4084 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thursday 27 June 2002 ______ Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 10.00 a.m. Mr Speaker offered the Prayer. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN Report Mr Speaker tabled, pursuant to section 31AA of the Ombudsman Act, the report entitled "Speedometers and Speeding Fines: A Review of Police Practice", dated June 2002. Ordered to be printed. APPROPRIATION BILL APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL APPROPRIATION (SPECIAL OFFICES) BILL GENERAL GOVERNMENT LIABILITY MANAGEMENT FUND BILL PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT OPERATIONS AMENDMENT (TRADEABLE EMISSION SCHEMES FUND) BILL PUBLIC FINANCE AND AUDIT AMENDMENT (BUDGETING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING) BILL STATE REVENUE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (BUDGET) BILL Second Reading GOVERNOR'S SPEECH: ADDRESS-IN-REPLY Take-note Debate Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Parliamentary Secretary), on behalf of Mr Carr [10.03 a.m.], in reply: Speaking in reply to the debate on the Appropriation Bill and cognate bills, I thank all members who have contributed to the debate. Following the passage of these bills I will move suspension of standing orders to enable members who have not spoken in the Appropriation debate to take part in a take-note debate on the Appropriation bills. Mr Tink: For clarification, my understanding was that the actual budget debate will now go to the upper House and that the take-note debate will occur here following that without regard to what happens to the budget debate in the upper House. Is that the position? Mr WHELAN: Absolutely. Once the bills are passed I will then move for suspension of standing orders for the take-note debate to take place in this Chamber. I repeat that those members who have not spoken on the Appropriation bills will not be disadvantaged. The opportunity to do so will be available today and tomorrow and, if the House sits on Wednesday and members are desirous of it, then as well. No-one will be disadvantaged. Motion that the Appropriation Bill, and cognate bills, be now read a second time agreed to. Bills read a second time and passed through remaining stages. 27 June 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 4085 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Budget Estimates and Related Papers: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to: That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit a motion to be moved at a later hour for the House to take note of the budget estimates and related papers for 2002-03. STATUTE LAW (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 19 June. Mr TINK (Epping) [10.06 a.m.]: The object of the bill is to make a number of minor amendments to the Acts listed in the schedule. All the shadow Ministers have been circulated with that list and my understanding is that they have no concerns. Accordingly, the Opposition does not oppose the bill. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages. POLICE SERVICE AMENDMENT (NSW POLICE) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 26 June. Mr TINK (Epping) [10.07 a.m.]: The Coalition does not oppose the Police Service Amendment (NSW Police) Bill, one of the purposes of which is to change the name of the New South Wales Police Service to the NSW Police. Although the Minister for Police has been referring to the "police force", he does not seem to have the courage of his convictions to rename the NSW Police the NSW Police Force. I understand that major changes have already been made and a great deal of money has been expended in changing stationery and so forth. Therefore we will not press for an amendment for the name to be changed to the NSW Police Force. In testing that proposition we do not want to put a lot of money through the shredder owing to another change of name. The provision in the bill about the making of payments to student police officers is very important. The Coalition supports it strongly and I personally am very happy to support it. I place on record my thanks and condolences to the family of Robert Brotherson, a student of policing who died tragically earlier this year during a police pursuit. These arrangements for students who may be employed by the New South Wales Government in various capacities are unusual. Students of policing are required, as part of their time as students, to undertake and be involved in extremely hazardous physical activity in a way which, as far as I can determine, no other student in the employ of the Government, or studying under its auspices, would have to face. It is tragic that Mr Brotherson lost his life as a student of policing while involved in a high-speed pursuit. It is fundamentally important that student police are involved in practical activities so that when they are tested as probationary constables they are able to do the job. Almost as importantly they need to have an understanding of what practical police work involves, in case they decide that it is not for them. The Coalition is pleased to support this critical provision. I extend my condolences to the family of Mr Brotherson. I place on record, on a posthumous basis for him and for his family, the short but very important contribution he made. It is in his name that this amendment is made, with the support of the whole Parliament, on behalf of every police officer from now on. It is a fitting memorial to him that something good came out of the tragedy. The Coalition supports the proposals dealing with the unauthorised use of police uniforms and insignia and impersonation of police officers. The system works only if police can be confident that those who are wearing the insignia are who they represent themselves to be, particularly in difficult situations. That is even more important for the public, which must have confidence that people who represent themselves to be police 4086 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 27 June 2002 are in fact police, otherwise the whole system is immediately in peril. The commissioner's powers to determine eligibility criteria for appointment, rank, academic qualifications and length and service are practical, supportable changes. Accordingly, the Coalition does not oppose the bill. Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Parliamentary Secretary), on behalf of Mr Iemma [10.12 a.m.], in reply: I thank the honourable member for Epping for his contribution and for the Opposition's support of the bill. I take this opportunity to thank him for his kind words this morning. Motion agreed to. Bill read a second time passed through remaining stages. FIREARMS AMENDMENT (PUBLIC SAFETY) BILL SUMMARY OFFENCES AMENDMENT (PUBLIC SAFETY) BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 26 June. Mr TINK (Epping) [10.13 a.m.]: These are important bills. The firearms bill attempts to deal further with the scourge of illegal firearms, in particular illegal hand guns. I note and accept the Minister's assurance that this bill is not directed at the lawful, licensed firearm owners. However, I understand that the Government has not consulted the New South Wales Firearms Dealers Association, and the association, understandably, is cranky about that. The honourable member for Murrumbidgee has spoken with the president of the association, and I understand there is nothing in the bill that would be opposed. It is important for associations to be consulted and the Minister was wrong not to consult the New South Wales Firearms Dealers Association, and he should do so. At the end of the day, everyone involved, whether a lawful owner of a firearm or someone lawfully engaged in the sale of firearms, should be consulted about these changes. It is important for the changes to have wide public support. The firearms bill is in the interests of lawful firearms owners. It is often the lawful firearm owner who is unfairly defamed and pilloried when concern is raised about the proliferation of illegal hand guns in our community. Illegal hand guns are one of the great challenges and threats from organised crime. The possession of those guns has been severely restricted since 1927. The reality is that people who have them, unlawfully, are criminals of the worst type. I make the distinction of lawful firearm owners in that description. In attempting to deal with the illegal black market trade and organised crime element of the most violent and worst type, the bill is a plus for lawful firearm owners. Nevertheless, they should be consulted about the changes. The drug detection dog program has been extensively debated, and this bill extends it to include firearm detection dogs. The Coalition strongly supports that extension. As a member of the Council for Civil Liberties, I was less than impressed by its web site on which certain advice was given on how to put detection dogs off the scent. As a result I took on the council and make no apology for doing so. It was a bad mistake on the council's part and if it wants to have any credibility on civil liberty issues it should not do that in the future. The Council for Civil Liberties has a part to play in relation to police powers, although I am normally against the council on most things. If it partakes in stunts that encourage people to break or avoid the law and provides advice about how to stop police handlers and dogs from doing their work, it deserves the strongest censure. I will take on the council publicly, at every turn, without apology. I place that point on the record, as we are talking about dogs being used to check firearms, and what the Council for Civil Liberties was considering would have interfered with that process.