Farrell. This morning I was amazed to read in the Sydney Morning Herald of Mr Abbott's team-building speech in which he used the Leader of the Opposition as a prime example of what not to do.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: The Treasurer was asked a question about recent economic data. He is not in any way addressing the question. I ask you to direct him to do so.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The Treasurer may continue to be generally relevant.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Tony Abbott said, ''We won't win the next election by adopting a Barry O'Farrell-style small target strategy", such as the target I am showing to members here. For the benefit of Opposition members, I will offer a magnifying glass after question time! Even the outspoken Tony Abbott has identified the policy-free zone of Barry O'Farrell and has said that he is lazy and that he is not prepared to put in the hard work for the people of New South Wales. Shame on Opposition members! Even Tony Abbott—the pinup boy of the Hon. David Clarke, the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, the Hon. Charlie Lynn, the Hon. Marie Ficarra and even the Hon. Greg Pearce—is echoing what Opposition members say behind Barry O'Farrell's back: that he is not up to it, that he cannot do the job.

However, back to the topic at hand—more good economic data about New South Wales. Yesterday there was more good news about jobs in New South Wales from the latest Manpower Australia employment outlook survey of hiring intentions of New South Wales employers for the second quarter of 2010.

[Interruption]

I do not hear the Hon. Greg Pearce defending Tony Abbott—in fact, I do not hear even one member of the Opposition defending Tony Abbott, because they are absolutely embarrassed. The Manpower survey showed that in the second quarter of 2010, hiring intentions of New South Wales employers increased to levels last seen before the global financial crisis. The proportion of New South Wales employers who are planning to hire staff increased to 29 per cent from 25 per cent in the previous survey. I have more good news—unlike the news for Barry O'Farrell. We know that this continuing recovery will be led by New South Wales, and we know that our good relationship with the Federal Government will allow us to lead the economy out of the global financial crisis.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You are leading the country in unemployment. Talk about that—go on. Where is your ticker?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Since the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants to raise ticker, let us talk about that. It is really interesting that Tony Abbott said he does not think that Barry O'Farrell is up to the job because he has made himself into a little, itsy-bitsy target. That does not work. Barry O'Farrell has no policies. Barry O'Farrell is a policy-free zone. Barry O'Farrell is just lazy. He thinks that he can simply sit on the couch, open a few tinnies and relax, and somehow stumble into the door of government. Well that is not going to happen. Even Tony Abbott has recognised that.

CUMBERLAND PLAIN BUSHLAND CONSERVATION

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Planning. Is the Minister aware that the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water has categorised the bushland of Cumberland Plain as priority conservation land? Is the Minister aware that Penrith City Council's flawed local environment plans allow rural zonings across 504 hectares of land owned by the Deerubbin Local Aboriginal Land Council? In particular, is the Minister aware that Penrith City Council's local environment plans fail to protect the long-term survival of a suite of threatened species and endangered ecological communities in Western Sydney? Will the Minister reject and amend Penrith City Council's local environment plans to ensure that all the priority conservation lands in the Penrith local government area are zoned E2 environmental conservation and protect the remaining 1,296 hectares of the Deerubbin land?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes has asked a detailed question, which I will take it on notice and obtain an answer for him. In the interim, I can inform him that there is a process for local environmental plan preparation and the recommendation from the department will come to me soon. 21140 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

INTEREST RATES

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware of the workings of financial markets and, in particular, that every statement from the Reserve Bank Governor is heavily scrutinised with policy set accordingly? Can the Treasurer confirm to the House that he had a private conversation with the Reserve Bank Governor in December last year about interest rates remaining steady? Given that interest rates did then remain steady, can he explain how he made this embarrassing slip and why he broke financial convention and disclosed details of his private talk?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am happy to respond to that question.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Here he is, the Alex Hawke of the Labor Party. Look at him.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I take offence at that jibe.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The level of interjection is getting completely out of hand. If it does not improve, I will place members on calls to order. If members continue to interject, and there are certain members who are serial offenders in this regard, I will order them to leave the Chamber. The Treasurer may continue.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I have consistently argued in the media and in other forums that it is very important when the Reserve Bank makes decisions in relation to official rates that it takes into consideration the impact of any shift, particularly on New South Wales. As the House should well know, the average mortgage in New South Wales is in the vicinity of $80,000 higher than that of other States—around $400,000—and any movement in the official interest rates has impacts on the New South Wales market, particularly the Sydney market. I make no apology for arguing for the Reserve Bank to be cautious and careful when it makes its decisions. I will continue to look after the best interests of New South Wales and argue strongly to protect the people of New South Wales. The issue of Alex Hawke was raised in an earlier interjection. That is worth noting because I read recently that Peter Phelps has been endorsed—

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. My question was about the Treasurer leaking information from a private discussion with the Reserve Bank Governor—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox will resume his seat. If the member wishes to take a point of order on relevance, he should state just that. It is not appropriate that he go into lengthy argument to make a debating point under the guise of a point of order. The Treasurer will continue to be generally relevant in answering the question.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Talking about recent leaks, Peter Phelps has just been endorsed for the Liberal Party upper House ticket. He is an interesting fellow. He was recently in the media for comparing the military service—

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. Dare I state the point I wish to make in relation to relevance, the question asked simply about the leaking of a conversation the Treasurer had with the Reserve Bank Governor, not about extraneous material that the Treasurer may wish to bring up. I ask that he be drawn back to the question. It is of significance to financial markets and to the credibility of the State.

The PRESIDENT: Order! If members continue to make interjections when Ministers are answering questions, Ministers may be inclined to respond to the interjections. The issue to which the Treasurer was referring was raised by way of an interjection from a member of the Opposition.

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I will not tolerate my rulings being canvassed. If members wish responses to their questions to be relevant, I suggest that they speak to their colleagues and ask them to refrain from interjecting while their questions are being answered. I ask the Treasurer to continue to be generally relevant.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: In relation to financial management, New South Wales was able to improve its credit standing during the global financial crisis. That is evidence of our abilities. 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21141

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: My question without notice is to the Attorney General. What is the latest information on international commercial arbitration?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: International arbitration is a dispute resolution system selected by many of the world's leading international companies. In 2008 a PricewaterhouseCoopers survey "International Arbitration: Corporate attitudes and practices" revealed that 73 per cent of corporations prefer to use arbitration to resolve their cross-border disputes rather than transnational litigation and that they saw arbitration as a means to successfully preserve business relationships. Arbitration agreements and arbitral awards are enforceable worldwide under an international law known as the New York Convention. International arbitration is emerging as the preferred choice for resolving commercial disputes. It is not uncommon to hear of businesses choosing international arbitration to resolve disputes that involve substantial amounts, which can be hundreds of millions of dollars or even billions of dollars.

The arbitration centre in Singapore lists a number of cases in which the amount in dispute was substantial, including a $US230 million dispute between a Malaysian company and Singaporean company and a $US427 million dispute between a Chinese company and a Canadian company. These disputes bring with them substantial boosts to the local economy where they are held. Australia is well placed to capitalise on this booming global market. I am able to advise the House that Sydney is set to share in the booming market in commercial dispute resolution with Australia's first dedicated international dispute resolution centre. Last week on 3 March 2010 I was pleased to make an announcement about the centre, together with the Commonwealth Attorney General, a representative of the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration and the New South Wales Chief Justice. Without their involvement, guidance and support, this centre would not have been possible.

The $600,000 facility at 1 Castlereagh Street, Sydney, will feature world-class communication, audiovisual and video-conferencing facilities, tribunal facilities, conference rooms and access to translation and transcription services. Work on the fit-out is due to start in March 2010. The Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration [ACICA] and the Australian Commercial Disputes Centre, jointly funded by the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments, will strengthen capacity for corporations to resolve disputes without the need for court action. According to the Director of the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration, Professor Doug Jones, it is estimated that the direct and indirect economic benefits of the centre are:

… likely to run into tens of millions of dollars each year. As well as the legal fees flowing to the centre and the legal services sector, there will be enormous flow-on for the professional services, hospitality, tourism and support sectors.

International investors want to avoid the uncertainty of litigation in a foreign court system with the associated lack of familiarity over processes. That is why ongoing reforms to arbitration laws at both State and Federal levels will create an international best practice legal framework for arbitration in Australia. In November 2009 the Federal Government introduced the International Arbitration Amendment Bill to increase the effectiveness, efficiency and affordability in international commercial arbitration. The Australian Government is also working with State and Territory Governments to draft a new model commercial arbitration bill based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. These reforms provide the local framework for our highly skilled and internationally experienced Australian arbitrators to resolve disputes on Australian territory under Australian arbitration law.

It is becoming increasingly clear that people doing business in the Asia-Pacific are embracing arbitration as the forum to resolve disputes. This presents us with an opportunity to host international arbitration and to become a destination of choice in the Asia-Pacific region, especially given that Australia operates under a Western legal system that is proudly independent from government and is easily accessible, especially for English speakers. Sydney will be the place to go when businesses want their problems fixed in a fashion that is swift and fair.

PARENTAL LEAVE

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Treasurer a question without notice. Is the Treasurer aware that the Federal Opposition leader has announced a six-month real money parental leave scheme that will reimburse women for the loss of all net income up to $150,000? Is he aware that the proposed scheme would be funded by a new 1.7 per cent levy on all businesses that earn more than $5 million per annum? What impact 21142 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

would such a scheme have on New South Wales business, industry and employment? Does the New South Wales Government recognise the value of stay-at-home mums to the future of this State? Will the Treasurer raise this issue with the Prime Minister at the Council of Australian Governments meeting and seek a parental leave scheme that provides assistance to all mothers over a period of at least six months?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I was quite surprised by Tony Abbott's policy announcement in relation to parental leave, although I suspect I was not as surprised as members in his party room appear to have been as he went in to explain the proposal to them. We have only sketchy details of the proposal. Last night I noticed comments in the media that it was not clear whether it was based—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: I would not use the word "sketchy" if I were you. If you look up "sketchy" in the dictionary there is a picture of you.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I understand the embarrassment members opposite feel about Tony Abbott. They are torn. Members of the Right hold up Tony Abbott as the pinup boy. Tony Abbott is criticising Barry O'Farrell for making himself an itsy-bitsy tiny target. At the same time Tony Abbott has announced a new parental leave policy. We would like some clarification on these issues, as we will see in the next couple of days. It is unclear whether the scheme is based on $5 million taxable income for companies or on $5 million tax paid. Indeed, last night I observed some conflict between Tony Abbott and one of his shadow Ministers during the announcement.

But Tony Abbott was absolutely crystal clear that he does not want to be seen to act like Barry O'Farrell. It is in black and white, properly reported, in today's Sydney Morning Herald. Tony Abbott does not want to be a small target like Barry O'Farrell. Why would he say that? Because Tony Abbott is energetic; Barry is not. Tony Abbott gets out there with lots of policies; Barry does not. Tony Abbott is out there working; Barry O'Farrell is not. That is exactly why Barry O'Farrell is being criticised by Tony Abbott and why members opposite are embarrassed when their Federal leader calls a spade a spade. That is exactly what has happened here.

In relation to the question about motherhood, obviously I will support any initiatives that encourage motherhood, which is an important part of our society. In relation to the proposal about parental leave, that is something that we will examine over the next couple of weeks when we see the details. I have ongoing discussions with both the Federal Treasurer and the Prime Minister about such issues as parental leave and many other issues relating to State and Federal plans. The Leader of the Opposition keeps raising the name of Alex Hawke, the lost son of the Hon. David Clarke. I do not think he is a good mate of Peter Phelps, who has just been endorsed by the Opposition for the upper House. Peter Phelps distinguished himself in 2007 when he compared the military service of the Federal member for Eden-Monaro, Mike Kelly, in Iraq to working in a Nazi concentration camp.

The Hon. Don Harwin: You're a liar!

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Liar! You're a liar.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The term "liar" is unparliamentary, and any member who uses it to describe another member will be called to order.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Opposition is consistent. Recently it endorsed another Liberal candidate in The Entrance who had been a senior officer in One Nation. So we start to see a consistent theme in the New South Wales Liberal Party. No wonder Barry O'Farrell wants to keep his head down! His own colleagues embarrass him.

REGIONAL RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for State and Regional Development. Is the Minister aware that the Victorian Government recently commenced work on a new rail link and rail freight network upgrades to significantly benefit the growing population of regional Victoria? Does the Minister agree that modern, efficient rail links and services are important to regional development? From a regional development perspective, can the Minister advise the House of any specific equivalent New South Wales Government plans to improve rail services to country and coastal communities in New South Wales, such as the northern rivers region and Bathurst for starters? 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21143

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: We are concerned about this issue. If the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner visited the Hunter Valley, she would see hundreds of millions of dollars of new rail infrastructure has been provided not only to help local residents move through that region but also to help our very large export coal industry. Lots of money is going into the Hunter Valley. In due course there are likely to be significant upgrades of rail infrastructure through to Tamworth on the back of some exploration licences—decisions that the Government has taken to upgrade our efforts in that area. There are significant developments for that region and through to Tamworth. Naturally, when the Tamworth line is upgraded it will improve the logistic requirements of our agricultural industry, which produces tens of millions of tonnes of product in the northern part of the State. We are happy with our program in regional areas. We have done a lot over recent years and we will continue to improve it.

MAJOR EVENTS AND TOURISM

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: My question is addressed to the Minister for State and Regional Development. Will the Minister update the House on new arrangements to boost events attraction in New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am pleased to report to the House that this morning the Premier announced a new approach the Government will take to attract and deliver major events for the State. Major events are an important aspect of State development and a significant driver of economic activity, generating about $500 million for New South Wales each year and enhancing the cultural and sporting life of our towns and cities. But while we are the premier State and Sydney is one of the world's great cities, there is still much more we can do. That is why the Premier announced today that the Government will increase its commitment to major events and create a dedicated Cabinet portfolio and the new position of Minister for Major Events.

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

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: This new portfolio will complement the good work already underway in Events New South Wales and Industry and Investment New South Wales and elevate to Cabinet level a new portfolio dedicated to the acquisition and attraction of major events.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I place the Hon. Catherine Cusack on a call to order.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Under current arrangements, Events New South Wales is responsible for winning events for New South Wales, but the delivery of these events occurs separately through another State agency or by the establishment of an event-specific entity. But winning the event is only one component of success. The Government and its industry partners must also promote and deliver events. These are the heavy lifting roles that are often carried out through Industry and Investment New South Wales, in particular State and regional development and tourism. Tourism New South Wales, a part of Industry and Investment New South Wales, already works with Events New South Wales and other industry partners to deliver marketing campaigns designed to generate awareness of the events on the master events calendar and to increase visitor numbers in New South Wales.

It makes sense to have the event capture, promotion and delivery all within the one portfolio. Event coordination will be enhanced at every stage. The highly successful Repco Rally, held in September last year, was an excellent example of State and Regional Development successfully delivering an event won by Events New South Wales. With these changes, the Government is sending a clear message to the world that New South Wales is open for events business. The events market is very competitive, and today the Government has signalled the start of a new approach that will see a proactive hands-on approach to winning new events for New South Wales. I am also pleased to inform the House that this morning the Premier announced the appointment of Mr John Conde as the new chair of Events New South Wales. Mr Conde is a highly respected business leader who brings a wealth of private sector and government experience to the organisation. Indeed, this morning at the business forum nearby Patricia Forsythe said that the choice of John Conde was an inspired one. I look forward to working with him and the Events New South Wales board.

Major events generate $500 million for New South Wales every year and provide huge entertainment value for families and communities. We look forward to securing and attracting more events and adding to our impressive list, which includes one of the world's great New Year's Eve celebrations; the nation's oldest and best film festival, which we expanded recently with a major contribution from Industry and Investment New South 21144 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

Wales; the nation's biggest and best writers festival; the nation's most popular and well-attended cultural event, the Sydney Festival; Breakfast on the Bridge; the Tamworth Country Music Festival; Bluesfest in Byron Bay; Sydney Telstra 500 V8 Supercars; and the Bathurst 1000. These are great events—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Great events!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: You have missed out on the Sydney V8s. A few of your people actually slipped in there to have a look at it, even though the Hon. Duncan Gay and others were banned from it. Under the new arrangements major government resources are coming together under the one portfolio, Major Events, and we are making it clear to events proponents that the New South Wales Government has a single focus. I look forward to updating the House on the success of these exciting events during the year.

BULLI COAL SEAM PROJECT

Ms LEE RHIANNON: My question is directed to the Minister for Planning. Given the media reports that the Minister or his department directed government agencies to give their witness statements to the Bulli Seam Planning Assessment Commission panel behind closed doors rather than at the public hearings held on 17 and 18 February, and given the Premier's commitment to greater openness in the planning process, will the Minister publicly release the minutes or transcripts of any private meetings held between the Bulli Seam Planning Assessment Commission, the Department of Environment and Climate Change, the Office of Water, the Department of Industry and Investment, Sydney Catchment Authority, the Dam Safety Committee and the Roads and Traffic Authority? If not, will the Minister instruct the Planning Assessment Commission to schedule another public hearing to allow those agencies to appear? Will the Minister also release the minutes or transcripts of the private meeting between the Planning Assessment Commission and BHP Billiton, or else invite BHP Billiton to also give evidence at a public hearing? If not, why not?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Illawarra Coal has lodged an application to extract up to 10.5 million tonnes of coal a year for up to 30 years from its existing Appin and West Cliff collieries north-west of Wollongong—

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: A huge number of jobs.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: It is a huge number of jobs—and to upgrade existing surface facilities at the mine to support the expanded operations. I will be the approval authority for the project under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The environmental assessment was exhibited publicly from 20 October to 2 December 2009. During that time the department received more than 50 submissions on the project from the public, special-interest groups and other government agencies. Illawarra Coal is currently preparing a response to these submissions.

To ensure that the project has an independent and rigorous assessment, I have asked the Planning Assessment Commission to review the potential subsidence-related impacts on significant natural features, built infrastructure and Sydney's drinking water catchment. The Planning Assessment Commission will be chaired by Dr Neil Shepherd, the former head of the Environment Protection Authority, and will include four highly regarded experts in the fields of subsidence, surface water, groundwater and resource valuation.

The appointment of these experts will ensure that the merits of the project are subjected to a rigorous technical assessment. The experts will carefully examine what impacts the project may have on the water quality of the Georges River and its creek systems. I can assure the House that I will not make a decision on the application until the Planning Assessment Commission has completed its review. I understand that Dr Neil Shepherd is getting some technical advice from some of the departmental people.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask the Minister for Planning a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer in the context of his submission that the Planning Assessment Commission's review of the impact of the subsidence on the water catchment is still being carried out, and will this information be publicly available?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I refer to the previous answer.

CROWN PROSECUTOR TENURE

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: My question without notice is directed to the Attorney General. Is it a fact that since he became the Attorney General in 2007 and removed tenure for new Crown Prosecutors there 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21145

has been a significant reduction in Crown Prosecutor establishment positions despite the significant increase in court time for criminal trials? Can the Attorney General assure the House that he will not further reduce the number of Crown Prosecutor establishment positions, and that he will he rule out replacing Crown Prosecutors with trial advocates?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: This question was comprehensively responded to in last year's estimates hearings. I do not know if the Hon. David Clarke was present at that hearing, but the answer is certainly a matter of record and I recommend that the honourable member refer to that answer.

INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Infrastructure. What action is the Government taking on infrastructure investment across New South Wales?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The New South Wales Local Infrastructure Fund was established by the Government last year as an interest-free loan scheme for councils, to bring forward essential local infrastructure projects that have been delayed due to a lack of funding. It was a very good announcement in the last budget and all the councils have warmly welcomed it. Applications for funding were called for in June 2009 and closed on 31 August 2009. There was considerable interest in the fund, with more than 100 applications being received seeking in excess of $500 million in funding.

An independent assessment panel assessed applications in accordance with the funding criteria set out in the funding guidelines. Councils were able to apply for funds for projects that supported urban development such as roads, water, sewerage and drainage. Projects must cost a minimum of $1 million and be completed within 18 months of receiving the loan. The interest-free loans will be provided for up to 10 years and repayments will need to occur at least annually.

I visited a number of councils that have received these grants and they have said, almost to a council, that it has brought forward development by up to 10 years in some cases. For example, in Tamworth the mayor suggested that it had brought forward developments in areas outside Tamworth by at least 10 years. That effectively means that development costs are halved and for people buying houses in those developments the infrastructure costs are reduced; therefore the blocks of land will be cheaper for them. With section 94 funds councils either had to borrow the money and then repay it through section 94 but pay interest on that money, or they had to wait for 10 years, during which time the cost doubled. All the councils have suggested to me that it has halved the cost of their development projects and in many case it has brought them forward by up to 10 years.

On 25 January the Premier announced the successful applicants—$170 million in loans to 33 councils for 37 projects. I am pleased to advise the House that 70 per cent of those loans were offered to regional areas. The fund is targeting high-population growth areas where new developments are underway or planned. This new infrastructure will trigger the construction of new housing and provide a secondary economic stimulus to the New South Wales housing market. These were projects that had to be completed within 18 months; they were projects for which councils had completed the design work—they were ready to go ahead—but for which councils did not have the money.

The Department of Planning is currently negotiating loan agreements with the successful councils, with project construction to commence in mid 2010. Local infrastructure projects that will be brought forward by the funding include $26 million for the West Dapto Access Strategy, which will provide infrastructure for new housing projects in the urban release area of West Dapto; $50.8 million for the Banora Point Waste Water Treatment Plant upgrade in the Tweed, which will service the expected increase in population in Tweed Heads and Banora Point; $12.7 million to upgrade the Nambucca Heads sewage treatment plant and pump stations, which will improve local sewerage services for future housing and population growth in the Nambucca Valley; $10.4 million for the Jardine Drive Detention Basin in Liverpool, which will bring forward the development of the Edmondson Park housing release area; and $8.7 million to upgrade the Batemans Bay sewage treatment plant to provide services for the Surf Beach Employment Land Business Park in Eurobodalla.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: Will the Minister elucidate his answer?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the Hon. Christine Robertson for her interest in country New South Wales. I also visited Ballina and saw the recycled water project— 21146 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What is happening at Coffs?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I visited the one at Coffs Harbour which is right next to the sportsground and looked at where the proposed development will occur on the hill, in conjunction with the Country Labor group who were all there that day on a visit.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: The four of them!

The Hon. TONY KELLY: No, there were 10 or a dozen of us at Coffs Harbour.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Name them!

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I will name them: the Hon. Michael Veitch, the Hon. Christine Robertson, the Hon. Lynda Voltz, the Hon. Greg Donnelly plus some members of the lower House and myself. I also visited Lismore where new wastewater trunk areas are being put in. This is a great project. These projects are crucial infrastructure investments. Their construction will provide an immediate local economic boost for water sewerage and drainage and roads projects worth more than $1 million for the local community. Fast-tracking this infrastructure will also support local jobs, provide an immediate local economic stimulus in the construction sector and lay the foundations— [Time expired.]

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

BARANGAROO REDEVELOPMENT

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Earlier I was asked by Ms Sylvia Hale a question about the approval of the Barangaroo Development and I invited her to ask me to elucidate but she did not. As that company made political donations to both major parties—I do not think it donated to the Greens—any changes to the concept plan will go to the Planning and Assessment Commission for its reference.

Questions without notice concluded.

[The President left the chair at 1.03 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Pursuant to sessional orders debate on committee reports proceeded with.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Committee Reports Order of the Day No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Linda Voltz, on behalf of the Hon. Kayee Griffin, and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

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

Report: Report on the Eleventh General Meeting with the Police Integrity Commission

Report: Report on the Fifteenth General Meeting with the Ombudsman

Debate resumed from 8 September 2009.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [2.31 p.m.]: On 21 May 2009 the committee met with the commissioner of the Police Integrity Commission and his executive officers for the eleventh general meeting. That was the second time that the committee had met with the commissioner during the Fifty-fourth Parliament. A number of issues were raised during the general meeting including Project Rhodium, which is the risk assessment that the Police Integrity Commission commissioned into the New South Wales Crime Commission. Oversight of the New South Wales Crime Commission is an important area and a new one to which the committee will pay close attention. Similarly, Project Marella was discussed. Project Marella will test the perception that student police officers trained in larger than usual classes are more likely to engage in misconduct once they become police officers than those trained in smaller classes. 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21147

The general meeting was dominated by issues raised in the inspector's special report to Parliament, the commission's Operation Alford, and the ongoing disagreement between the commission and the inspector regarding the complaint reports contained within the inspector's special report to Parliament. The crux of the dispute between the commission and the inspector seems to be the application of a judicial standard of procedural fairness to a commission of inquiry. Each of the complaints upheld by the inspector turn on the obligation of the commission to provide procedural fairness to witnesses called before it.

As previous committee reports have noted, the Police Integrity Commission is not a judicial body. The rules of evidence do not apply to it, nor is it able to make findings of guilt or innocence. As such, the rules of procedural fairness in relation to the Police Integrity Commission's investigations and public hearings are not hard and fast. The Police Integrity Commissioner informed the committee that "the risk of harm or threat of damage to reputation is what triggers, essentially, the commission's obligations in relation to its hearings and reports". Both the commission and the inspector are independent of each other. There is space for disagreement to exist between them without adversely affecting the operations of either.

Despite some disagreements between the inspector and the commission, by and large a cooperative relationship exists between the two agencies. However, should a situation of serious conflict arise, clarification can and should be sought from the Supreme Court. The committee does not play the role of adjudicator in conflicts between the commission and the inspector. However, the committee does have the power to monitor and review the functions of both the commission and the inspector. The committee resolved to conduct an inquiry into the way in which complaints made against the commission are examined and into the procedures in place between the commission and the inspector.

On 21 May 2009 the committee also held its fifteenth general meeting with the New South Wales Ombudsman. Again, that was the second time that the committee met with the Ombudsman during the Fifty-fourth Parliament. Two matters arose from that general meeting, to which I will draw the attention of members. The first matter concerns the Ombudsman's access to official visitors to correctional centres. The official visitors make unannounced visits to correctional centres as a way of independently monitoring the conditions and practices at those centres.

The Department of Corrective Services used to supply the Ombudsman's Office with the contact details for all official visitors. Now, on the basis of privacy concerns, the Commissioner for Corrective Services has issued a directive that the general managers of correctional centres are to facilitate the Ombudsman's contact with the official visitors. This has resulted in greatly reduced contact between the Ombudsman and the official visitors. The Ombudsman can no longer raise grievances with the official visitors that may be best dealt with by them and can no longer speak to the official visitors before visiting prisons. This makes it difficult for the Ombudsman's officers to acquire an understanding of current issues or find out which inmates may benefit from an interview.

The Ombudsman has suggested a number of ways in which official visitors' privacy could be respected while allowing the Ombudsman access to their contact details. As matters stand, the Ombudsman has no way of directly contacting the official visitors. The committee intends to write to the Minister for Corrective Services to ask him to rectify this matter.

The second matter arising from the fifteenth general meeting concerns legal professional privilege. Under section 21 of the New South Wales Ombudsman Act claims of legal professional privilege can prevent the Ombudsman from gaining access to documents held by a public sector agency. At the previous general meeting in March 2008 the Ombudsman gave evidence to the committee that in some cases claims of legal professional privilege were made to obstruct his investigations. Having considered the concerns that the Ombudsman had raised, the committee wrote to the Premier and the Attorney General in October 2008, drawing attention to certain matters.

The letter stated that the New South Wales Ombudsman is the only Ombudsman in Australia who can be refused access to documents by public sector agencies on the basis of legal professional privilege; the Police Integrity Commission and the Independent commission Against Corruption are not prevented from accessing any class of document; and the situation is anomalous with the Ombudsman Act as legal professional privilege cannot be claimed in relation to freedom of information investigations. The committee's letter requested that consideration be given to an amendment to remove the legal professional privilege exemption from the Ombudsman Act. 21148 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

The committee understands that amendments to legislation need careful consideration. The committee will write again to the Premier and the Attorney General to raise these matters, and is looking forward to a full and prompt response. In conclusion, I express my thanks to the Ombudsman and his staff and also to the Police Integrity Commission and its staff for the information they have provided. I also thank the members of the committee for their participation in the general meetings and their contributions to the reporting process. The committee's reports are consensus documents that represent the bipartisan and constructive approach taken by members of the committee in the exercise of their oversight role.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [2.38 p.m.]: The eleventh general meeting with the Commissioner of the Police Integrity Commission and his executive officers was held on 21 May 2009. That was the second time that the committee had met with the commissioner during the Fifty-fourth Parliament. As with previous general meetings the committee sent questions on notice to the commissioner about matters raised in the commission's annual report for the year ended June 2008. Some questions were asked on a confidential basis, as they dealt with certain aspects of some complaint reports by the inspector of the Police Integrity Commission, which, at that time, were not on the public record. The inspector subsequently tabled those reports to Parliament as part of his special report pursuant to section 101 of the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996.

At the meeting a number of issues were discussed, including Project Rhodium, which is the risk assessment that the Police Integrity Commission commissioned of the New South Wales Crime Commission. The meeting was dominated by issues raised in the inspector's special report to Parliament, the commission's Operation Alford and the ongoing disagreement between the commission and the inspector regarding two of the complaint reports contained within the inspector's special report to Parliament. The dispute between the commission and the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission seems to be about application of a judicial standard of procedural fairness to a commission of inquiry.

As both the commission and the inspector are independent of each other it seems there is space for disagreement to exist between them without adversely affecting the operation of either. The committee has the power to monitor and review the functions of both the commission and the inspector and, as such, the committee has resolved to conduct an inquiry into the way that complaints made against the commission are examined and the procedures in place between the commission and the inspector to enable this.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [2.40 p.m.]: As a member of the committee I am pleased to speak on the committee's report on the meetings with both the Inspector of the Police Integrity Commission and the Ombudsman. In particular, the issues we raised in our discussions with the Ombudsman, which are highlighted in the Ombudsman's report, are matters of great concern. In his report the Ombudsman points out that his office has had yearly efficiency dividends of 1 per cent applied to the budget, effectively reducing the budget by more than $1.4 million over the past seven years. It seems to me that the efficiency of the Office of the Ombudsman should be measured by the number of complaints that it is able to resolve, either by dismissing them or investigating them and determining just what has happened. Reducing the budget of the Office of the Ombudsman by an arbitrary 1 per cent hamstrings its ability to carry out the work that is expected of it. Indeed, in order to manage those constraints, the Ombudsman has had to reduce the staff and now works with two fewer assistant ombudsmen than are desirable. As I said before, if you wish to hobble complaints and prevent timely investigation of complaints, the easiest way to do it is to refuse to provide the Ombudsman with adequate financial resources.

Another way to prevent complaints from being properly investigated, and Ms Linda Voltz referred to this in her remarks, is to deny the Ombudsman access to either the records he requires or the people that he needs to talk to. I refer specifically to the refusal of the Department of Corrective Services to provide the Ombudsman with contact details for official visitors. As members know, this Parliament has done away with the Office of the Inspector General of Prisons. The whole point of that office was to be independent of the department and the Government and to allow proper scrutiny of what was happening in the prison system. However, the Government, when it did away with the Office of the Inspector General of Prisons, gave an undertaking that there would be proper oversight, in the form of the Ombudsman, and that that would be one of the Ombudsman's duties. Failing to give the Ombudsman details of prison visitors really frustrates that purpose and intent.

Prison visitors are individuals who voluntarily meet prisoners to hear their complaints and they are justified in drawing those complaints to the notice of the prison authorities. Yet one prison visitor who had worked in the prisons for many years suddenly found that her commission as an official visitor was withdrawn without any reasons being advanced. In her view she was no longer endorsed as an official visitor because she 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21149

was raising issues that the prison authorities did not wish to know about. That is in the context where both juvenile detention centres and conventional correctional centres are massively overcrowded and there is massive expenditure of funds. Prison numbers are escalating and the latest Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research figures suggest there has been a 20 per cent increase in the number of prisoners in correctional centres over the past decade. We are spending vast sums of money on keeping people in prison, so surely we need some form of independent oversight. We need to facilitate that oversight by empowering the Ombudsman to have access to people and also by empowering people such as official visitors to convey their concerns to the appropriate authorities.

As the Ombudsman said at page 81 of his report, "Transparency is vital to the health of any correctional system." It is well worth drawing to the attention of the House the Ombudsman's concern at the overcrowding in our juvenile justice centres. On page 77 of his report he said:

At times, juvenile justice centres are so overcrowded that they are declared 'closed' and unable to accept any more detainees from police custody. In some cases, this has resulted in young people being held at police stations for up to three days. The NSW Police Force charges the Department of Juvenile Justice for the costs of accommodating young people in these circumstances.

He goes on to say:

There is general agreement that changes to the Bail Act 1978 and proactive policing of compliance with bail conditions are contributing to the increase in the number of juvenile detainees—and research by the Bureau for Crime Statistics and Research confirms this.

It was particularly worrying to read a report in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald about what is happening in our juvenile detention centres. The expectation is that within two years, if the rates of detention continue to climb, we will have to spend $300 million on building yet another detention centre. That comes on top of the extra major prison facility for adult offenders that will have to be built every two years to accommodate the increasing numbers of such offenders. This is a pointless process. Rather than saving money by rehabilitating people, the Government is locking up more and more of them at an increasingly young age. In the case of juvenile offenders it is not so much because of the crimes they initially commit but because they violate the bail conditions attached to their not being held in a detention centre. They are being detained for secondary reasons rather than for their initial criminal act. Inability to comply with their bail conditions may often result from the fact that they are homeless and come from dysfunctional families. If the condition of bail is that they be in the company of a member of the family at all times but a family member fails to turn up to meet the child when school finishes and the child is seen standing unaccompanied at a bus stop, it is the child who bears the brunt of that failure to comply with the bail condition. He then ends up in a juvenile detention centre.

It is particularly worrying that the Department of Juvenile Justice has apparently prepared a report into the state of our juvenile detention centres, which was referred to in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald, but that report is still confidential. I understand it is a scathing assessment of what has been happening, but it has not been made public. What is the purpose of the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and Police Integrity Commission? We cannot investigate any of the complaints that are made or in any way interfere with any determinations made by the Ombudsman. All we can do is draw attention to the deficiencies highlighted in the reports of the Police Integrity Commission or the Office of the Ombudsman. Those reports—in particular, those that highlight individual cases to exemplify problems that are being encountered—should be obligatory reading for every member of this Parliament.

Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES

Report: Homelessness and Low-cost Rental Accommodation

Debate resumed from 24 September 2009.

The Hon. IAN WEST [2.51 p.m.]: The Minister for Housing, Minister for Western Sydney, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport and Roads, the Hon. David Borger, referred to the Standing Committee on Social Issues the inquiry into policies and programs outside mainstream public housing that are being implemented to reduce homelessness and increase low-cost rental accommodation for key workers. In 21150 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

September 2009 the committee reported to this House. The terms of reference required the committee to examine ways to reduce homelessness and increase rental accommodation for key workers outside mainstream public housing. However, the committee found itself in a position where it was unable to quarantine public housing from its considerations, as public housing is an essential part of the mix of social housing.

Housing NSW is the largest provider of social housing in Australia, with a portfolio of over 130,000 dwellings. Evidence shows there is a continuum of need for housing that reaches right across the housing sector to address requirements effectively in the whole of the housing sector. The committee's inquiry focused on the availability of affordable rental accommodation as a means of reducing homelessness and addressing the needs of key workers. The committee recognised that policies aimed at reducing homelessness must also address the underlying cause of homelessness and prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place, particularly in relation to domestic violence. The report does not seek to provide all the answers to every issue, especially those relating to short-term acute housing needs.

The inquiry was not directed towards primary homelessness; rather, it related more specifically to secondary homelessness where the lack of affordable housing in appropriate locations has a major impact on tenants and the wider community. In response to the call for submissions, the committee received 66 submissions to the inquiry. It received submissions from major stakeholders, including the New South Wales Government, various local governments, community groups, non-government organisations and, obviously, a number of important and interested individuals. During the initial stages of the inquiry the committee received a briefing from Mr Michael Newey, Group Executive of the Broadland Housing Association in the United Kingdom. Mr Newey specialises in social housing policy, corporate governance, business management and strategy development. Mr Newey's briefing to the committee was extremely informative and provided a valuable comparison of the Australian model, predominantly of the public provision of social housing compared with the developments that were occurring in the United Kingdom in regard to the community housing sector, et cetera.

The committee conducted six public hearings. It heard from a total of 36 witnesses from 32 organisations, and key witnesses from Housing NSW appeared before the committee on more than one occasion. Members of the committee visited City West Housing Pty Ltd at Pyrmont in Sydney to speak with several tenants and the general manager of City West Housing. The model employed by City West Housing is considered throughout the report and, as we know, is the subject of a bill that was presented in this place yesterday by Parliamentary Secretary the Hon. Mick Veitch. The committee also viewed the premises firsthand and was able to see the quality of housing provided for tenants by City West Housing. The history of social housing in Australia, and in New South Wales in particular, is extremely relevant because it outlines the changing nature of public housing, its purpose and how it relates to tenants, providing a context for understanding the contemporary issues and responses that are being made by various instrumentalities, authorities, governments, et cetera across the length and breadth of Australia and the globe.

The Housing Board of New South Wales was established in 1912 to provide homes for working families. In the 1940s the New South Wales Housing Commission was established and more than 12,000 homes were built. In the post-war reconstruction of the 1950s the focus moved to housing for returned soldiers as well as traditional working families. Although it currently provides rental accommodation for people on very low incomes, public housing was not originally envisaged as a welfare program. Previously, although there was provision for lower rents for people on low incomes, public housing aimed to create an affordable and secure base from which tenants could build or rebuild their lives. Living in a stable environment enabled people to take up work, to build assets for their families and to become self-sufficient.

In the 1960s high-rise apartments were erected and broadacre developments were established in areas such as Minto, Macquarie Fields, Green Valley and Mount Druitt, and with increased demand during the 1970s public housing became more targeted. Eligibility became means tested and soon after placements were prioritised on the basis of relative need. Over the next few decades the definition of "relative need" became very interesting. In the early 1980s applicants for public housing had changed from the typical nuclear working-class family to single people, sole parents, homeless and older people, and people with disabilities. From late 1987 onwards, single people and people needing support services to live independently became eligible for public housing for the first time. Demand from pensioner and other beneficiary groups continued to increase throughout the 1980s and demand was further increased by deinstitutionalisation, which created an increase in the number of people needing support to live independently.

The community housing sector was established in the 1980s with the commencement in 1982 of the Community Tenant Scheme and in 1984 of the Local and Community Housing Program. Originally, community 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21151

housing was viewed as a temporary transitional arrangement for people waiting for public housing. But, over time, due to the increased demand for public housing and the lack of capacity within the public sector to provide a range of accommodation options and support services, community housing has become an alternative to public housing. Over the 10 years from 1997 to 2007 Commonwealth Government contributions to the States for public housing fell by 24 per cent, leading in 2008 to a $3.1 billion decline in investment. As a result there has been a decline in public housing stock. The Department of Premier and Cabinet identified potential links between the New South Wales framework and the State Plan and in 2009, during the inquiry, the New South Wales Government released "A Way Home: Reducing Homelessness in NSW—NSW Homelessness Action Plan 2009-2014."

During the inquiry a number of new initiatives were introduced at State and Federal levels, many of which indicated changes in the approach by all governments to addressing the housing and support needs of homeless people and those of low- and moderate-income households, including key workers and the communities they serve. These changes were led by the release in December 2008 of the Australian Government's white paper, "The Road Home: A national approach to reducing homelessness." This paper, in conjunction with intergovernmental agreements, including the National Affordable Housing Agreement and the Australian Government's Social Housing Initiative under the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan, signalled the introduction of the national approach to reducing homelessness.

The new approach is based on increasing the capacity of the community housing sector to provide more housing for those on low and moderate incomes. The committee was unable to comment on the effectiveness of a number of new initiatives as little evidence of their success or otherwise was available at the time. However, the committee's recommendations reflect the developments. The committee heard evidence about the need for a strategic long-term whole-of-government approach to address the housing requirements of low- to moderate-income households and to decrease the number of homeless people. Many of the committee's 17 recommendations address the need for long-term assessment of the effectiveness of the current initiatives and the need to tailor them to meet the requirements of local communities and provide adequate targeted resources to enable implementation and ongoing assessment of outcomes.

The committee heard repeatedly that a house is not a home and that it is a fundamental right of all people to have access to food, clothing and shelter. But this is not enough. People are also required to have access to education, employment and a safe and healthy environment. As the Prime Minister has stated on numerous occasions, along with many other State and Federal members of Parliament from both sides of the House, homelessness is everyone's responsibility. To provide a place where tenants can create a home it is essential for the government and non-government sectors to work together cooperatively to address their needs. This inquiry took place during a time of change and when many new initiatives at State and Federal levels were announced. The committee is pleased to see much-needed resources being allocated to affordable housing.

A number of recurring themes are long-running issues in the community housing sector and were also raised by the committee during its 2003 deliberations. In September 2001 the committee—comprising the chair, Jan Burnswoods; deputy chair, the Hon. Doug Moppett; Arthur Chesterfield-Evans; Amanda Fazio and me— commenced its inquiry into public housing. I am sure Jan Burnswoods will be pleased to hear that the Housing Amendment (Community Housing Providers) Bill 2010 has been introduced as it was a fundamental recommendation of that inquiry. The Hon. Doug Moppett was a person of the highest integrity and someone for whom I had the greatest respect. I used to marvel at his ability to make speeches without notes; his mastery of the English language was unbelievable. In the short time I served with him on the committee I realised how much I and the rest of the committee had to learn from a master of this House.

Recurring themes in the 2003 report include the need for housing providers to have the capacity to develop a balance sheet from which they can operate a sustainable organisation and to have title to properties— an issue that this bill addresses. The committee determined that these recurring issues can best be addressed through developing an overarching framework for the provision of affordable housing supported by the implementation of a local identification and implementation of solutions system. I thank everyone involved in preparing the report: the committee members and the secretariat. I look forward to hearing the response from the Government by the end of this month. I commend the report to the House.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [3.05 p.m.]: Clearly, the matters dealt with by the Standing Committee on Social Issues were of the utmost importance. They involved a number of recurring themes that have been the subject of previous inquiries and, indeed, the subject of discussion in this place from time to time. The extent of the problem in New South Wales is enormous. Day in and day out we see the enormity of the problem and its 21152 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

impact on people. It became clear early in our discussions that, essentially, there was no resolution to the affordable housing issue and no silver bullet to solve a problem that reflects at least partly the failure of government—putting aside politics as much as one can—over a lengthy period to address a number of important factors.

Let us examine what has become a catchphrase: the provision of affordable housing for key workers. It became clear to the committee that it is impossible to segment one or two sectors of the community or the workforce and say that they are key workers. We need our police officers, nurses and teachers to live close to their places of work, but one cannot construct a strategy that identifies their accommodation and ignores the hairdressers, shop attendants, waiters, bar staff and the like. Indeed, in some cases they need to be close to their employment for similar reasons, such as the hours they work and their low rates of pay.

If we construct a strategy based on the big government approach of simply fixing part of the problem— for example, housing nurses close to hospitals—we will create a form of apartheid and ignore large parts of our workforce. If we proceed in that way the strategy will fail. During the inquiry the committee also learned that the fundamental issue is not just whether we can provide affordable housing but that we need to do so in order to give people the opportunity to access other services. Despite wishing to avoid being in any way political, I point out that this throws up the shortcomings of public transport, for instance, throughout Sydney, Wollongong, Newcastle or in so many other places—even Tamworth, as I am sure the Hon. Michael Veitch would agree.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Maitland.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: The Hon. Robyn Parker mentions Maitland, where the Government's failure to provide adequate services, such as public transport, is well known. The Hon. Robyn Parker has made that point to me on numerous occasions. It is an issue close to her heart and is the subject of constant representations to her by Maitland residents. They have to go to the Hon. Robyn Parker for assistance instead of their absent local member. But I digress, and I must press on.

The Hon. Michael Veitch: Yes, please go on.

The Hon. Don Harwin: He has given up defending the indefensible and has reverted to being a prosecutor.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: I am still wondering how he will do that. A very interesting community housing model that is endorsed throughout the report is City West Housing. The evidence provided by representatives of that organisation was compelling not only because of the way in which the evidence was presented but also because of the very substance of the evidence. The City West Housing model demonstrates that a relatively small organisation that is focused on outcomes, particularly when that is coupled with a significant degree of humanity and technical expertise—

The Hon. Michael Veitch: In its governance.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: —in its governance, as the Hon. Michael Veitch says—is able to provide a standard of community housing that has not been provided previously by any other model, or has been provided by relatively few similar organisations in New South Wales. The City West Housing model provides a template for organisations that one hopes will emerge as a result of legislation so ably introduced yesterday by the Hon. Michael Veitch. I make the observation that the devolution of responsibility and management to a low level is regarded as a model for future projects. That point is made throughout the report. But at the very time the committee and the Government through its introduction of the bill have identified that as the way forward, public housing planning powers have been taken from local councils, resulting in considerable distortion of the type of accommodation that is being constructed throughout the city and the State. One has only to cite Maitland as an example of public housing that does not provide adequate parking or adequate floor space ratios anywhere close to what would be regarded as appropriate to appreciate that type of distortion. Considerable community disharmony has been created by adopting that approach.

Again, I make the point that I do not wish to be political, but it seems that the Government talks the talk, but is incapable of walking the walk. When the time comes for the Government to finally attempt to make a decision, all process disappears out the window and all capacity to deal with local communities evaporates. Instead we witness its adoption of a heavy-handed, clumsy and centralised approach. As the Hon. Robyn Parker has pointed out time and again, that leads to problems in local communities that so easily could be avoided by just a little bit of discussion and a little bit of listening. Indeed, the Hon. Robyn Parker demonstrates admirably the correct approach as she goes about her business of representing the people of Maitland. 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21153

In the short time that remains for my speech, I will move on to discuss two other important matters. The evidence the committee received demonstrated a vital need to examine the provision of accommodation in boarding houses. There was a diversity of opinion with regard to the way forward. However, I was impressed by the evidence given by representatives of the City of Sydney council, including Ms Clover Moore and her articulate explanation of the effects of the loss of boarding house accommodation in Sydney and the problems that has created with regard to homelessness. The matter plainly must be addressed in a compassionate and thoughtful way—if that is possible for the Government. Again, I make that observation without wishing to be political.

The second issue I will address is caravan parks, about which evidence was rather limited. One hopes that the Minister will take up the committee's recommendation that caravan parks become the subject of an inquiry. Caravan parks provide affordable housing and crisis accommodation. The loss of appropriate caravan park or mobile home accommodation can lead only to more homelessness in our society. Although it is not the best type of accommodation, it provides a roof over a person's head, which is better than that person sleeping in the park. Having made those apolitical remarks, I conclude my speech.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.15 p.m.]: In joining in discussion of report No. 42 of the Standing Committee on Social Issues, "Homelessness and Low-cost Rental Accommodation", I too will adopt an apolitical approach—which will be difficult as my contribution follows that made by the Hon. Trevor Khan. The committee's work on this report is the result of its having received 66 submissions from government, non-government and community organisations and individuals who are service providers involved in the provision of rental accommodation. The committee held six public hearings and heard evidence from 32 different organisations. The committee undertook one site visit to the City West Housing complex at Pyrmont. I will focus my remarks on that site visit which, of all the site visits I have undertaken during my short time in Parliament as a member of a number of committees, proved to be one of the most interesting visits I have undertaken. It was interesting not because we sat in a boardroom and spoke to management staff or directors of the organisation but because the tenants allowed us to inspect some of their units and become familiar with the standard of the accommodation in their complex. It was amazing to see the pride the tenants have in their accommodation. It is from that perspective that I suggest the City West Housing model is one that should be replicated. I know that the other committee members were equally as impressed as I was with the City West Housing model.

The other model examined by the committee is Common Ground, which has not been referred to in detail during previous contributions to this discussion but which is a very interesting model. A site visit was not possible, but Common Ground is a housing model that originated in New York. It provides permanent long-term supportive housing. The model particularly targets chronically homeless people as well as key workers, as defined so capably by the Hon. Trevor Khan during his address, and people who receive low incomes. It houses a mix of tenants across a range of ages, gender and marital statuses, such as single, de facto or otherwise. The strength of the model lies in the support services it provides. It is fair to say that the crucial component of Common Ground is its support services—something that is often missing in community housing complexes throughout the world.

In addition to housing stock, other services—support and wraparound services—also need to be provided. The Common Ground model includes the provision of a concierge to support vulnerable tenants who otherwise would not feel safe. An important factor in the provision of low-cost affordable housing is that the occupiers must feel safe and secure in the environment in which they live. It would appear from information the committee received relating to Common Ground that that is what this model provides. The Hon. Trevor Khan and the Hon. Ian West referred to caravan and residential parks. Language presents a problem because some people include residential parks in the term "caravan parks". For the sake of correct interpretation, I point out that the committee's report refers to caravan parks as encompassing residential parks. The committee states in recommendation No. 16 that the Minister for Fair Trading should conduct an inquiry to examine issues raised by the committee's report in relation to caravan and residential parks.

The committee was told that while caravan and residential parks may not be an ideal form of housing, many people who live in caravan and residential parks find it acceptable, with the caveat that in most cases it is not appropriate for crisis accommodation. The report states:

Mr Macfie, agreed that for some, caravan parks were a highly acceptable housing choice:

… we should be respectful of the fact that a significant number of people do make their homes in residential parks, in caravan parks. Many of them regard it as home and they are very proud of their homes there. 21154 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

Ms Cripps, also distinguished between those residents of caravan/residential parks who choose to locate there, and those who rely on caravan/residential parks for crisis accommodation:

There are two communities that we need to think about. There are people who choose to retire to caravan parks and they have their own fixed environment and that is their house, and lovely, good on them, then there are people who through being homeless end up being placed in caravan parks or seeking caravan parks as a short-term or temporary measure whilst their issues are sorted through and alternate accommodation is sourced.

People do reside in caravan parks; they purchase a mobile home or a residential cabin. However, the concern is that they could be caught in a poverty trap. The committee resolved that that is the crux of the issue and recommended a further inquiry to look into that concern. With good intentions, people buy a caravan or residential cabin and then find that the equity in their purchase depletes rapidly. Another issue is that they do not own the land upon which they reside. Caravan park owners can sell at any time without consulting park residents, and should this happen the park residents would lose their place of residence. That cannot be a good situation. Indeed, committee members were perplexed by that. Evidence that we heard from a number of caravan park tenants challenged our thought processes about the dollars and cents involved in calculating such equity based decisions.

This was an outstanding and challenging inquiry in which to be involved, and I congratulate the Hon. Ian West on his chairmanship of it. At times we heard extremely sad evidence, and it would probably be an understatement to suggest that some people were embarrassed about their situations. There were many difficult scenarios for us to work through. The Hon. Ian West prepared a constructive questioning routine and was able to draw the committee together for long enough to craft an excellent report. The committee members were extremely busy, and from time to time some of us were exercising our minds on other important matters. I extend my appreciation to Hansard and the committee secretariat for their assistance during the inquiry.

I acknowledge the ability of my fellow committee members, who heard many sad stories, to cut through many of the issues so that we could stick to the terms of reference. I trust I have not been too subtle in saying that. We tended to wander from the terms of reference during our questioning of witnesses at public hearings, and I was constantly amazed by the ability of the Hon. Ian West to bring us back to the point. On a number of occasions we were off on a tangent—on a line of questioning we should not have been. I concur with the statement in the report that it is absolutely necessary to provide a home, not a house. That people should live in a home resonates with me. A house must be a home, it must be safe and it must be secure. People must have an association with and attachment to the place in which they reside. I echo the words of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, when he said, "It is everyone's responsibility to reduce homelessness."

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA [3.24 p.m.]: I begin by thanking our committee chair, the Hon. Ian West, my parliamentary colleagues and the committee secretariat of Rachel Simpson, Glenda Baker, Kate Harris and Lynn Race for their sustained professionalism, diligence and patience. This inquiry into homelessness and the provision of low-cost rental accommodation received sixty-six submissions, conducted seven public hearings and, as other honourable members have mentioned, undertook one most informative and heartening site visit to the inner-city model of affordable housing, City West Housing in Pyrmont. There we met with tenants and saw firsthand what can be accomplished when physical and social infrastructure is planned and managed well. Indeed, it is a place where tenants are able to create a home and participate in the local community. Learning from this model, we should aim for the creation of cohesive communities that will be sustainable in the long term.

It is acknowledged that while the Federal Government controls key policy and resource areas our State Government can do more to ensure that resources are better targeted with regard to local needs. Increased provision of socially and physically well-planned affordable housing is a key issue for our State's future growth. What is required is a change in approach to address the chronic problem of people in housing stress. Public housing stock continues to be at unacceptably low levels, with waiting lists, which include people with high needs, extending many years. The proportion of our community at risk of homelessness is steadily increasing due in part to high levels of rent in the private market that can be met only by people accessing suitable jobs. What is required is a coordinated response across Federal, State and local governments, as well as between government and non-government housing providers.

The not-for-profit sector is working well with limited resources, and it should be congratulated and encouraged by the Government providing improved policy and service coordination into the future. Investing in the not-for-profit sector so that it can better leverage funds to increase housing stock, over and above what the Government can provide, should be encouraged. That is why it is disappointing that barriers to this process were identified back in 2003, and there has been no progress in giving housing providers title for the properties they manage and no strategies have been developed that allow housing providers to better leverage funding for investments. 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21155

The Hon. Michael Veitch: We passed the Housing Amendment (Community Housing Providers) Bill yesterday.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: That is true; we are taking steps in that direction. That was long overdue, and thankfully we are coming to the point at which we can allow housing providers to better leverage funding for investments. A strong regulatory process would give more security to tenants, investors and government. All parties would stand to gain from the sustainable models that operate in Victoria and, to a larger extent, in the United Kingdom. Positive planning strategies will enable local solutions to be developed. The New South Wales Department of Planning needs to work closely with our regional organisations of councils and councils such as Liverpool City and the City of Sydney, which have shown a desire to increase sustainable stocks of affordable housing for their local communities.

We need to avoid the mistakes of the past where pockets of disadvantage and a lack of proper infrastructure and services have resulted in social disharmony. Affordable housing stock needs to be located close to employment, public transport, and educational facilities, and scattered throughout mixed income communities for social and economical long-term success. I believe the committee's recommendations are practical and overdue, starting with specific affordable housing targets as part of the New South Wales State Plan. Housing New South Wales, in collaboration with the not-for-profit sector, will be encouraged to conduct a mid-term review of the National Rental Affordability Scheme to ensure its effectiveness and sustainability. Housing New South Wales should commit to a firm time frame for the transfer of title to community housing providers.

Treasury, together with Housing New South Wales, should undertake a feasibility study into the introduction of a shared-equity scheme where the primary objective is to increase home ownership amongst lower income households capable of sustaining a modest mortgage. Suitable housing estates can be identified with the Department of Planning. Thus this shared equity initiative can assist in urban renewal to turn around areas of social disadvantage, together with Living Communities projects and the Building Stronger Communities strategy. We call on the Treasurer to make representations to his Federal counterpart for the retention of the public benevolent institutional status of not-for-profit providers and associated taxation concessions. Housing New South Wales needs to work with its interstate counterparts towards a national regulatory framework to achieve consistency between States in reducing red tape and increasing investment across borders, covering all forms of affordable housing, including boarding houses and caravan and residential parks.

This framework needs to include corporate governance for housing providers to be able to access tax benefits currently applied to public benevolent institutions with charitable status. This governance should include greater tenant participation. Initiatives such as inclusionary zoning have had a mixed reception from local government. Nevertheless, they should be investigated, along with common ground type developments by the Department of Planning, New South Wales Health and regional local government bodies, as a means of increasing housing stock with the necessary support structures.

Housing NSW should place greater emphasis upon social cohesion programs and provide greater flexibility with regard to the eligibility criteria for community housing, resulting in a broader social mix with target percentages for each income households—very low, low, and moderate. International experience has shown this mix to be sustainable in the long term with resultant development of stronger communities. With more and more boarding houses closing because of their redevelopment potential, and the negative effect this is having on tenants, the committee recommended that Housing NSW undertake a review of boarding houses to ascertain what, if any, financial incentives and assistance is required for owners to remain as providers into the future and to investigate ways of protecting the tenancy rights of boarders.

Furthermore, on the issue of caravan and residential parks, with redevelopment displacing many pensioners who are tenants and those who remain experiencing the hardship of rising site fees, the committee recommends that the Minister for Fair Trading refer a stand-alone inquiry into the appropriateness of the use of such stock as affordable housing so that all the complexities that the committee discovered can be properly examined. We commend our committee's report to the Government with the heartfelt desire that its recommendations be adopted to increase the level of affordable housing, so that more individuals and families in New South Wales can ultimately reside in dwellings that feel more like homes and can be part of a community that cares.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.32 p.m.]: I will briefly comment on some of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Social Issues report entitled "Homelessness and Low-cost Rental Accommodation". 21156 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

I firstly congratulate the committee members and staff on their work and this report. With regard to recommendation 1, the Government should adopt affordable housing targets as part of its State Plan. It has, however, not done so despite the urgings of Professor Ed Blakely, one of the architects of the plan, and of many other people. The affordability situation in New South Wales is woeful.

The Greens recognise the efforts of the Commonwealth Government in terms of new spending on social housing and the National Rental Affordability Scheme, despite that scheme's imperfections. However, the effort must be maintained. Twenty thousand units of housing will not meet the needs of the 200,000 people who are on waiting lists nationally, nor will it meet the needs of the 750,000 households in this country that are currently experiencing housing stress. But I am sure that everyone would agree that after 13 years of neglect by the Coalition it is a start. Recommendation 4 states that Housing NSW should commit to a firm time frame to implement its policy for the transfer of title to community housing, and such a move is now coming to fruition.

Recommendation 11 concerns inclusionary zoning, but unfortunately that is still as far as from implementation as ever. Many councils would like to be able to levy for affordable housing purposes but every time this suggestion has been put to a succession of Planning Ministers over the past 15 years the result has been the same. We have only a handful of permitted schemes in New South Wales and one of them, the City West Scheme, was set up a very long time ago when Brian Howe was the Federal housing Minister. Since then nothing of real significance has taken place. The Property Council dislikes inclusionary zoning, and I think we need look no further for an explanation as to why recommendation 11 is unlikely to be implemented widely.

Recommendation 12 concerns the finding of a site for a common ground housing facility for homeless people. That is about to be implemented and a facility is to be built in Camperdown. It is unfortunate, however, that the needs and wishes of the residents of the adjoining Department of Housing block, the Joanna O'Dea Court, are being overlooked in the process. Recommendation 14 concerns programs promoting social cohesion for housing estate tenants. I believe much more work has to be put in before that recommendation can be implemented, but it is not an impossible situation. I note, for example, the work being done in Redfern-Waterloo in bringing Indigenous people into the workforce via apprenticeships in the building trades and training in catering and hospitality. We must engage more people in work or at least in meaningful activity. Why do we have people living in poverty on housing estates? Should we simply accept that as the way things are, or should we reconsider how we try to include people in society?

With regard to recommendation 16 the Greens are of the view that we need to give consideration to residential parks. Closures of parks and escalating site rents are hurting many people who have no alternative sources of accommodation. Such parks provide an important source of affordable housing and, equally, an important sense of community. I think anyone who has anything to do with residents of residential parks can testify to their great value in terms of social capital. The Greens have advocated for resident-run and resident-owned residential parks as an alternative to leaving park residents to the mercy of private operators who may decide to focus on the more lucrative manufactured home end of the market and thus ignore the needs of lower income earners. Recently I met residents of parks who spoke of their awareness of how the situation is deteriorating for many people.

Recommendation 17 refers to protecting the tenancy rights of boarders. The reality is that in New South Wales boarders have no rights to protect. The Minister for Fair Trading has indicated that this will not be part of the residential tenancies bill that is due to come before us this parliamentary session. Indeed, there is nothing in the draft exposure bill that changes the current position in any way. This is extraordinarily disappointing, given that boarders and lodgers do have some legislated rights in Victoria and in the Australian Capital Territory. Overall, and that having been said, we are seeing real improvements in the approach to housing and homelessness nationally and in this State. I acknowledge the commitment of the Prime Minister and the Federal housing Minister, and this State's Minister for Housing. The Greens believe that they are genuinely moving ahead to provide more new social and affordable housing and that this is long overdue after a period of extreme neglect. That said, I remind members that there are still 105,000 homeless people and 750,000 households in housing stress. We need to recognise housing as an essential need, rather than as a commodity. All people need, and are entitled to, a roof over their heads.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.38 p.m.]: In contributing to the debate on the report on "Homelessness and low cost rental accommodation" produced by the Standing Committee on Social Issues I acknowledge the comments of my colleague Ms Sylvia Hale, who, over the past five or six years, has provided the Greens with both intellectual leadership and a great source of ideas on housing and homelessness. I also acknowledge the excellent work of her staff. The best I can do is echo some of her comments. All sides of politics are belatedly 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21157

recognising that there are major problems with the housing market that simply will not solve themselves without some degree of intervention. Private rentals and private home ownership are straining to meet demand, with escalating costs and increasing numbers of households finding themselves in housing stress.

My colleagues on the committee have addressed the issue of key workers. Those who keep our economy and our society functioning are slowly being squeezed out of areas where they can find employment, and increasingly this is playing out as a transport problem. There is no question that conurbations such as Sydney are grinding to a halt, as more and more people need to travel greater distances to get from where they can afford to purchase a home, or even rent accommodation, to a place where they can find work. That not only is environmentally unsustainable and economically very expensive; it also puts enormous strain on families and households as people spend more and more of their lives caught in traffic jams.

The third and key ingredient of this issue is homelessness. The Australian Bureau of Statistics probably grossly underestimates, not with ill will but because of its data collection mechanism, that there are 27,000 homeless people in New South Wales—that is, about 42 in every 10,000 people do not have a home to sleep in tonight. In the city of Sydney that figure rises to as high as 133 people in every 10,000. It is a sign of progress in Australian politics that the debate about homelessness, on all sides of politics—and I acknowledge the role that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd played in advancing his cause—has become more sophisticated and more concerned with the individual plights of each homeless person. It is heartening that society has reached a level of maturity and self-awareness that has commonly accepted that homelessness is unacceptable and must be resolved.

However, there is another side to this, and that relates to the marginally housed. And I do mean just those who live in caravan parks and boarding houses with a high degree of insecurity as the underlying capital value of where they live rises and there is more development pressure on their homes, but I refer also to those in rental accommodation who experience extreme rental stress and wonder how they will be able to pay their rent tomorrow. In all sectors it is always the most marginal within society who suffer. Amongst homeless people and those who are in marginal housing, indigenous Australians are appallingly overrepresented. Also there is a gross overrepresentation of people with mental health issues and drug dependency issues, and commonly both. The problems confronting those who would address the issues of housing and homelessness are many and cover a broad spectrum. They involve not only the provision of physical housing and services but also how to deal with issues associated with people who no longer fit into an increasingly complex and competitive society.

Underlying all of this is the change in the role of public housing. Decades ago public housing was a major player in the market, catering for the needs of blue-collar workers. It has now become a residualised service for the most disadvantaged; many are extremely disadvantaged and cannot access public housing units. Part of that results from a massive reduction in public investment in proportion to both the gross domestic product and population. It has resulted in a proportionate reduction in the number of units available in public housing. The inquiry looked at a number of solutions, but one it did not entertain was the large-scale reinvestment of capital into public housing and a reinvention of the mission of public housing to serve the people for whom it provides homes.

It seems not to be in fashion nowadays to talk about public sector solutions to housing. I suspect that is largely based on ideology and on the electoral attractiveness of tax cutting. In this context tax cutting is purchasing the loyalty of middle-class swinging voters at the expense of some of society's most marginal individuals. The role of public provision seems to have been entirely dismissed. The focus on the committee's inquiry was largely on social housing. The not-for-profit sector has done a remarkable and high-quality job in filling the void left by the desertion of the public housing sector, and it has done an excellent job in particular levering capital on ownership of units to expand and to grow. Probably that job could also be done by the public sector if a more imaginative management structure were developed in public housing.

Social housing has been the focus of a large amount of Commonwealth cash and therefore it becomes important, as the committee recognised, to look carefully at the way in which the social housing sector is regulated. The committee looked at two specific issues, the first of which was providing governance. I pay credit to the Hon. Michael Veitch, who asked very insightful questions about governance, which informed much of the committee's thinking about the importance of governance in social housing to ensure that money is spent not only effectively but also with probity.

Another issue of particular importance in the view of the Greens is the creation of opportunities for tenants to be leading voices in decision-making in social housing. The committee heard hard, cold evidence of 21158 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

the United Kingdom experience, where such opportunities are created. Better decision-making is achieved when those who make the decisions are informed by those who are the direct recipients of the services provided. Also, informed decision-making improves the sense of ownership and engagement by those who live in social housing. The committee looked also at inclusionary zoning and recommended a study be conducted by the Department of Planning in conjunction with the regional organisations of councils. I suggest that that is probably unnecessary, given that the international experience already shows that using levies on new developments to provide cash for affordable housing is a highly effective way of maintaining a quality social mix within all areas.

In New South Wales we have the example at Pyrmont-Ultimo by City West Housing Pty Limited. It is not only very well run; it also receives large volumes of cash from levies on developments in the Pyrmont-Ultimo area. A couple of years ago my colleague Ms Sylvia Hale introduced a bill to achieve exactly this outcome: a comprehensive regime of inclusionary zoning in New South Wales. Of course, it was voted down with great enthusiasm by all sides of politics other than the Greens. It is good to know that the issue of inclusionary zoning, a very important mechanism—

The Hon. Trevor Khan: No doubt it was her normal superficial nonsense.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I acknowledge the interjection by Mr Trevor Khan that "No doubt it was then superficial nonsense".

The Hon. Trevor Khan: No, I said, "No doubt it was her normal superficial nonsense."

Dr JOHN KAYE: The member is now recognising that inclusionary zoning is an important issue that is back on the agenda, and that that is a positive thing. I, too, am trying not to be too political. The committee considered the issue of common ground. I support the recommendation of the committee to explore common ground. I too acknowledge the excellent work of the committee chair, Mr Ian West, who conducted the inquiry with an enormous degree of dignity, integrity and compassion for those from whom the committee heard evidence. He kept us on the straight and narrow; a very difficult task, given some of the members of the committee, including myself. I acknowledge the inventiveness, the humour and the hard work of the other members of the committee.

I conclude by thanking the secretariat: Rachel Simpson, Glenda Baker, Kate Harris and Lynn Race, who did a marvellous job bringing this altogether and producing a report that I am proud to have my name on. I thank also Hansard, who do a remarkable job invisibly, behind the scenes. I am proud to have been associated with the production of this report.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [3.48 p.m.]: As shadow Minister for Housing Strategy, I record my gratitude to the committee for its excellent report on this matter, which is very important to all members of Parliament. The bipartisan way in which the members and crossbenchers who participated in this inquiry went about their work, elicited information and produced the report is commendable. It is one of those occasions on which all members feel they are making a real contribution to improving people's lives. The report has been extraordinarily valuable in providing background material for me in my role as a shadow Minister. I am currently considering many of its recommendations with my advisory group as we develop the Coalition's policy on housing strategy.

I do not want to take up the time of the House by repeating either the contents of the report or many of the things that others have said in speaking on the report today. I found it extraordinarily valuable. It is a compliment to all of the committee members; I will not single them out because they have all done a great job on this report. I have found it of great use to me in my role as shadow Minister.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [3.50 p.m.]: I wish to make a modest contribution to the debate. I am proud to participate as I was a member of the committee and I concur with the comments of the Hon. Greg Pearce about the way in which committee members, under the stewardship of the Hon. Ian West, dealt with this very important matter of Government social policy. I also do not wish to go through the report in detail. Members have commented on various aspects and I do not wish to repeat their thoughts and reflections. I encourage any member of this House or of the other place, and indeed people outside the Parliament who have a genuine and serious interest in the issue of social housing, to have a good look at this report. It brings together a range of issues that I think are cause for deep reflection and, hopefully, ultimately policy that will improve the lot of people in this State who need support with respect to their accommodation. 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21159

I would like to comment on a couple of areas in the report. Pages 13 and 14 deal with "Causes of homelessness" and I value greatly the evidence and material provided by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and other witnesses who submitted material to the inquiry. They have informed me about an area that I was not really aware of. I refer to the range of interconnected and related issues that bring about the scenario where many people in the community, not just in this State but also in other States and Territories around the Commonwealth, find themselves needing support with respect to their accommodation.

I want to comment briefly on the causes of homelessness and I do so not because I have any pearls of wisdom that will ultimately deal with these problems. I know that over many decades members of Parliament at State and Commonwealth levels as well as people in local government and others have been thinking about housing and wondering how it can be addressed. The first aspect is the breakdown of families and relationships and its impact on housing. There is obviously no one simple answer that will explain how a family relationship that is under stress can find the strength to remain a cohesive whole and continue to operate as a family unit. We are all aware that family breakdown is an issue, perhaps through being touched by it in our own lives or through its impact on extended family or people we deal with in the community.

I have watched with some interest over the last year or two the effect of amendments to the Commonwealth Family Law Act particularly with respect to trying to bring about a greater capacity to mediate differences between couples who are experiencing tensions in their relationships. It is early days, but I understand a report was produced late last year that assessed the major changes in the Commonwealth legislation some two or three years ago. We have a lot to learn as a community and society. As people who have the privilege of serving in Parliament and ultimately work on policy development and pass laws, we must see how we can if at all possible generate ways and means of providing assistance to people who find themselves, for a range of reasons, under tension that can ultimately lead to the collapse of the family unit. That breakdown comes at a great personal cost and if there are children of the relationship it can lead to additional angst.

Another aspect that disturbed me greatly is picked up at point 2.30 in the report. It was not a point that I appreciated to the extent that it is laid out in the report. It relates to the extent to which domestic violence contributes to homelessness in Australia. I think I had a general awareness that domestic violence in a sense obviously contributed to the homelessness of women. They and their children are often fleeing a relationship that involves violence towards the women and perhaps the children. I have to say I find it profoundly disturbing that notwithstanding that we have come some distance as a society in elevating our discourse about our repugnance of domestic violence—let us be frank; in the main it is orchestrated by males against women in domestic relationships—we have such a long way to go. Once again I am not proffering any great insights into how we can resolve this, but things such as White Ribbon Day are very important.

Somehow we have to consider educating young boys and young men through school. How do we engage them, talk to them and get them to accept that domestic violence is not acceptable, full stop? I am cautious about that because Dr John Kaye, who often speaks on education matters with a lot of insight, makes the point that we are increasingly loading onto teachers extra responsibilities in different areas. We just keep loading responsibility onto them. I am not saying we should load on another area in the Personal Development, Health and Physical Education curriculum. Clearly, young boys will go through kindergarten and primary school and many will finish five or six years of high school. There have to be opportunities in the context of education, whether public or private, including the independent and Catholic system schools, to educate young boys and young men to understand that domestic violence is not acceptable. It is important that we make it very clear that it is not just physical violence but also psychological violence. We all know of the terrible instances of physical violence and how that manifests itself in beatings, bruises and broken bones. I do not claim to be an expert in this area at all. I know the Hon. Robyn Parker and others in this House do good work in this area—

The Hon. Trevor Khan: And in Maitland.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: Around the State. They have alerted me to the significance of the psychological damage that is done. Young boys and young men need to understand that this is not just about knocking around a girlfriend, de facto or wife; great damage can be done psychologically. I wanted to put those points on the record.

In the remaining time I want to make a couple of comments about the part of the report that deals with caravan and residential parks, which can be found on pages 103 to 107. I concur with some of the contributions made by other members. There are a number of issues in this report that need to be properly addressed through a legislative framework to protect individuals who find themselves in these circumstances, whether by choice or 21160 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

otherwise. I have discovered that some people are quite happy to live in these sorts of arrangements. They might have a mobile home that they park on a site and reside there at certain times of the year and at other times they will head north and chase the warmer weather.

It could be a manufactured home site or even a caravan park. I discovered that after talking to people who live in these sorts of situations that are not underpinned by any real rights that are binding and with which they feel comfortable. There is doubt and uncertainty as to whether they will be told to move on, whether the piece of land will be sold off and whether they will be required to find other accommodation. I concur with the comments that were made earlier. Whilst in some sense we have flipped over the rock and found a few issues in this area, a lot more work needs to be done with caravan and residential parks. Over time proper legislation should be enacted to protect the rights of those who are living in these situations.

The Hon. IAN WEST [3.58 p.m.], in reply: I thank all those members who contributed to this take-note debate for their kind words—Deputy Chair the Hon. Trevor Khan, the Hon. Greg Donnelly, the Hon. Marie Ficarra, Dr John Kaye, Parliamentary Secretary the Hon. Mick Veitch, Ms Sylvia Hale and the Hon. Greg Pearce, the Opposition housing spokesperson. I greatly appreciated the comments of the Hon. Greg Pearce, which made me feel as though the work of the committee was worthwhile. I again thank the secretariat—Rachel Simpson, Director; Glenda Baker, Senior Council Officer; Kate Harris, Council Officer; and Lynn Race, Assistant Council Officer—for their extremely good work and guidance in this inquiry. Whilst I appreciate that committee secretariats do not form part of the committee, in the sense that they do not put their names to the report as such, their support is essential.

Pursuant to standing orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Pursuant to sessional orders debate on budget estimates proceeded with.

BUDGET ESTIMATES AND RELATED PAPERS

Financial Year 2009-2010

Debate resumed from 24 February 2010.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [4.00 p.m.]: In speaking in debate on the budget estimates and related papers I wish to comment on the Hunter region and, in particular, the Maitland electorate where I have lived for the past 10 years—an important electorate in the Hunter region. The economy of the Hunter region is an important part of the overall economy of New South Wales. Imagine the disappointment of people in the Hunter region when so little budget funding was delivered for key projects in that region. The Hunter region accounts for 32 per cent of the State's exports, such as coal, mining services, food and wine. Thirty-three per cent of Australia's aluminium is produced in the Hunter region and each year about $8 billion worth of trade goes through the port of Newcastle.

The Hunter region, which is a top winegrowing area, produces 31 million litres of wine valued at more than $230 million a year, and power stations in the Hunter region generate 80 per cent of the State's electricity. Coal, a $6 billion a year industry, accounts for 90 per cent of the region's exports. The Upper Hunter is home to a world-class equine industry, with more than $335 million invested in stud farms and horses. Agribusiness, valued at about $1 billion annually, includes agriculture, horticulture, timber, paper products, aquaculture and food processing. Despite all these industries employing thousands of people in the Hunter region, every year at budget time Hunter residents look on as the Sydney-centric New South Wales Labor Government promotes infrastructure projects in Sydney. One has only to look at the recent Sydney Transport Plan as an example. Hunter motorists will be paying $30 more on their car registration every year to pay for Labor's Sydney Transport Plan, as part of its $500 million vehicle registration tax.

More than 20,000 Maitland workers drive their cars to work each day but they will not see any tax funding coming into the region or being used to fund local roads in that area—a typical attitude from this State Government that time and again fails to support Hunter transport needs. It has been a year since a footbridge collapsed on the New England Highway at Maitland, but we are yet to see a replacement. This is an ongoing message from Labor that it takes Maitland and the Hunter region for granted. The only thing Labor likes to fund in the Hunter is more studies. It produces more glossy brochures and it extends the reporting time on all projects. Nothing is being done. The Swansea Bridge and the Glendale interchange are classic examples of projects that have been overlooked time and again. 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21161

It is not as though the Government does not know the transport and infrastructure needs of the region, as 30 transport studies have been conducted in the past. Nevertheless, late last year the Premier announced yet another study into the transport needs of the region, which will form part of the State Plan. One has to wonder whether the New South Wales Labor Government has any ideas left when it has to announce yet another transport study in the Hunter region. As Brett Derwin, President of the Hunter Business Chamber, put it:

The Hunter was at risk of becoming the most studied but least serviced region in New South Wales. We have to wonder what yet another study into transport could identify that is not already known and embraced by existing plans. I have not seen the exact terms of reference for the study but there is a growing level of impatience and cynicism in our community that all we seem to get are studies ... The region is urgently in need of investment and public infrastructure or face years more of decline.

Maitland residents could be forgiven for believing that there will be no relief until the election and the change of government in March 2011. This budget provided nothing for Maitland motorists to relieve the congestion facing them on the roads. When it comes to road projects, a key project that needs addressing in the Hunter is the 3.5-kilometre stretch of the New England Highway at Harpers Hill. Over the past 12 years there have been 10 deaths on this stretch of road, the most recent occurring in October last year. The community has been trying to convince the Roads and Traffic Authority that urgent funding is needed for this stretch of road, but RTA black spot funding has been refused. I worked with local residents in a successful campaign to obtain $1 million of Federal Government funding for one kilometre of road of that total 3.5 kilometre stretch. That welcome funding, which must be considered as a first step in a wider and more comprehensive plan, highlighted the need for a broader approach to work that should be carried out at Harpers Hill.

Another portfolio area in the Hunter that is worth examining is housing and community housing projects. There is no doubt about the need for more affordable housing in the Hunter and in Maitland. However, that should not be affordable housing at any cost. The cost to the community of the substandard community housing being built under the Federal Government's stimulus package, which is being administered by the New South Wales Government, is something we will have to deal with for many years to come. Whilst I welcome more public housing in the Hunter, which is desperately needed, over its 15-year tenure the State Labor Government has not supported more public housing. Housing developments are being built in these communities with very little public consultation or community input into their design. These substandard designs will not do anything to assist residents or to make houses reasonable places to live in.

These houses are being built in areas where public housing is supported and welcomed but they do not fit into the community. It appears as though this Government is opposed to good-quality developments. The Government is overlooking local councils, taking them out of the planning process and thrusting developments onto these communities without adequate consultation—a process that the Premier believes should be rolled out more broadly.

Clearly, the process needs change and communities need to be re-empowered. If the State Government were interested in resolving planning problems and providing local infrastructure, it would have resolved other projects and provided answers, particularly for developments in Raymond Terrace that have been ongoing for 10 years. The Maitland electorate needs more housing and better infrastructure as well as answers about road infrastructure to ease traffic congestion. As we have seen with previous budgets from this State Government, Maitland and the Hunter region are ignored when it comes to getting a fair share of this budget. All we want is our fair share from the budget and the State Government—nothing more and nothing less.

It is time the Government paid attention to Hunter residents, particularly those in Maitland who time and again see the same old thing: Sydney-centric decisions, Sydney-centric transport plans and Sydney-centric budgets. We look forward with the next budget to getting more of our fair share considering the input Maitland and the broader Hunter region generate into the economy. I imagine the people of Maitland will be watching closely and voting with their feet at the next State election because of the neglect they have suffered under this State Labor Government. Certainly they will support a Liberal State government that looks at the big picture and plans infrastructure on a broad scale with accountability and transparency.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Planning, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for Lands) [4.11 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions, particularly those who spoke about their local issues. I commend the motion to the House.

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

Motion agreed to. 21162 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

NATIONAL GAS (NEW SOUTH WALES) AMENDMENT (SHORT TERM TRADING MARKET) BILL 2010

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

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

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

SYDNEY OLYMPIC PARK AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL 2010

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [4.13 p.m.]: As I saying before I was rudely interrupted by question time, amendments to the principal Act were required to reflect changes and the ongoing development of Sydney Olympic Park. These amendments alter the Act's wording to reflect the growing residential development within the park. It clarifies the objects and functions of the authority and further protects the name "Sydney Olympic Park". Importantly, the amendments also protect event managers from any potential noise abatement actions. The noise-related amendments are consistent with other major event precinct legislation for both Luna Park and Mount Panorama. This does not imply that noise control will cease at the park; it will remain a requirement for events to be consistent with the approved event noise management framework plan for Sydney Olympic Park.

The consent authority to the noise management plan is the Director General of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water. This bill does not affect the Sydney 500 V8 Supercars race, which was held at Sydney Olympic Park last December, as that race is governed by the Homebush Motor Race Authority Act. The provisions of the Sydney Olympic Park Authority Amendment Bill are reserved for major events—for example, those designed to attract more than 10,000 patrons. Maximum noise limits still apply. Our responsibility to residents and businesses is to adhere to the prescribed legal decibel limit. Another physical provision to limit noise includes smarter urban planning with buildings acting as noise barriers between the event precinct and residential development. These amendments are designed to allow Sydney Olympic Park to continue to be Sydney's epicentre of major public events.

This bill is introduced to support the growth and development of the precinct, especially setting up a framework that supports and protects the continued success of commercial operations whilst also supporting the establishment of a new residential population at Sydney Olympic Park. This is an important amendment in the park's development as the premier place of sport, recreation and entertainment, and the centre of jobs and homes for the people of western Sydney. The introduction of the bill forms part of the State Government's commitment to ensure that Sydney Olympic Park becomes a vibrant centre within metropolitan Sydney. As I said at the outset, the Opposition supports the bill.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.15 p.m.]: The aim of this bill is to amend noise management requirements associated with major events held at Sydney Olympic Park and the legal protection the Sydney Olympic Park Authority will be afforded so as to allow major events to proceed without the potential for noise-related litigation. The bill aims also to change certain objects of the Sydney Olympic Park Authority Act 2001 and to protect the name "Sydney Olympic Park". The first object of the Sydney Olympic Park Authority Act 2001 Act was to make all reasonable attempts to ensure "that Sydney Olympic Park becomes an active and vibrant town centre within metropolitan Sydney". The bill removes that aim and replaces it with the more amorphous object "that Sydney Olympic Park becomes a vibrant centre within metropolitan Sydney". The bill removes the words "active and vibrant town centre" and merely replaces them with the words "vibrant centre". Clearly, there will be no community at Sydney Olympic Park, merely an economy.

While it is laudable and indeed important that Sydney Olympic Park is vibrant, reducing the rights of future residents is a backward step. This legislation certainly ensures that the local area will vibrate. Whether vibrancy and vibration are compatible outcomes for the area may be a matter of taste and an issue of health. Some of the aims of the 2001 Act were that the authority should make all reasonable attempts to:

(b) ensure that Sydney Olympic Park becomes a premium destination for cultural, entertainment, recreation and sporting events, and 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21163

(c) ensure that any new development carried out under or in accordance with this Act accords with best practice environmental and town planning standards.

This bill is an admission that the aims of ensuring that Sydney Olympic Park is a vibrant place for people to reside and is a place of large-scale entertainment for the people of Sydney are incompatible, and that those who will pay the ultimate cost of that failure will be the future residents of Sydney Olympic Park. This bill sacrifices good planning and the environment to the doubtful claims that major events will improve our cultural life and create significant employment and wealth. The little research that has been done into the economic benefit of major events is lukewarm at best. Often it seems that government subsidies of major events are little more than handouts to events promoters, who play off States and governments around the world against each other for the right to ensure that the events promoter cannot lose money.

No doubt some people like car races or different forms of music and so on. The question to ask is: Should these events be subsidised by the taxpayer and should the rights of citizens who may live or study in an affected area be reduced for possibly dubious financial reasons? The Minister for Western Sydney referred in the other place to this bill providing "residents with informed consent to ensure they know their rights before they arrive." It may well be that we could simply say let the buyer beware—that is, people who buy a home in an area that is noisy should not complain about the noise. Moreover others might say that people who buy a house in such an area pay a discounted price because it is a relatively less pleasant area in which to live.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: Tell that to Mascot airport residents.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Exactly. Clearly, the attitude is that people make a choice to live there and they know what the noise levels are going to be. But if that is the only place in which a person can afford to live, tough luck—their rights have been removed. That attitude may be fair enough if one ignores the critical role of government in ensuring that new developments carried out in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act are consistent with best-practice environmental and town planning standards. Clearly, it is not good policy to place large numbers of new residents in an area where their long-term health may suffer as a result of excessive noise that, according to the Minister for Western Sydney, may be present "approximately 50 times per year and up to 100 times"—in other words, once or twice a week. Good government over many years has supported the development of occupational health and safety legislation in the workplace. The WorkCover website outlines the responsibility of an employer:

… that you must ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of all… and that an employer must provide, among other things:

safe premises, safe systems of work, and

suitable working environment and facilities.

As an employer person, you must ensure that no-one is exposed to risks to their health or safety from your workplace.

If this is what we require of employers, surely it is incumbent upon members of Parliament to set standards that ensure that the health of all our fellow citizens is protected from unreasonable interference by others, including government authorities. Surely we are not going to say that citizens have a right to enjoy a safe working environment, but that lesser standards are acceptable in their homes and any attempt to achieve higher standards will not be able to be canvassed in our courts.

Let us be clear that excessive noise is a serious health risk to people and that allowable noise levels of up to 85 decibels, as envisaged by this bill, present a serious risk to health. It has been noted by the Legislation Review Committee that this bill is consistent with precinct legislation that previously was passed in relation to Luna Park in 2005. I am disappointed that this has been taken as a precedent that supports the bill. The Greens believe that the Luna Park bill was fundamentally flawed. This bill is better only in that currently there are very few people directly affected. But if it is passed, it is clear that future residents of the area will have fewer rights than do residents in other parts of Sydney and New South Wales, with the exception of residents in the vicinity of Luna Park. I cite remarks I made in 2005 when the Luna Park Site Amendment (Noise Control) Bill was passed by this House. It is unfortunate that the Government's attitude has changed so little in the intervening five years. At the time I noted that an acoustics report prepared by Challis Consulting summarised the impact of noise levels in excess of 85 decibels. The report stated:

The adoption of this criterion means that people living near the park will be subjected to noise levels that would not normally be permitted in any other residential situation in NSW by a Council, by a Court or by the Government itself if the pertinent environmental issues were to be assessed on the basis of existing maximum standards relating to permissible noise emission and 21164 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

environmental impact. In particular, the criteria must be related to the standards that have been currently adopted by the NSW Liquor Administration Board for licensed premises and related to the criterion of acceptability outlined by the POEA [Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991], which is defined by the definition of Offensive Noise in that Act.

If the Government sees fit to limit the emission of noise by licensed premises, and that is the standard for use elsewhere, I find it extraordinarily difficult to understand why that same measure should not also apply to the operations of Luna Park— or, in this case, Sydney Olympic Park—

The web site of the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority [EPA] contains a discussion of noise pollution. It defines noise pollution as "unwanted or offensive sounds that unreasonably intrude into our daily activities"…

The EPA refers to an OECD report on the social costs of land transport which identified four impacts of transport noise: productivity losses due to poor concentration, communication difficulties or fatigue due to insufficient rest; health care costs to rectify loss of sleep; hearing problems or stress; and lowered property values and loss of psychological wellbeing. Similar costs may be experienced through other forms of noise pollution. The EPA site then turns from the costs of noise pollution to its effects: The WHO [World Health Organization] suggests that noise can affect human health and well-being in a number of ways, including annoyance reaction, sleep disturbance, interference with communication, performance effects, effects on social behaviour and hearing loss. Noise can cause annoyance and frustration as a result of interference, interruption and distraction. Activity disturbance is regarded as an important indicator of the community impact of noise …

Research into the effects of noise on human health indicates a variety of health effects. People experiencing high noise levels … differ from those with less noise exposure in terms of: increased number of headaches, greater susceptibility to minor accidents, increased reliance on sedatives and sleeping pills, increased mental hospital admission rates …

Exposure to noise is also associated with a range of possible physical effects including: colds, changes in blood pressure, other cardiovascular changes, increased general medical practice attendance, problems with the digestive system and general fatigue …

There is fairly consistent evidence that prolonged exposure to noise levels at or above 80 dB (A) can cause deafness. The amount of deafness depends upon the degree of exposure.

As I stated earlier, it is regrettable that, five years later, the Government is still prepared to place the economic interests of the events promoters above the health of citizens and good planning outcomes. Earlier I noted that the Greens support the concept of a vibrant Sydney Olympic Park. I recognise that this site is close to the geographic centre of Sydney. The Sydney Olympic Park Master Plan 2030 states:

Our vision is to create a world class precinct for education in sport, health, arts and environmental sustainability.

The laudable aims of the Government and this master plan are in conflict with the effect of this legislation. Will world-class education really be conducted at the same time as a V8 motorcar race, or while AC/DC does a sound check? The Government has failed to state its case for future residents of Sydney Olympic Park—under current legislation, residents have few rights in regard to overall planning of the site—who will lose the few rights that exist. Good planning goes hand in hand with a high-quality environment, one in which people are able to enjoy full and rich lives. We must not sacrifice the future of our fellow citizens to half thought-out ideas and a reduction of their rights.

As a resident of the inner west, in good conscience I cannot support legislation that will knowingly permit people to be exposed to excessive noise levels. With the opening of the third runway and the expansion of Sydney Airport, complaints have not disappeared. As recently as this week, the Inner West Courier published letters from Stanmore residents complaining about the intensity and frequency of the noise to which they are exposed. It is inherently wrong for members of Parliament to condone people being told, "We will willingly and knowingly allow you to be subjected to such noise and in the process we will also deny your rights to take the originators of that noise to court and to gain control of that noise." This legislation is unacceptable.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [4.29 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the Sydney Olympic Park Authority Amendment Bill 2010, the purpose of which is to ensure that Sydney Olympic Park is an attractive place to live, work and play. I know something about this because I think, of all members of Parliament, I live the closest to this site. I am one of the privileged residents of Newington. All of the doom and gloom we just heard about is an absolute myth. Sydney Olympic Park is a wonderful place to live. I can assure members that the talk about devalued properties and discounted house prices could not be further from the truth. This bill will build on the precinct's world-class sport, entertainment and recreation facilities and allow for the introduction of a new range of urban activities and residential homes that will stimulate the precinct 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Sydney Olympic Park is one of the fastest-growing areas of Sydney. As I said, living so close, I have had the opportunity to watch its growth, particularly over the past few years. It has changed the whole feel of the 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21165

place, its diversity and its liveliness. It is a vibrant area. Construction of the first residential development is great news and a major part of the continued transformation of Sydney Olympic Park into a vibrant and modern town centre. Residents will live amongst the world-class sporting, recreation and entertainment facilities of one of the nation's most iconic precincts. They will be only a stone's throw from a range of restaurants, extensive parklands, transport links and world-class facilities such as the aquatic and tennis centres. I am sure many members have visited the Homebush aquatic centre, which is a world-class facility. Many people visit this wonderful sporting and entertainment precinct.

Sydney Olympic Park is getting an overhaul of public infrastructure and community facilities, including new and upgraded streets, local and regional intersection upgrades, improved recycled water infrastructure, and new family and children's centres. The bill is consistent with the New South Wales Government's commitment under the State Plan to support improved urban environments. We are putting more jobs closer to home. We are improving housing affordability. We are encouraging more people to use parks, sporting and recreation facilities and to participate in myriad art and cultural activities that are available. There are always art and cultural activities around Sydney Olympic Park. I hope people have taken the opportunity to visit places such as Newington Armory, where often there are art exhibitions, particularly of works by young people and school students from across New South Wales.

The precinct will contribute to State and metropolitan priorities through the provision of more than 31,500 extra jobs, building approximately 6,000 new dwellings to house up to 14,000 new residents, supporting up to 5,000 students and more than 20,000 day visitors, retaining major event capability for up to 250,000 patrons, and improving connectivity to the precinct's 430 hectares of parklands. These 430 hectares are Australia's largest urban parklands—bigger than Centennial Park—and they are a fantastic asset in the geography of a large and modern city. I can attest that the parklands are well utilised: every weekend they are full of families from many different cultural and ethnic backgrounds.

We all know that parklands do more than simply support healthy, active lifestyles for the people who live here. They attract visitors from across the State to events and the world-class facilities there. School groups and scientists have on their doorstep within Sydney a wildlife habitat that rivals any other in the State. Today Sydney Olympic Park is home to one of Australia's largest urban parklands, supporting a microcosm of native plants, animals and ecological communities that were once widespread in Sydney but are now quite rare in urban areas. The park is home to three endangered ecological communities, more than 400 native plant species, more than 180 species of native birds, seven species of frogs, 10 species of bats, 10 species of reptiles, many fish species and thousands of species of invertebrates.

Famous Sydney Olympic Park residents include sea eagles and green and golden bell frogs. Sydney Olympic Park was recently recognised as one of the 10 most significant wildlife habitats in Sydney in a study by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, and in April a cross-Tasman expert panel recognised Sydney Olympic Park in a list of the top 25 outstanding ecological restoration projects in Australia and New Zealand. Those of us who have resided in western Sydney all our lives, and I am sure other residents of the State, remember what the area was like prior to its restoration. It has been a tremendous project and is another great legacy of the Olympics.

For almost 10 years the precinct has actively hosted major events and simultaneously supported the rich biodiversity of Sydney Olympic Park. Sydney Olympic Park is an example of clever urban planning that balances the needs of major sporting events with those of growing commercial and emerging residential and education communities. This bill is about allowing Sydney Olympic Park to continue to be the State's epicentre of major public events. Potential residents will move into this precinct with their eyes wide open. They know what facilities are there, they know what events take place, and they know how they can take advantage of this and everything else that this wonderful precinct has to offer. This is about being clear, accurate and upfront about the New South Wales Government's continued support for major events, and this bill is about balancing the range of stakeholder and residential interests.

As I said, this bill is necessary to ensure that Sydney Olympic Park continues to be one of the great economic powerhouses of the New South Wales economy. Most people who think of contributors to the State's economy think of banks, factories, mines, ports and office buildings. However, contributions to the State's economy come in a variety of forms, many of which are less visible to the public eye. Sydney Olympic Park contributes to the strength of the New South Wales economy through hosting major events, including concerts, trade shows, sporting events, conferences and major community events, including the Sydney Royal Easter Show, which is coming soon. There is a lot of activity there at the moment as the show events and attractions 21166 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

move in. The park's unrivalled array of venues attracts the world's biggest entertainment acts, including big names such as AC/DC, U2, André Rieu, Britney Spears and Beyoncé. Fleetwood Mac and the Top Gear show have also been there recently. The AC/DC concert was superb. I did not have to buy a ticket; I could hear the concert from my front yard. I could hear the crowd singing. It was great; I could actually hear the words.

I think that first concert—I think it was the one Barry O'Farrell attended—was the loudest. The level of decibels at the next two concerts seemed to be down slightly. Contrary to what the previous speaker said, it is an absolute privilege to be in the precinct and to hear the joy of the spectators in the crowd. During the State of Origin and grand finals matches there is no greater joy than listening to the crowd cheer as a player goes over the line for a try. As I said, it is a privilege to live in an area where I get to share the fun being enjoyed by many others. People who buy or rent a home in an entertainment precinct or a major sporting event precinct know to expect noise and traffic during major events. That is the reality.

Although many residents of Newington were opposed to the V8 Supercars, the fact is that the noise was not unbearable. It lasted only a couple of days and, again, it was good to see so many people having a great time. One feels as though one is part of that very significant event simply because one lives in the area. That is the reality when one chooses to live an entertainment and major sporting events precinct. It is something that the Greens need to consider. Other major events are National Rugby League State of Origin matches, the Bledisloe Cup, Soccer Internationals, Twenty20 cricket games and international swimming meets. It is a great pleasure to see athletes swanning around. During the recent World Masters Games it was wonderful to see so many participants and volunteers. That event brought people to the western suburbs of Sydney. They stayed in the hotels, ate at the restaurants and used all the great venues, which was great for our economy.

Less visible than the major entertainment and sporting events are the ongoing business events that are held at the park. They range from massive events that fill Acer Arena to smaller trade shows and conferences that use the park's diverse array of event spaces. Together, they add up to a vast collection of direct and indirect economic and employment drivers that provide tangible benefits to the New South Wales economy. Each year the park hosts Australia's largest annual event—and the sixth-largest event of its kind in the world—the Sydney Royal Easter Show. At the moment the Ferris wheel is being constructed, which is great to watch in the weeks leading up to the Royal Easter Show. Last year the show attracted almost one million people and supported the thousands of jobs required to host such a mammoth event. The Royal Easter Show alone brings economic benefits of almost $500 million to New South Wales and is only one—albeit the largest—event held at the park each year.

The park hosts thousands of events that, in turn, support tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs and deliver hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue to the New South Wales economy. Last year the park hosted almost nine million visitors and is on track to achieve its goal of more than 10 million visitors annually. The four hotels within the park host guests from across the State, the nation and the globe. Their more than 800 rooms provide accommodation for event participants, sportspeople, business visitors and audiences for the park's myriad events. The park is also generating economic activity in its own right. More than $1.1 billion in development has been approved at the park since the 2000 Olympic Games, including more than $276 million in the past three years. More than 100 businesses call the park home, supporting more than 8,500 employees, and generating millions of dollars for the State's economy. The Government is committed to Sydney Olympic Park's continued prominence as the country's outstanding event precinct. That is why the Government has introduced these amendments to the legislation governing the park's operations to ensure that Sydney Olympic Park continues to deliver events, employment and economic benefits to the State now and well into the future.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [4.43 p.m.]: On behalf of Family First I comment on the Sydney Olympic Park Authority Amendment Bill 2009. The purpose of this bill is to improve the operation of certain provisions within the original bill by making provision for the management of noise emissions in respect of major events held at Sydney Olympic Park, and to implement the conclusions of the statutory review undertaken in accordance with section 89 of the Sydney Olympic Park Authority Act, primarily addressing minor incidental matters relating to Sydney Olympic Park Authority's existing functions.

The bill provides legal protection for Sydney Olympic Park by allowing major events, such as those designed to attract more than 10,000 patrons, to proceed without the threat of noise-related litigation. The consent authority to the noise management plan is the Director General of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water. The same framework has managed such events as State of Origin matches and the AC/DC and U2 rock concerts. The amendment will not affect noise management of the Sydney V8 Supercars race, which is governed by the Homebush Motor Race Authority Act. 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21167

A number of times reference is made to this legislation being consistent with the legislation that applies to Luna Park and Mount Panorama. I wonder whether the Government realises that the neighbours around Luna Park have been fighting that legislation for many years as the park generates unbearable nuisance noise. The fact that the bill provides legal protection for Sydney Olympic Park by allowing major events, such as those outlined so eloquently by the Hon. Helen Westwood, that are designed to attract more than 10,000 patrons to proceed without the threat of noise-related litigation makes me very uneasy. Noise-related litigation is based on appropriate State environmental protection legislation, which should not be evaded. It is there for a reason: to protect people in all the areas around Sydney Olympic Park, as well as the animals and birds living there.

The Hon. Helen Westwood said that it is a joy to live in such a vibrant and noisy place but she did not explain how animals, including the bird species she mentioned, cope with that noise. Significant studies have been conducted on the impact of noise on animals and birds. I remind members of the two rabbits who like to live in burrows in the centre of the home straight on Mount Panorama, which is subject to similar legislation. North Sydney Council has repeatedly threatened Luna Park with either soundproofing or removing a number of attractions. The neighbours say that when Luna Park is operating they cannot entertain in their homes, either indoors or outdoors, they cannot use their balconies and they cannot even open the windows to get fresh air.

The Luna Park executives were found guilty of contempt in their dealings with a residents group taking legal action against them when it sued for alleged breaches of trade practices legislation and under the Crown Lands Act. In fact, Luna Park has always been contentious. Members might not remember, but it was booted out of Adelaide, where Luna Park first operated, precisely because of the noise it made, which bothered nearby residents. Adelaide councils had the sense to run it out of town. So it came to Sydney in 1935, which was fine in the early years because there were no homes close to it on the north shore around Milsons Point. But the name "Luna Park" is now almost synonymous with noise because for the past 73 years it has been embroiled in countless lawsuits over the disruption caused by the noise it generates.

Do we really want any new or amended legislation that permits a well-known noise nuisance such as Luna Park to be used as the model for twenty-first century arrangements at Sydney Olympic Park? I would not inflict that on anyone. There will be a serious loss of amenity for all those living around the park and across a number of council areas. I also find it questionable that the V8 Supercars rally races will be excluded from this amendment because they are covered by the Homebush Motor Race Authority Act. It makes the noise abatement laws for the Sydney Olympic Park precinct very fragmented, which does not sound like the best approach to managing any site. In light of the Hon. Helen Westwood's comments, I hope that residents around the park whose peace is shattered constantly are comforted by the thought that the noise thundering down upon them is different from the V8 Supercars and is like the noise from Luna Park. The people who live around Sydney Olympic Park have the right to be protected from noise nuisance and injury every day of the year, and I do not accept that noise legislation can be gotten around with these kinds of amendments. This legislation is designed to protect the Government, not the rights of residents. I will not support this amending bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.50 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I am pleased to support this important, practical and sensible bill, the Sydney Olympic Park Authority Amendment Bill 2010, which makes provision for the management of noise emissions in respect of major events carried out at Sydney Olympic Park. The underlying purpose of that provision is to prevent long, drawn-out, expensive and obstructive litigation by various vested interests, organisations or individuals, which would seriously affect the successful operation of the Olympic Park and the various events held there. The bill also deals with some minor, incidental matters that have arisen out of the Sydney Olympic Park Authority's existing functions.

The bill is necessary, as aptly demonstrated by the problems experienced at Luna Park, to which other members have referred. People moved into buildings adjoining the Luna Park area after the precinct was developed and then they complained about the noise emanating from the area. Similar complaints would be made about Sydney Olympic Park if the proposed sections relating to noise abatement are not enacted. People will move into the area because of the increased availability of residential development, they will purchase homes and then, shock, horror, object to the noise and take a class action against an event, such as the Sydney Royal Easter Show, the V8 Supercars races or a live concert. The bill is designed to ensure that Sydney Olympic Park is a successful entertainment precinct.

It is a case of buyer beware. People who move into the area should clearly understand that they are moving into an entertainment precinct. I am sure that many young married couples will deliberately move into the area for the entertainment activities that will take place there. They will be able to walk from their homes and attend an event just across the road from which, obviously, there will be noise. They would have taken such 21168 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

activities into consideration before deciding to move into the area. Many of the events held in the precent are not continuous, day after day, night after night. People who buy into that lower-priced area might choose to go on holiday or move out of the area for a few days that, for instance, the V8 Supercars event is held. It is a matter for the residents as to how they adapt to the environment. The bill is necessary, otherwise there will be a series of court cases.

The bill introduces a simpler, better-defined, noise management and regulatory framework for all stakeholders. It will protect the economic viability of event venues and the major event capability of the precinct. Various promoters would think twice before conducting an event if they knew that no legislative protection was provided and they could face litigation. The bill will provide certainty for major venue operators, owners and promoters. The bill promotes ongoing opportunities for the people of New South Wales to experience a diverse range of national and international sports and entertainment events. Complaints have been made that many events have been lost to Melbourne. We want to stop that from happening; we want major events to be held at the Sydney Olympic Park or other Sydney venues to confirm Sydney as the main entertainment centre for Australia. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.53 p.m.], in reply: The essential purpose of the Sydney Olympic Park Amendment Bill 2010 is to provide a framework to manage the growth of Sydney Olympic Park to include residential development. In 12 months time, the first residents are expected to move in to Sydney Olympic Park. So this bill is essentially about providing these residents with informed consent so that they know their rights prior to moving in. The developers already have obligations to inform all prospective buyers that they are purchasing in a major event precinct and that in a major event precinct there is a certain amount of noise.

Notice to buyers of residential premises is given by way of a public positive covenant. This means that during the purchase process all prospective buyers are specifically notified that the premises are in a major event precinct and that the precinct is inherently noisy. I am advised that approximately 65 per cent of apartments have been bought off the plan in the first residential complex. The purchasers are well aware that they are buying in a major event precinct. Essentially the people who purchase properties in Sydney Olympic Park will do so because they want to live there; they want to be a part of the action. Development consent has requirements for significantly reducing noise entering these buildings—for instance double-glazing of windows—and the recently adopted master plan includes barrier buildings to further reduce noise.

The bill supports the Government's aim for Sydney Olympic Park to grow into a vibrant and modern town centre. We want more jobs closer to home, we want a diverse range of housing options and we want to encourage more people to use the first-class parks, sporting and recreational facilities and to participate in the incredible arts and cultural activities. Essentially we are talking about a package of management for moving forward with an event and residential precinct. The amendments provide recognition of the start of residential development within the park, clarification to the objectives and functions of the Sydney Olympic Park Authority, and legal protection for Sydney Olympic Park's status as Sydney's epicentre of major events by limiting the potential for noise-related litigation.

The noise-related amendments are consistent with other major event precinct legislation, as noted by other speakers, such as Luna Park and Mount Panorama. Just to make it clear, I remind members that we are not talking about 365 days a year. Generally major events are held on average 50 times a year and up to 100 times a year. Furthermore, under current arrangements, events in the precinct are required to be finished by 11.00 p.m. and many finish earlier than that curfew. Importantly a resident's right to sue is not being removed if an event exceeds an 85-decibel limit or is not consistent with the noise management plan. Residents reserve the right to sue and have enforcement action taken by the Environment Protection Authority or its agent the Sydney Olympic Park Authority.

The noise management plan that will go to public consultation will be a public document that is essentially formalising what happens in practice currently. Currently, prior to an event each venue is required to have a noise control plan. The Sydney Olympic Park Authority staff remain on-site during major events and as part of this noise-management plan in the future the authority will have a staffed call centre during major events to independently monitor the noise levels and take swift action when necessary. Major events contribute millions of dollars in economic benefit. Last year more than four million people visited the park purely to attend sports or entertainment events. People have a right to enjoy world-class events into the future. These controls are important in providing commercial operators with certainty. 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21169

The bill ensures we preserve the major event infrastructure, venue spaces and operational features of the park that make it suitable and attractive to promoters of major events. We want to ensure that residents are not unduly impacted by major events, but also that major events are not unduly affected by residents. This is New South Wales's premier events destination and provides millions and millions of dollars in economic input annually. It is important to the economy that this precinct not be precluded from functioning as it was meant to function. The bill is about providing measures that manage the development of Sydney Olympic Park as the premier place for sport, recreation and entertainment as well as supporting the holistic plan for the future of Sydney Olympic Park as the newest suburb of Sydney. I thank members for their contributions to this debate. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Ayes, 26

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

Noes, 5

Dr Kaye Reverend Dr Moyes Ms Rhiannon

Tellers, Mr Cohen Ms Hale

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

BUDGET 2009-2010

Production of Documents: Tabling of Documents Reported to be Not Privileged

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to resolution of 10 March 2010, documents identified as not privileged in the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter, dated 11 December 2009, on the disputed claim of privilege on papers relating to the 2009-2010 budget. 21170 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

CRIMES (ADMINISTRATION OF SENTENCES) AMENDMENT BILL 2010

Second Reading

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.05 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 is the principal Act that governs the administration of sentences in NSW.

This bill makes several amendments to the: Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (the Act); the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 (the Regulation); and the Criminal Records Act 1991, including:

 conferring on the State Parole Authority functions relating to parole orders for Norfolk Island prisoners held in custody in NSW;

 updating references to Community Offender Services Field Officers;

 enabling Corrective Services staff responsible for the Victims' Register to provide certain information to victims on behalf of the State Parole Authority and the Serious Offenders' Review Council;

 enabling spent convictions to be required to be disclosed by persons seeking employment as members of staff of Corrective Services NSW;

 enabling an inmate to be compelled to attend the Mental Health Review Tribunal;

 as well as other provisions of a savings and transitional nature.

The bill also makes amendments to the Companion Animals Act 1998 and the Companion Animals Regulation 2008 to provide that corrective services dogs are to be managed the same as police dogs under the Companion Animals legislative scheme.

Some of the proposed amendments in the bill are of a minor, ancillary or machinery nature, for example Item [2] of schedule 1 changes the title of Community Offender Services Field Officers to more accurately reflect their functions. Other amendments are consequential to this, namely: Items [3], [5], and [6] of schedule 1 and Items [1], [2], and [3] of schedule 2.3.

Item [5] in schedule 2.3 amends the Regulation to include the Mental Health Review Tribunal as an "appropriate authority" before whom an inmate may be compelled to appear under section 77 of the Act.

Appearances under section 77 involve court or tribunal appearances by inmates in "legal proceedings, inquests or inquiries" in criminal, administrative and civil jurisdictions, when there is no remand or criminal procedure warrant available, for example, appeals, Family Court matters and appearance as a witness. An "appropriate authority" may issue a section 77 order directing the Commissioner to cause the inmate to be produced at the court or other place at which the proceeding, inquest or inquiry is being, or is to be, held. This order requires the inmate's continued custody and subsequent return of the inmate to the correctional centre from which the inmate was produced. Approximately 12,000 section 77 orders are issued by "appropriate authorities" each year.

It is important that the Mental Health Review Tribunal should be included as an "appropriate authority" following the commencement of amendments to the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 that require the Tribunal to consider the release of a forensic patient. (Forensic patients may be held in correctional centres.)

Item [7] of schedule 1 relates to the provision of information to victims. The Restorative Justice Unit within Corrective Services operates the Victims' Register as its core function, subject to legislative provisions. Officers of the Restorative Justice Unit build strong relationships with traumatised victims and have received praise for their empathy, understanding and professionalism.

Currently, the State Parole Authority and Serious Offenders' Review Council are authorised in the Act to provide information to registered victims. It is the Restorative Justice Unit, however, which provides an over-arching and co-ordinating role in regard to services for victims (for example, notification to victims of impending hearing dates). This amendment will allow Corrective Services staff to assist in the provision of certain information to victims on behalf of the State Parole Authority and the Serious Offenders' Review Council.

Items [4], [1], and [9] of schedule 1 relate to parole for Norfolk Island inmates. These amendments address a gap in the Act with respect to inmates convicted of offences on Norfolk Island. This gap has arisen because Norfolk Island passed its Sentencing Act 2007 without reference to the NSW Act or notification to Corrective Services NSW.

Currently there are 3 Norfolk Island inmates held in NSW custody by arrangement with the Government of Norfolk Island. One of these inmates becomes eligible for parole on 14 March 2010. 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21171

Norfolk Island legislation covers the parole of Norfolk Island inmates and refers to a Parole Board; but Norfolk Island does not have a Parole Board. Its legislation provides that references to the "Parole Board" must be read as a reference to the Parole Board of a State or Territory holding the Norfolk Island inmate. Furthermore, the Norfolk Island legislation also does not specifically provide for the "release on parole" procedure to be applied to Norfolk Island inmates.

The proposed amendments enable the State Parole Authority to consider the release to parole of Norfolk Island inmates and set appropriate parole conditions, following the same procedure applied to NSW inmates.

The proposed amendment will not require Norfolk Island inmates to remain in NSW and be subject to NSW parole; nor are such inmates compelled to return to Norfolk Island—in some cases it may inappropriate for them to do so. Accommodation for parolees is assessed on a case-by-case basis. If the parolee remains in NSW, then the parolee will be subject to NSW parole. If the parolee returns to Norfolk Island, then the amending provisions provide that neither the SPA not the Probation and Parole Service are required to exercise any functions in respect of an offender who is not in NSW, unless they are doing so in accordance with an agreement with the Administration of Norfolk Island.

All of the Items in schedule 2.2 relate to exemptions for dogs used by CSNSW under the Companion Animals Act and Regulation. The amendments will apply the same exemptions as currently apply to Police dogs. For example, Corrective Services will not commit an offence if one of its dogs inadvertently bites an escaping or rioting inmate. Canines used by Corrective Services NSW have a legislatively mandated role and functions. When the exemptions were granted to Police dogs it was a drafting oversight that resulted in Corrective Services canines being excluded. This amendment applies to Corrective Services canines while performing their duties.

Schedule 2.4 enables spent convictions to be required to be disclosed by persons seeking employment with Corrective Services by exempting those circumstances from the prohibition on such disclosures. Up until now, it has only been a requirement for those people seeking employment as a correctional officer. This amendment reflects the reality that a huge cross-section of staff who are not custodial staff, have regular or daily contact with inmates and offenders. In fact, the majority of criminals are monitored and supervised in the community by non-custodial staff. This amendment is both logical and necessary, in order to ensure equitable screening of staff and to ensure integrity in the recruitment process.

Furthermore, suitably qualified and trained staff are encouraged to transfer internally from one job to another, rendering different levels of security clearance an anomaly. In recent years, the Independent Commission Against Corruption has had cause to investigate allegations of corrupt conduct by both custodial and non-custodial staff.

Recent amendments to the Act providing for compliance and monitoring officers highlight the inconsistency of the current non-disclosure exemption applying only to applicants for employment as correctional officers. Section 235G of the Act permits the Commissioner to appoint:

"any member of staff of CSNSW (including any correctional officer or any probation and parole officer) as a compliance and monitoring officer to exercise such of the as are specified in the instrument of his or her appointment or in a subsequent instrument executed by the Commissioner."

Section 235G subsections (2)(c), (e) and (f) all nominate particular functions of a correctional officer that may be included in the functions exercisable by a compliance and monitoring officer. Yet, under the current state of the law, compliance and monitoring officers working side-by-side could be subject to different levels of criminal record disclosure, depending on where their intra-organisational employment originated. Hence the amendments proposed will redress this anomaly.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [5.06 p.m.]: The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Bill 2010 seeks to amend the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, the Criminal Records Act 1991 and the Companion Animals Act 1998 to remove various anomalies and inconsistencies. It is an uncontentious bill and is not opposed by the Opposition.

Currently, pursuant to the Norfolk Island Removal of Prisoners Act 2004, prisoners on Norfolk Island may be removed to New South Wales correctional centres for imprisonment. Thereafter, pursuant to the Sentencing Act 2007 of Norfolk Island, parole orders may be granted to Norfolk Island prisoners by the New South Wales State Parole Authority. However, a problem has arisen because Norfolk Island in passing its Sentencing Act 2007 did so without reference to New South Wales legislation or notification to New South Wales Corrective Services.

To correct this situation the bill before us inserts provisions into the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 to deal specifically with parole orders for prisoners received from Norfolk Island. The bill empowers the State Parole Authority to exercise the functions conferred on it under the Norfolk Island legislation with respect to parole orders. To the extent that they are not inconsistent with the Norfolk Island Act, the bill applies the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and the regulations under that Act to the exercise of those functions. The bill confers on the Probation and Parole Service the same functions in respect of Norfolk Island prisoners as it has in respect of New South Wales prisoners.

The State Parole Authority and the Probation and Parole Service are not required to exercise any functions with respect to a Norfolk Island prisoner who is not in New South Wales unless they do so in 21172 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

accordance with an agreement with the Administration of Norfolk Island. As a result, the proposed amendments will enable the State Parole Authority to consider the release to parole of Norfolk Island inmates and set appropriate parole conditions.

Amendments to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act will streamline the operation of this legislation. The amendments will enable Corrective Services staff responsible for the Victims Register to provide certain information to victims on behalf of the State Parole Authority and the Serious Offenders Review Council. Currently, only those bodies are authorised by the Act to provide information to registered victims. The bill will amend the Companion Animals Act 1998, which covers the responsibilities of an owner of a dog in a public place and offences arising when a dog attacks a person or an animal. That Act will be amended so as to allow current exemptions applying to police dogs to be extended to include Corrective Service dogs, that is, dogs used by Corrective Services NSW.

The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill will amend the Criminal Records Act 1991 to require spent convictions to be disclosed by persons seeking employment with Corrective Services NSW by exempting those circumstances from the prohibition of such disclosures. As I indicated earlier, the Opposition does not oppose this bill, which addresses a number of anomalies in various Acts. The Norfolk Island related amendments apply to a relatively small number of prisoners. Nevertheless, they clarify issues that might otherwise lead to expense in costly legal argument. The Victims Register amendments are appropriate and will enable Corrective Services staff to provide information to victims, and that is to be encouraged. In regard to amendments to the Companion Animal Act, it is logical to afford the same protection to Department of Corrective Services dogs as is provided to police dogs in the performance of their duties. I indicate also that the New South Wales Law Society does not oppose the bill.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.11 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I support the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill 2010, which makes amendments to a number of laws and confers on the State Parole Authority functions relating to parole orders for Norfolk Island prisoners held in New South Wales. The Norfolk Island legislation contains a gap relating to prisoners released into parole. This bill will fill that gap by inserting a division that empowers the State Parole Authority to exercise the functions conferred on it under the Norfolk Island legislation with respect to parole orders. The bill updates references to certain officers substituting the term "community service field officer" for "community offender services field officer".

The bill will enable members of staff responsible for the Victims Register kept under the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 to provide certain information to victims on behalf of the State Parole Authority and the Serious Offenders Review Council. The information will relate to sections 67, 145 and 193A of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act. Section 67 requires the Serious Offenders Review Council, when recommending a low security classification for a serious offender, to give preliminary notice of its intention to do so to any victim of the offender whose name is recorded in the Victims Register; section 145 relates to a notice to victims of intention to grant parole; and section 193A relates to granting access to documents held by the State Parole Authority to a victim of a serious offender or a victim's authorised agent, but only to the extent to which those documents indicate the measures that the offender has taken or is taking to address his or her offending behaviour.

The bill will provide for Corrective Services dogs to receive the same treatment under the Companion Animals Act 1998 as police dogs receive. Corrective Services dogs were inadvertently omitted from the provisions of that Act. The Act contains special exemptions for police dogs. The bill will extend those provisions to Corrective Services dogs. Because this definition requires the dog to be used on official duty by a correctional officer, the exemptions will apply only when the dog is on duty.

The bill will amend clause 325 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences Regulation), which relates to the attendance of inmates and court officers before courts, by adding the Mental Health Review Tribunal as a court before which inmates can be brought without their consent—that is, compelled to attend. As reviews have to be conducted and inmates have to be present if proceedings are not to be prejudiced the Greens do not believe this to be unreasonable, given that other courts and tribunals are already included in the regulation and the legislation.

Finally, the bill seeks to amend the Criminal Records Act 1991 to require that spent convictions be disclosed by persons seeking employment as members of the staff of Corrective Services NSW, not solely for prison officer roles. Often correctional staff will act across a range of positions during their careers and non-custodial staff will deal with inmates. The Greens, therefore, understand the reason for this amendment. Spent convictions should be disclosed when an individual applies for a job with Corrective Services NSW. 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21173

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [5.15 p.m.]: I support the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill 2010, which will amend the Crimes (Administration of Services) Act 1999 to enable Corrective Services staff to assist in the provision of certain information to victims on behalf of the State Parole Authority and the Serious Offenders Review Council. Currently, section 256 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 provides for a Victims Register to be established for victims of offenders who have requested that they be given notice of the possible parole of the offender concerned, or if he or she escapes, or if he or she has a change in security classification that would result in him or her being eligible for unescorted leave, such as work release. Most of the information provided to victims relates to parole applications.

The Act requires the Victims Register to be kept by such government agencies as the Minister directs. Section 257 of the Act prohibits the disclosure of information obtained in connection with the administration or execution of the Act, but provides certain exceptions to this rule. The most relied upon exemption is section 257 (1), which permits the disclosure of information with lawful excuse. Such an excuse would be provided when another piece of legislation expressly permitted disclosure such as the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998. Section 257 only authorises Corrective Services to provide the State Parole Authority and the Serious Offenders Review Council with the contact details of victims of crime for the purpose of those two bodies to fulfil their functions under the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999.

The legislation does not authorise Corrective Services NSW to disclose the information to victims of crime on behalf of the State Parole Authority and the Serious Offenders Review Council because these functions are specifically conferred on bodies that are independent of Corrective Services NSW. The proposed amendment to schedule 1 [7] to the bill will allow Corrective Services to provide information to victims concerning the possible release to parole of the offender concerned. The Restorative Justice Unit within Corrective Services NSW operates the Victims Register as its core function. It is usually the first port of call for victims seeking information about offenders who committed a crime against them. Restorative Justice Unit officers often build strong relationships with traumatised victims and have received much praise for their empathy, understanding and professionalism.

Corrective Services may assist the functions of the State Parole Authority and the Serious Offenders Review Council with respect to providing information to registered victims. The Restorative Justice Unit will provide victims with a better, centralised service. Some victims become involved for the entire sentence of a particular offender, and the Government assists those victims throughout the entire custodial period. However, other victims may wish to put the tragic events of the past behind them once an offender is in prison and do not wish to be reminded of a particular tragedy as an offender serves his or her sentence. The Government also respects the right of such victims, and that is why the Victims Register operates on an opt-in basis. Victims are given information about the register and the information that can be provided to them upon the conviction of an offender.

As part of its general duty, the State Parole Authority is required to have regard to the likely effect on any victim, and on any member of such victim's family, of the offender being released on parole. As well as being provided the information to which I have referred, registered victims may make such a submission. For example, a victim might submit that the offender's proposed post-release accommodation is too close to their home or work address, or that the proposed post-release accommodation may pose a greater risk of inadvertent contact between the offender and a member of the victim's family—for instance, on public transport.

The Restorative Justice Unit assists victims to prepare such submissions upon request. It is explained to victims that the parole authority is concerned to hear the impact on the family caused by the offence but, given that a stage has been reached where an offender's release on parole is under consideration, the victim is asked to focus on their concerns should the offender be released and provide specific advice about any conditions they would like included in the parole order. Corrective Services New South Wales, Victims Services and the Criminal Law Review Division have co-produced a brochure to explain to victims how the Victims Register works. The brochure is available at all New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions offices and is made available to government and non-government agencies that have contact with victims of crime. I commend the bill to the House.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.20 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Bill 2010. The bill makes a number of amendments to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and other legislation primarily in relation to Norfolk Island prisoners held in New South Wales jails. This amendment will address a gap in the Act with respect to inmates 21174 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

convicted of offences on Norfolk Island. This gap arose because Norfolk Island passed the Sentencing Act 2007 without reference to New South Wales or notification to Corrective Services New South Wales—a rather strange step as Norfolk Island has no prisons and its prisoners are held in New South Wales jails.

Currently three Norfolk Island inmates are being held in custody in New South Wales by arrangement with the Norfolk Island Government. One of these inmates will become eligible for parole in March 2010 within a few days. The Norfolk Island legislation covers parole of Norfolk Island inmates and refers to a parole board. However, Norfolk Island does not have a parole board. Its legislation provides that references to the parole board must be read as references to the parole board of a State or Territory holding the Norfolk Island inmate. In this particular case that means the New South Wales Parole Board. This amendment is important to our legislation.

The bill also updates references to certain officers, that is, Community Offender Services Field Officers and enables Corrective Services staff responsible for the Victims Register to provide certain information to victims on behalf of the State parole authority and the Serious Offenders Review Council. I agree wholeheartedly as some victims have complained that they received no communication from the authorities regarding their case and learned about any appeal or decision only through the media, which aggravated their suffering. Further, the bill will require persons seeking employment as members of Corrective Services staff to disclose spent convictions. This is an important amendment as previously this requirement was limited to those seeking employment only as custodial officers. The bill also will enable an inmate to be compelled to attend before the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Currently inmates are compelled to attend before various courts and tribunals. The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support this bill and the other minor amendments to the Companion Animals Act 1998 to provide that Corrective Services dogs are treated the same as police dogs. This amendment will remove any discrimination against Corrective Services dogs.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.23 p.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.24 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

RURAL FIRE SERVICE AWARDS

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [5.24 p.m.]: I acknowledge the invaluable service to our communities performed by members of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service, particularly those members from the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area Zone with whom I had the pleasure of meeting during a visit to open new Rural Fire Service stations at Paynters Siding and Wyangan Station. I was proud to have been offered the opportunity to open these much-needed facilities and to be present when these members of our community, who constantly put their needs aside to protect the greater good, received just recognition for their efforts. Their importance in our community can be explained through the following information. The Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area Zone currently consists of 40 brigades with over 1,100 members and has 78 firefighting vehicles on the ground to support its members. 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21175

Paynters Siding brigade, which is located at Narrandera Airport, has operated for 70 years. It has 47 members with 28 on active duty, several of whom travelled to Victoria last year to assist in its hour of need. Similarly, Wyangan brigade near Griffith was formed in 1958 and has 20 members with 12 on active duty. One of its members also answered the call to assist Victoria last year. Like the stations in Bilbul, Gillenbah and Corobimilla, all of which opened thanks to funding from the Rural Fighting Fund, Paynters Siding and Wyangan station are integral to the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area Zone. The zone covers 10,500 square kilometres. These community-based organisations serve around 48 people and are the rock of regional life. Put simply, without them our way of life would be under constant threat.

These firefighters are trained to handle all types of fire in the area, from fires on flat plains to those in undulating ranges. The firefighters constantly visit schools and other community groups throughout the shires of Griffith, Narrandera and Murrumbidgee to educate, inform and train. The greatest pleasure afforded to me during the opening of these new facilities was to witness the presentations of national medals, clasps and long service awards by the New South Wales Rural Fire Service Operations and Regional Management Acting Executive Director, Dominic Lane. The presentation of the national medal, first and second clasp, to Donald Bassett, who joined the Barellan brigade in 1969, and to Anthony Trembath, who joined the same brigade in 1971, makes one realise that this vocation is a commitment for life. Together Donald and Anthony have shared the load of responsibility by their tenure serving as president and captain.

On that day I witnessed also the presentation of long service awards, again emphasising a superlative commitment to our community. Alan Shields, who joined Corobimilla brigade in 1942, has been an active member for 67 years and is serving as president and group captain. Mac Guymer and John Shields are members of the Morundah and Corobimilla brigades. Mac joined the brigade in 1951 and John joined in 1956. Bryan Lingen and Peter Trengrove have served Morundah and Corobimilla brigades after joining the Morundah brigade in 1962 and 1964 respectively. They served with Robert Vidler, who joined the Corobimilla brigade in 1962 and retired in 2002, and Phillip Grigg, who joined the Fivebough-Stony Point Rural Fire Brigade in 1970 and who currently is its president and treasurer.

Members of the rural fire brigades to which I have referred respect the land and are nurturing and encouraging our youth by passing on their wealth of knowledge. They thoroughly deserve the recognition that the long service award, which is given after 35 years of hard work, suggests. Aspiring to achieve this award are Mark Alexander from the Yanco-Wamoon brigade and Anthony Murphy from the Fivebough-Stony Point brigade, who received their 15 years long service award. These members of our community deserve and receive our respect and adulation. They certainly have mine. [Time expired.]

KINGS FOREST RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr IAN COHEN [5.29 p.m.]: Kings Forest is a development site that is located in the coastal Tweed Shire in the far north-eastern part of the State. Its area is approximately 880 hectares and it contains a diversity of coastal sand plain habitats ranging from paperbark and swamp mahogany forests to scribbly gum, wallum, banksia and littoral rainforests, with cleared grazing land lying to the west of the site. Residential development planning for Kings Forest has been highly controversial because its natural habitats in the northern, southern and eastern parts are of extremely high conservation significance. Development of these habitats not only will result in a major loss of biodiversity but also will severely impact on adjacent habitats of high conservation significance, and will particularly affect the biodiversity of the Cudgen Nature Reserve.

The Cudgen Nature Reserve borders on Kings Forest to the east and south. The south-eastern section of Kings Forest, which is known as the Cudgen Paddock, links the nature reserve with high conservation value habitats to the north, south and west. Interestingly the debate concerning Kings Forest encompasses a broader story than a conflict between conservation objectives and large-scale residential development. Development planning and environmental management in Kings Forest constitute a tale of two departments that are engaged in what could be termed a skirmish behind bureaucracy walls. The interdepartmental stoush originated in a handwritten note that was marked "not for file", the existence of which was denied by the former Minister for the Environment. Curiously, it appeared following a freedom of information request.

In 2006 the then Department of Environment and Conservation [DEC] provided the Department of Planning with clear advice on the conservation values of Kings Forest, including the crucial importance of Cudgen Paddock. The views of the Department of Environment and Conservation were confirmed and supported by the reports of three independent ecological experts. When the Department of Planning commissioned independent planning reviews that were conducted by the Planning Workshop and the Snowy 21176 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

Mountains Electricity Commission, the reports were suppressed by the Department of Planning. The difference of opinion between the two departments escalated in January 2006. The then Department of Environment and Conservation had become extremely disappointed by the Department of Planning's position on Kings Forest and the draft local environmental plan No. 20.

The Department of Environment and Conservation formed the opinion that habitats in Kings Forest were crucial for the ongoing viability of local populations of two threatened fauna species, the koala and the long-nosed potoroo. Both populations were, and continue to be, under extreme pressure from agricultural practices on the site and from adjacent development. The Department of Planning's perspective, as stated in a letter dated 9 January 2006 from the acting executive officer of the Department of Planning, Yolanda Stone, is that "the Department does not consider that the ecological values of Kings Forest, in particular in Cudgen Paddock, preclude ecologically sympathetic urban development". An internal letter dated 31 January 2006 from Joe Woodward, who was the executive director of the Department of Environment and Conservation's environment protection regulation division, to Yolanda Stone clearly states:

The DEC is of the view that to ensure the long-term survival of the species, in particular the Koala, the Long-nosed Potoroo and the Wallum Froglet, the southern and north-eastern portions of Kings Forest would need to be conserved under an appropriate environmental protection zone. Such an outcome would also contribute to the conservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage. The DoP's position, as advised to Project 28, achieves considerably less than the DEC's recommendation.

The conflict is astonishing between the departments, as is the refusal of the Department of Planning to follow basic ecological and scientific principles. The Department of Environment and Conservation has told the Department of Planning that Project 28's development proposal will sever the link between key habitats and will significantly reduce the long-term viability of the Cudgen Nature Reserve. It will result in the loss of local populations of a number of threatened species—a process that inevitably leads to extinction. The Department of Planning is ignoring the advice of respected ecological consultants and the New South Wales Government's key environmental agency. To well and truly eliminate any remnants of the Department of Environment and Conservation's protests, Project 28 called on Minister Sartor personally. It is noted that in an email exchange dated 24 January 2006 between senior officers of the Department of Environment and Conservation, Bob Ell of Project 28 asked that the Minister call in Kings Forest under part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Clearly Project 28 conceded that the then Minister would be more sympathetic to its development proposal than was the local council or the then Department of Environment and Conservation.

The current Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water and local conservation groups have never maintained that Kings Forest should not be developed responsibly. The western part of the site, which is elevated and largely surrounded by farmland, is eminently suitable for development from a number of perspectives. However, the small patches of vegetation that are proposed to be retained among development in the west of the site under the current concept approval cannot be compared with conservation of large contiguous patches of vegetation to the north and east, especially Cudgen Paddock. This is a basic tenet of the theory of landscape conservation, and a refusal to adopt that approach ignores the detrimental effects of habitat fragmentation and isolation. The biodiversity conservation values of the northern, southern and eastern portions of the site, particularly Cudgen Paddock, are too great to allow development in these areas.

NATIONAL PARKS AND TOURISM

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [5.34 p.m.]: In November 2008 the New South Wales Taskforce on Tourism in National Parks, which was chaired by Brian Gilligan, delivered its report on tourism in national parks. The task force comprised representatives from Forests New South Wales, the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, the Department of Lands, Tourism New South Wales, the Tourism and Transport Forum and two independents with a conservation background. The purpose of the report was to improve nature-based tourism in terms of its accessibility and the quality of visits for tourists across all categories.

Key recommendations included a focus on iconic experiences in areas close to Sydney and within three hours drive of major airports in Newcastle, the Gold Coast, Ballina, Coffs Harbour and Canberra; clarification of national parks legislation to make sustainable tourism a clear outcome; a review of accommodation and leasing policies in our parks to provide a clear understanding of the range of acceptable accommodation options, including huts, standing camps and cabins; a statewide reservation system for accommodation and campsites to allow online bookings; changes to encourage sustainable nature-based tourism outside parks that will encourage visitors into neighbouring areas; and a calendar of regular events suitable to parks and reserves, such as the 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21177

island hopping event in the Sydney Harbour National Park, which commenced in 2008. The report also recommended legislative changes to increase the range of low-key tourism experiences and attractions that are permitted in parks.

On 3 December 2008 the then environment Minister, Carmel Tebbutt, and tourism Minister Jodi McKay issued a media release hailing the report and announcing "new direction for tourism in national parks". They announced that the new direction will "put New South Wales national parks at the centre of a campaign to make the state one of the world's best ecotourism destinations" and that "while protecting our parks remains the priority, this report presents a clear case for incorporating sustainable tourism so we are up there with other famous and successful destinations". Minister Tebbutt also stated:

We want New South Wales to have its own version of New Zealand's Milford track or Tasmania's Freycinet National Park— iconic places that people travel to from across the world, to experience their natural beauty.

That is all very exciting, but 16 months and three environment Ministers later, it seems not one of the 20 recommendations has been implemented. The whole new direction is like much of the rest of the State—dead in the water. There has been no sign of any relevant legislation, other than the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Leasing and Licensing) Bill 2007, which was introduced five Ministers ago by the then Minister, Phil Koperberg, and has been left, like a poor orphan, on the parliamentary table. Its existence is recorded each day on our business paper, even though in reality it has been lying in a sadly comatose state since 27 June 2007.

Obviously the legislation is too hard for the Government to deal with, but that does not mean that the bold new direction announced by the Government should have to falter in its operations. However, progress on that front seems to have stalled as well. The exciting recommendation for a statewide reservation system that will facilitate online bookings is an obvious innovation that has been working well in other States for some years. Last year I accessed the Queensland system to plan and book a trip, and I can only describe it as a joy to use. That website has detailed maps, weather and campsite information compared with the New South Wales word-of-mouth system. Queensland's user friendly online bookings system issues vouchers and passes together with instructions on how to access the facility, tips about where more information may be obtained, and advice about emergency services and contacts for tourism services. This compares with the system known as pot luck in New South Wales whereby people arrive at a campsite with fingers crossed.

Queensland's 24-hour automated payments system, which accepts credit cards and issues receipts, also compares favourably with the New South Wales system that offers a rusty honesty box, with dangling broken lock and a faded appeal for payments, that is placed forlornly at the entrance to camp sites. Queensland has a single customer contact number whereas the New South Wales system requires a masters degree in research to track down the relevant information. I have not detected any changes to encourage nature-based activities inside our parks. To the contrary, it continues to be near impossible for school groups to undertake educational activities inside their local national park. Prohibitions on guided tours, other than tours conducted by very few operators licensed by the department, are very restrictive, and the fledgling Adventure Ranger program, which I think is wonderful, seems to have shrunk, if not vanished altogether. I hope this perception is incorrect: I am certain it is not expanding. Certainly it is not known, and its potential is unfulfilled.

Previously I have called for the Government to adopt Australian national standards for grading and signage for bushwalking as this would assist potential visitors to understand the challenge of walks and plan trips accordingly. But given that the department barely provides any walking maps, either for carrying or on the web, it could be argued that if you do not tell people where to go then it is not necessary to describe what they will find when they do not get there. The Liberal-Nationals do not support moves for private accommodation in national parks but we support a vast improvement on our current system.

MARINE PARKS

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [5.39 p.m.]: Today I will talk about an issue that continues to be very close to the hearts of New South Wales families and fishermen—marine parks. I last spoke on this issue in this place almost six months ago. I am sad to say that for many fishing families things have only got worse since then as this Labor Government has continued to refuse to listen to the problems in the community caused by marine parks. Over the summer I travelled to fishing meetings up and down the New South Wales coast, from Narooma to Kiama, to the Central Coast and to Harrington and Port Macquarie on the mid North Coast. We had some of our largest turnouts in Harrington and Port Macquarie, where we can rely 21178 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

on our strong Nationals candidate Leslie Williams to be on top of the local fishing community's concerns. The record numbers we saw turn up to these meetings show how strongly the fishing community and its families feel about these lockouts and the rotten way they have been treated by this Labor Government.

Recreational and commercial fishers have come together to talk about issues ranging from where their fishing licence money is going to the huge fines they are copping for mistakenly drifting into sanctuary zones; and their fear of Labor creating more marine parks and marine sanctuary zones without doing any research and without proper community consultation. Our online petition has now reached almost 5,000 signatures as angry fishers continue to speak out against Labor's lock-up-and-throw-away-the-key policy. I thank all those fishers for their continued support. The Government has refused to acknowledge the damage these lockouts have had on recreational and commercial fishers, their families and local businesses. Only yesterday my office heard from one family who has been fishing and living on Smiths Lake near Forster for 140 years. Fishing has been the occupation of the past five generations of this family. Currently, a father and his two sons are maintaining their fishing tradition.

Since 1932 the family has kept a diary documenting how they have looked after the lake. The Government has put no-take zones in a large proportion of the lake, and these fishermen want to know where the science and documentation is to support this decision. I can answer that: The science the Government used was political science. These fishermen have better documentation than this Government has and certainly a better record. Going from earning nearly $100,000 a year down to $30,000 to $40,000, this family is now struggling to stay afloat. Depression amongst fishermen and the community has become common and we can understand why many of them have reached rock bottom. While this family and many like it struggle to make a living, we hear that there are so many fish in Smiths Lake that the fish themselves are undernourished and the flathead look anorexic.

I call on the Minister for Primary Industries, Steve Whan, and his photo opportunity loving Premier to visit this family and the many struggling fishing families up and down the coast of New South Wales. Time and time again we have seen that we simply cannot trust this Government, which has become renowned for saying one thing and doing quite the opposite. Labor is still sitting on the Marine Parks Association's review reports into the zoning areas of the Jervis Bay and Solitary Islands marine parks, despite the fact that the Ministers are liable under the legislation to report on these reports within three months of receiving them. It has now been eight months since Labor first received these reports and there is still no word on them. The Government is also still sitting on proposals for more marine parks and increased lockout zones from the Marine Parks Association's Torn Blue Fringe document; frankly, it has not ruled them out.

Unfortunately this kind of underhanded approach from this Government is no surprise. An added concern is that this year the National Parks Association has listed as one of its main goals an increase in marine protected areas by 300 per cent. Labor is completely destroying livelihoods and businesses in the name of Greens preferences. Fishers and families in the regions are suffering because Labor cannot run the State properly and is only looking for Greens preferences in inner-city seats to make up for its inability to run the State. The current marine parks system in New South Wales does not properly address the real threats to coastal biodiversity and aquatic ecosystems: it is concentrated solely on restricting fishing at the expense of addressing the real issues.

HMAS ADELAIDE ARTIFICIAL REEF PROJECT

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA [5.44 p.m.]: Today I will talk about an important upcoming event on the Central Coast. With the assistance of favourable weather conditions, on 27 March HMAS Adelaide will be sunk off the Central Coast, between Terrigal and Avoca Beach. This event is eagerly anticipated by the local community, both for the spectacle of the scuttling itself as well as the longer-term benefits for the area. The scuttling of this former Australian Navy frigate will create an artificial reef and dive site, providing a major dive attraction for the Central Coast. It will be the first military dive site in New South Wales and one of only six military dive sites around Australia. Of these six, it will have the advantage of being closest to a major population centre and the shoreline. The Central Coast is the ideal location for an artificial reef. It is already one of the State's premier tourist destinations, with top surf beaches, good fishing, great diving, and all within easy access of Sydney and Newcastle.

Estimates indicate that a minimum of $11.7 million in earnings will flow each year from the dive site. This is based on 20,000 international divers, along with accompanying transport, accommodation, entertainment and other spending while the divers are here. Of course, Australian divers will be coming from all over the 10 March 2010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 21179

country as well. This will provide a boost for tourism to the region and be a significant contributor to the regional economy, providing a lot of new jobs for the Central Coast. The scuttling itself will be a major event, with a large number of people and water vessels expected. The scuttling will also be celebrated at the Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service's annual charity ball that evening. The project is jointly funded by the Australian and New South Wales Governments and is being managed by the New South Wales Land and Property Management Authority.

Consideration of environmental impacts has been an important element in the preparation and management of the scuttling. A rigorous environmental assessment of both the frigate and its final resting place has been completed. The assessment canvassed all facets of the scuttling and long-term management of the site, including water quality, flora and fauna. In preparing the vessel for scuttling, any material that could be hazardous to divers or marine life is being removed. A research program underway at the University of Newcastle will also monitor how the reef develops in comparison to natural reefs nearby. It is anticipated that the reef will be a haven for a multitude of marine species and the dive site will benefit the region's ecological values over time. The dive site is a Crown reserve, which will also provide opportunities for research and educational projects. This will be enhanced by the proximity of the site to university campuses and the Central Coast Marine Discovery Centre.

HMAS Adelaide was decommissioned in 2008 following 28 years of naval service. The Adelaide was involved in most operations undertaken by the Royal Australian Navy during this time. The Adelaide has been deployed to the Gulf three times, being one of the first Royal Australian Navy vessels deployed in the 1990-91 Gulf War, followed by subsequent deployments in 2002 and 2004 as part of the International Coalition against Terrorism. The Adelaide also assisted in East Timor, deploying in 1999 and 2006 as part of Australia's peacekeeping effort. The Adelaide is perhaps best known as the ship responsible for the search and rescue of the yachtsmen Thierry Dubois and Tony Bullimore when they became stranded in the Southern Ocean in 1997. The Adelaide was also the ship that intercepted the SIEV 4. The events surrounding this have become commonly known as the children overboard affair—a particularly disgraceful and infamous chapter in the Federal Government of John Howard.

The Adelaide, finding its permanent home on the Central Coast, is the second Navy vessel to bear the name, the first being a light cruiser commissioned in 1922. There are plans for a third HMAS Adelaide, a Canberra class landing helicopter dock ship, anticipated for commissioning by the Royal Australian Navy in about 2012. In this way the Adelaide lives on in the futures of both the Royal Australian Navy and the Central Coast.

POLITICAL DONATIONS

TRIBUTE TO ALAN OLIVER

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.49 p.m.]: For the past 10 years the Greens Democracy For Sale project has tracked the corrupting influence of political donations. Our research team receives many tip-offs and also queries. The common question is: When did the rot start in New South Wales with respect to political donations? I cannot answer that question. However, events in the early 1980s involving the Wran Government, Westfield and the Land and Environment Court certainly established a pattern that has been repeated over subsequent decades. On 4 August 1982 the Land and Environment Court was informed that the Government would pass legislation to prevent a legal challenge being brought against its rezoning plans when Crown land in a private deal to Westfield was sold for a $275 million development project. The legislation was in direct conflict with the Government's own Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which in fact had been a Wran Government initiative.

The background to this issue is that Westfield received generous treatment from the Government when it facilitated the rezoning of the Pagewood land from industrial to commercial. This resulted in a large increase in value. The land was owned by the Government, which sold it to Westfield in what amounted to a private deal. While normal practice is for government land to be sold through public tender, Westfield was offered the site without any approaches to other possible buyers or any public indication that the land was for sale. The Law Society of New South Wales criticised the Government for introducing legislation to cut off a court challenge to its rezoning plans. Then Law Society President Ms Mahla Pearlman said that the draft law would create a dangerous precedent by removing from the Land and Environment Court the power to decide issues brought before it and which it had been specifically set up to determine. The New South Wales Bar Association also 21180 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 March 2010

protested against the Government move, based on the introduction of the Botany and Randwick sites development bills in 1982. The association issued a statement protesting against clause 4. The association stated, "This amounts to Parliament legislating for the actual result of a particular piece of litigation".

The bill passed by this Government enabled the development of a tobacco factory, an $80 million shopping complex and a high-rise residential building. The shopping complex was planned to occupy two Crown land blocks, which under the original terms of the GM-H lease, were to be returned for public purposes once the lease was terminated. The GM-H plant closed in 1980. The total political donations given by Westfield to Labor are not known because we have records of donations only since 1998, when it was decided that private donations had to be disclosed. Since 1998, Westfield has donated at least $2.2 million to Labor.

I extend my condolences to the family, friends and Maritime Union of Australia [MUA] colleagues of Alan Oliver. Alan died last year. I joined hundreds of mourners at the funeral of Alan Oliver at an overflow celebration of his life. The speeches were moving. Paddy Crumlin, National Secretary of the MUA, described Alan as the "Damon Runyon of the maritime and international working class movement". In the 1980s I met Alan Oliver when I worked under Secretary, Pat Geraghty, at what was then called the Seaman's Union of Australia on the Seaman's Journal. I learned a great deal from Alan and we kept in touch subsequently. He joined the Greens. Alan was a beautiful writer, using the union journal to communicate with his fellow seafarers. When I worked on the Seaman's Journal I remember Alan writing about the problems with bars on ships, the need to upgrade education facilities for seafarers and current political issues from the anti-apartheid movement, the campaign against the Vietnam War and the work for international nuclear disarmament.

Alan wrote extensively. I worked on many union journals and it was one union journal where one never had to look for copy because the seafarers were so prolific in their writing. Warren Smith, Assistant National Secretary, described Alan's beautiful words and unique turn of phrase that captured the essence of Australian working class values. Alan is also remembered for his work in establishing the annual World Maritime Day celebration and his work with his colleagues in winning the naming of the Hungry Mile, which is so historic for wharfies and for seafarers. I will close with Alan's own words. He said that he gained his education in the university of the sea. I valued Alan's friendship, and many miss him.

HMAS ADELAIDE ARTIFICIAL REEF PROJECT

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Planning, Minister for Infrastructure, and Minister for Lands) [5.54 p.m.]: I will reflect on earlier comments by the Hon. John Della Bosca in relation to the sinking of HMAS Adelaide on 27 March. He highlighted a number of points in relation to the sinking and the benefits for the Central Coast. It will be a great tourist attraction and create many jobs in the area. The Government worked very hard with the Federal Government to achieve this result. Belinda Neal was able to secure the ship to be given to the Department of Lands, as it was then, along with approximately $6 million from the Federal Government to ensure that the vessel was free of PCBs and that it was environmentally friendly and safe for divers. In fact, as the Hon. John Della Bosca pointed out, about 94 different species of fish are expected to inhabit the wreck. That is what happened in Queensland when the HMAS Brisbane was sunk. It will be a great occasion, and the annual charity ball that will be held on the evening of the scuttling of HMAS Adelaide will raise funds for the Westpac rescue helicopter service.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Are you going?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I am going. I thank the Hon. John Della Bosca for his comments, and particularly thank Belinda Neal for her hard work in ensuring that we secured both the HMAS Adelaide as a great tourist facility for the area and the Federal Government money to make the vessel safe for drivers.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m. until Thursday 11 March 2010 at 11.00 a.m.