______

The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The President offered the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge that we are meeting on Eora land.

Bill received and read a first time.

Motion by the Hon. Charlie Lynn 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.

The Hon. Ron Dyer, as Chairman, tabled report No. 21, entitled "Criminal Procedure Amendment (Pre-trial Disclosure) Act 2001: First Report", dated September 2002, together with submissions and correspondence.

Report ordered to be printed.

The Hon. RON DYER [2.35 p.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Ron Dyer.

Private Members' Business item No. 97 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn on motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS, by leave: On 3 September 2002 the Federal Minister for education issued a press release titled "Labor's Scare campaign: Higher Education Deserves Better" in which he stated:

John Hatzistergos, Labor member of the Legislative Council in NSW, and a member of the University of Sydney Senate, recently visited the United States to examine costs.

His report of the study tour, which he sent to me, says:

"The average course cost in 2001 at a four-year private institution was $US24,946 (A$45,192) and $US11,338 (A$20,540) at a public university"

Reference to this quotation was repeated in a subsequent press release issued by the Minister on 23 September 2002 titled "Study Finds Australian University Costs Amongst The Lowest" and in the Minister's answer to a question without notice yesterday in the House of Representatives. I would like to make a number of points regarding the Minister's statements. Firstly, as my study report makes clear, the focus of my tour to the United States was to examine effective university governance and strategic development. I did not go to examine university costs, as the Minister alleges, and in particular I did not, as Dr Nelson seeks to do, make comparisons regarding costs in Australia. Suffice to say that the figures I cited in my report came from the US Federal Department of Education and are published in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

The figures are the average college costs in 2000-01 at a four-year institution. The figures cited of $US11,338 for a public college and $US24,946 for a private college are the average college costs including tuition and fees, books and supplies, room and board, transportation and other expenses. Furthermore, as my report makes clear in a sentence immediately following the one quoted, but omitted from Dr Nelson's statements, these figures do not represent the net costs to students as they do not incorporate the offset of Federal aid, which is worth $78 million a year. Clearly, therefore, the US figures used by me in my report cannot be equated to the cost of HECS for an Australian student, which deals only with the tuition costs of university. The cost of HECS would clearly not include the costs that the Chronicle of Higher Education assessed those figures from. The Minister's comparison and use of figures in my report is wrong and is similar to comparing apples with oranges. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that I did send a copy of the full report to Dr Nelson on 2 May 2002, and he was kind enough to respond with a personal postscript to a letter dated 17 June 2002 in which he said, "Thank you, John. It is a very good report and I enjoyed reading it." That statement by the Minister is highly accurate.

Business of the House Order of the Day No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Michael Egan.

Consideration of the Legislative Assembly's amendments.

No. 1 Page 2, clause 3, line 9. Omit "Regulation". Insert instead "Regulations".

No. 2 Page 18, Schedule 1. Insert after line 15:

1.22 Road Transport (Heavy Vehicles Registration Charges) Act 1995 No 72

[1] Section 25 Exemption for eligible pensioners

Insert "or in a de facto relationship with each other," after "married to each other" in section 25 (3).

[2] Section 25 (4)

Insert after section 25 (3):

(4) In this section:

de facto relationship has the same meaning as in the Property (Relationships) Act 1984.

1.23 Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 1998

[1] Clause 82 Exemption for eligible pensioners

Insert "or in a de facto relationship with each other," after "married to each other" in clause 82 (3).

[2] Clause 82 (4)

Insert in appropriate order:

de facto relationship has the same meaning as in the Property (Relationships) Act 1984.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.48 p.m.]: I move:

That the Committee agree to Legislative Assembly's amendments Nos 1 and 2 in the bill.

In Committee in the Legislative Assembly the Government moved amendments to include the Road Transport (Heavy Vehicle Registration Charges) Act and the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation in the Miscellaneous Acts Amendment (Relationships) Bill. The amendments are uncontroversial in that they are identical in terms and effect to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1988 that are already included in the amendments contained in the bill. The amendments were proposed at this late stage simply because the Act and regulation were inadvertently overlooked during the process of identifying legislation which required amendment in accordance with the policy of the bill. As with changes to the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, contained in the bill, the effect of the amendments will be to extend to de facto couples a tax exemption in respect of registration fees paid by pensioners for motor vehicles used for social or domestic purposes. By adopting the definition of "de facto relationship" contained in the Property (Relationships) Act, the amendments will ensure that that benefit is enjoyed equally by same-sex and opposite-sex spouses.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [2.50 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the amendments. We accept that they were inadvertently overlooked when the bill was passed through this House.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI [2.50 p.m.]: Given the history of this series of changes, and my colleague Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile would agree, it is amazing that we should be considering amendments that seek to insert "or in a de facto relationship" after the words "married to each other". The Opposition suggested the wording of the amendments for this bill should be "spouse or de facto". That is the wording in the superannuation bills that were passed a year ago.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: They accepted them upstairs.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: No, the amendments were not accepted upstairs. Our amendments were refused in the lower House, as I understand it.

The Hon. Don Harwin: The amendments were not passed here.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI: No, the amendments were not passed here and were not passed in the lower House. The amendments to the Act states:

Insert "or in a de facto relationship" after "married to each other".

What this House was trying to amend a week ago by using the words "spouse or" has been included in amendments to this Act but not in amendments to any other Act. That is my point. Suddenly in the Miscellaneous Acts Amendment (Relationships) Bill the words "or de facto relationship" has been added, to make it the same as the Property (Relationships) Act. The Coalition has no problem with that amendment, which was supported also by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, and we were successful in moving that in both Houses a year ago for the superannuation bills. But suddenly the Government has seen the light of day.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald moved similar amendments a year ago when he moved about 150 amendments to bring us up to speed. However, last week the words "spouse or de facto" were not acceptable, but this week they are acceptable. The Government has suddenly got it right, but last week it got it wrong. It is amazing that the Acts that this House is asked to put together have internal contradictions. Why can the Government not get it right for all Acts? Can the Hon. Ian Macdonald explain that?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.53 p.m.]: I was hoping that when the Coalition was advised that the bill was to come before this House today, following the passing of amendments in the other place, we would find that the Government had come to its senses and accepted the amendments that were moved, but defeated, in the upper House. I am very disappointed that our amendments were not accepted in the other House. The heads of both the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church have spoken strongly about this to Mr Carr. I saw some correspondence that indicated that there had been some agreement to the amendments. But this arrogant Government is continuing with the main bill, including the interpretation that "spouse" covers same-sex partners. It will be on its head come the election and that will seriously affect the election results next year, for no real purpose.

I cannot understand the Government's reason for digging in its heels to include same-sex spouses in legislation, unless the Government is preparing the way for legalising same-sex marriages in due course. Is the Government intent on supporting the Federal legislation moved by the Australian Democrats in the Senate? I place that concern on the record, and note that that is the widespread suspicion in all churches in Sydney and across the State. If that is the case the Labor Party will lose a lot of support, especially in country regions and other areas where the Catholic and Anglican churches are very active. I understand that the Anglican Diocese has forwarded a letter to every parish in Sydney requesting that it make this concern a matter for prayer and action leading up to the next State election. I express my very strong disappointment that the Government has not had the courage to respond to the genuine concerns of the community.

The Hon. Dr BRIAN PEZZUTTI [2.55 p.m.]: It is interesting that the Hon. Ian Macdonald did not repeat the reasons given in the lower House for rejecting our amendments. I have read that debate, and the reason for not accepting the amendments was that the lower House was not prepared to tinker with the Marriages Act, which is Federal legislation. For some reason the lower House would not change the words "married to each other" to "spouse", and would not define a "spouse" in this Act as a "de facto person". That was explained by Mr Debus, in his particular way, as one would understand if one listened to him explaining these matters. I ask the Hon. Ian Macdonald to ask the Government to give consideration to adjourning debate on these amendments, to go back to the lower House and ask it to reconsider its refusal to accept our amendments. I ask the Government to properly amend the bill and bring it back to the Committee for another vote.

That would be consistent with the commitment that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile said the Premier gave, and would then be consistent with the Act passed by this House last year relating to parliamentary superannuation and other matters. This amendment, for heavy vehicle registration charges, would have to be worth about three shillings and sixpence. The Opposition and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile have no problem with the financial arrangements relating to property rights for people living together. Our objection is to the cheapening of the word "spouse" to mean something that it does not mean. Our objection is to the cheapening of the way in which we value the solid structure of marriage. This is an opportunity for the Hon. Ian Macdonald to pause, to go back to his masters and ask them if they really want to recommit the bill and have the amendments reconsidered.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.58 p.m.]: The Government intends to proceed with this matter now.

Motion agreed to.

Legislative Assembly's amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.

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

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.00 p.m.]: 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.

Marine and estuarine water quality is regarded as one of the most serious issues in Australia's marine and coastal environments and water quality generally. Marine and estuarine waters support dynamic ecosystems, contain valuable natural resources, and have important environmental values. Major pollution incidents such as oil spills can cause ecological damage to these fragile environments, and can also adversely affect human health and recreational activities. Oil spills in particular can affect intertidal biota, fish and birds. Sources of potential oil spills can include collisions between ships within ports and harbours, vessel groundings, discharge of tank washings or bilge water from vessels, and refuelling accidents.

The Marine Pollution Act is the main statute that governs pollution in marine and estuarine waters from shipping. It covers pollution by oil and other noxious substances and prohibits discharges from ships of these substances into State waters. The Act also sets out powers to inspect and detain ships believed to be responsible for such discharges. The Marine Legislation Amendment (Marine Pollution) Bill is the first major revision of this important piece of legislation since its inception in 1987. Honourable members will recall that the main aim of the Marine Pollution Act is to enact the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships, commonly called the MARPOL Convention. The Act prohibits and makes it an offence to discharge oil, oily mixtures and noxious liquid substances from vessels and transfer operations and makes the owner and master of the vessel and any other person who caused the spill strictly liable for the offence.

The Marine Legislation Amendment (Marine Pollution) Bill 2002 will amend the Act in three major ways-it will substantially increase the penalties for some offences; it will amend the offences to overcome a significant loophole; and it will require all vessels entering State waters to have and show evidence of insurance in respect of oil pollution. The proposed increases in penalties are for offences of improper discharges, failure or delay in reporting incidents and failure to co-operate in the investigation process. The increase in penalties is from the current maximum of $1.1 million to $10 million for corporations and from $220,000 to $500,000 for individuals for discharges; and from the current maximum of $275,000 to $2.75 million for corporations and $55,000 to $120,000 for individuals for the failure and delay in reporting an incident and failure to co-operate in an investigation. I should note that these increased penalties only apply to commercial vessels-pleasure craft are specifically excluded from the provisions of the amendments.

The increases are significant but so is the potential impact on the environment that the penalties are intended to address. Oil pollution incidents represent a serious threat to the quality of New South Wales waters. Honourable members need only recall the spill of 300,000 litres of oil from the Laura D'Amato into Sydney Harbour on 3 August 1999 to realise the damage that a large spill of oil can cause. The environmental, commercial and public use significance of Sydney Harbour and other New South Wales coastal estuaries along with coastline and coastal waters requires owners and masters of vessels using these waters to exercise extreme care in full knowledge that failure to do so could have severe consequences on their operations. The current levels of fines are insufficient to have a deterrent effect on oil polluters. It must be remembered that the penalties are maximum ones and the courts have discretion on the penalty actually imposed.

Only in the most serious of cases would the penalty approach the maximum amount. Even in the case of the Laura D'Amato, the penalties imposed were only 50 per cent of the maximum and yet were the highest fines ever imposed under the Act or any other legislation covering New South Wales waterways. Even if the courts impose the maximum fine for a corporation, that penalty is relatively small when compared to the average value of a commercial vessel visiting New South Wales waters. For example, the value of an average oil tanker visiting Sydney Harbour or Botany Bay is about $60 million. This does not include the value of its cargo, which would normally be between $25 million and $30 million. Increased maximum penalties for improper discharge for corporations that represent over 10 per cent of the value of the average oil tanker and its cargo would provide a more appropriate incentive for compliance with the Marine Pollution Act than the current penalty does. The proposed increases to penalties for improper discharges for individuals and offences in relation to the failure or delay in reporting incidents or failure to co-operate will also provide more appropriate incentives for compliance with the Marine Pollution Act by shipowners and their crews.

Sentencing guidelines recently recommended in England state that for environmental offences penalties should be set according to the means of those concerned. For large companies, fines should be substantial enough to have a real economic impact which, together with the negative publicity resulting from the prosecution, would create sufficient pressure on the management and shareholders of those companies to tighten regulatory compliance. The increase in penalties now proposed endorses this view. The proposed increased maximum penalties are also consistent with those in a number of countries, particularly maximum penalties in the United States. An increase in penalties is also consistent with the doctrine of public trust, which is applied in the United States of America. This doctrine assists in the determination of appropriate methods to protect the natural environment. The doctrine advocates that public resources and property are held in trust for current and future generations and that it is appropriate to impose severe penalties on those who degrade the natural environment.

In light of the significant environmental, commercial and public amenity issues associated with Sydney Harbour and New South Wales coastal estuaries, coastline and coastal waters and the potential impact of a major oil or other chemical spill, the United States doctrine is applicable in the context of the Marine Pollution Act. Accordingly, the penalties in the Marine Pollution Act should reflect the significance of the resource and potential scale of the problem. The second major part of the bill is to amend the defences available to those involved with improper discharges. One of the defences exonerates those who spill oil as a consequence of damage to the vessel or its equipment. The interpretation of this defence taken by those prosecuting under the Act is that the damage must be external to the ship such as by collision or grounding.

However, in a current prosecution under the Act both the Land and Environment Court and the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal interpreted that the defence also includes spills that occur through wear and tear. If this view is accepted it would be possible for owners who have failed to properly maintain their vessels to use this defence to defeat the objectives of the legislation and the MARPOL Convention which underpins it. This case is currently the subject of an appeal to the High Court. Regardless of the result of the High Court appeal, it is vital to close this loophole by specifically excluding wear and tear and to clearly indicate to shipowners that any vessel entering New South Wales waters is required to be properly maintained.

The third part of the bill is to require that vessels entering New South Wales waters have and are able to produce evidence of insurance to cover the consequences of oil spills. Recent amendments to Commonwealth legislation on this point do not cover all vessels using New South Wales waters. In particular, vessels under 400 tonnes and vessels engaged solely on intrastate voyages are subject to New South Wales law and are not covered by the Commonwealth legislation. This amendment brings these vessels within the same regime as all other vessels entering New South Wales waters. A particular ship may be declared to be exempt from this requirement by order of the Minister, and a class of ships may be exempted by the regulations.

Honourable members will note that the Act will no longer apply to recreational vessels. It has been past practice to prosecute oil spills from recreational vessels under the Protection of the Environment (Operations) Act and its predecessor, the Clean Waters Act, where penalties for offences are smaller. Oil spills from recreational vessels are rare and when they do occur are likely to be relatively minor. Furthermore, recreational vessels are unlikely to be insured for such occurrences. It is appropriate therefore to recognise current practice and bring prosecutions for oil spills from recreational vessels only under the Protection of the Environment (Operations) Act. Finally, the bill makes some minor miscellaneous amendments designed to aid in the administrative efficiency of the Act.
The purpose of the bill is to further protect New South Wales waters from the effects of oil pollution from vessels by providing stronger incentives for owners, masters and crew of vessels to comply with the Marine Pollution Act and to ensure that vessels and equipment are appropriately maintained to prevent discharges. Sydney Harbour is the cleanest it has been for a very long time, with more and more whales and dolphins returning to it every year. The proposed amendments to the Marine Pollution Act will help to ensure that the health of Sydney Harbour and our other waterways are preserved for future generations.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [3.00 p.m.]: This bill amends the Marine Pollution Act 1987 in a number of important respects. It amends the definition of "ship" to include any vessel of any type whatsoever, except for a pleasure vessel, capable of being used on or in water. It is very important to note that the bill does not apply to recreational boats, but it applies to platforms and floating docks. The bill increases the number of penalties under the Act, including the penalty for the discharge of oil, an oily mixture or a noxious substance. It provides separate offences whereby a person whose act causes a discharge from a ship of oil, an oily mixture or a noxious substance can be prosecuted in relation to the discharge.

The bill restricts the defence of the damage in relation to discharge of oil, an oily mixture or a noxious substance. It requires certain ships in State waters to be adequately insured against oil pollution, and to carry evidence of that insurance on board. It permits an inspector to detain a ship if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that the ship does not have adequate insurance or does not carry on board evidence of that insurance. The bill permits a summons against a crew member of a ship to be served on the agent of the ship, and it expands the definition of "appropriate person" with regard to pollution relating to transfer of operations.

The bill also makes a number of other amendments. It amends the Ports Corporatisation and Waterways Management Act 1995 so that all penalties covered under the marine legislation will be paid to a port corporation if a member of staff of the port corporation prosecuted the offence or issued the penalty notice, and they will be paid to the Waterways Fund in any other case. The most important provision of the bill is that it increases almost tenfold the penalties for some pollution offences, for example, improper discharges and failure or delay in reporting incidents in New South Wales waters. The maximum penalty for discharges increases from $1.1 million to $10 million for corporations, and from $220,000 to $500,000 for individuals. The fines for failing to report a spill or failing to co-operate with an investigation increase from $275,000 to $2.75 million for corporations, and from $55,000 to $120,000 for individuals.

A number of shipping representatives have expressed to the Opposition their concern about the rather dramatic leap in the maximum penalties provided for in the bill. It is posited that they are harsher than fines imposed anywhere else in the world. We would be concerned if there were any disincentive to businesses using New South Wales ports as a result of these increases in maximum penalties. I note that in the Commonwealth jurisdiction some of the penalties for marine pollution have been revised downwards. It is very important that we have consistency across the continent so that New South Wales ports are not disadvantaged.

Under the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983, the Commonwealth has widened the net in terms of potential offenders, but it has reduced the maximum penalties for some pollution offences. I note also that the Commonwealth Minister for Transport, the Hon. John Anderson, recently released the Commonwealth response to the review of ship safety and pollution prevention measures in the Great Barrier Reef, which is a joint Commonwealth and Queensland government officers' analysis of issues highlighted by the grounding of the Bungi Teratai Satu in November 2000.

Recommendation 412 of that extensive review stated that as part of the proposed shipping management plan for the Great Barrier Reef waters the main regulatory agencies should present co-ordinated proposals to improve the powers of intervention and the restitution and recovery of costs, offences and penalties. Although that recommendation applies to the Great Barrier Reef management plan, it is desirable that there be a consistent approach across Australian waters. The Opposition will carefully monitor the end result of such implementations. Amendments to the Marine Pollution Act require all ships entering New South Wales waters to hold insurance for oil pollution damage, to conform with the Commonwealth requirement to hold such insurance in relation to Commonwealth waters.

As a result of a fairly recent court case, the bill will prevent polluters using the wear-and-tear defence; it removes the loophole by which operators could use that defence to avoid prosecution for spilling oil and chemicals. The Opposition is pleased that the amendments make clear that recreational boats will be removed from the provisions of the bill. Pollution from such boats will be regulated under environmental legislation, particularly the Protection of the Environment (Operations) Bill. I note that the Minister for Transport, the Hon. Carl Scully, has been very slow to follow up in legislating-in line with a discussion paper that was released a long time ago-for recreational boating and the pollution they generate.
We are disappointed, as are many recreational boaters, that the Government's follow-up on that report is not clear. Although some parts of it have been followed up, there is a great gap in relation to recreational boating. The shipping fraternity is somewhat anxious about the wide discretion judges will have to impose the penalties to which I referred earlier. Theoretically, a judge could impose a $10 million maximum penalty for the spillage of a teaspoon of oil into New South Wales waters. Under the existing legislation a judge could impose a $55,000 penalty, or 5 per cent of the maximum, for the accidental spillage of a small amount of an innocuous substance, but under this new legislation a judge could impose a penalty of $500,000. That would be unreasonable and unjustified. It is important to again place on record that in his second reading speech in the Legislative Assembly, the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Gaudry, who had carriage of this bill and spoke on behalf of the Minister For Transport, Mr Scully, said:

Only in the most serious of cases would the penalty approach the maximum amount.

The Opposition trusts that the judiciary will reflect upon those words in the second reading speech when the legislation was introduced in the Legislative Assembly. Those comments are underscored by a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Minister for Transport dated 28 July, which stated:

In any discussion about the size of penalties it should be noted that the prescribed amounts are expressed as a maximum and the actual penalty imposed for any offence is always at the discretion of the presiding judge. This penalty would normally vary according to the state of the vessel, the conduct of the crew, the level of cooperation and the environmental performance record of those found to be responsible for the spill. Only in the most serious cases would the court impose penalties approaching the maximum amount.

It is important that any judge considering the imposition of the maximum fine closely take into account those words, which were placed on the record on behalf of the Government and supported by the Opposition. In the Laura D'Amato case, which involved a significant oil spill in Sydney Harbour in 1999, the penalty imposed by the Land and Environment Court was $620,000, half the maximum, and the largest of its type. Honourable members will no doubt recall that a number of inquiries and reviews have been held in the wake of the Laura D'Amato crisis, which in some ways have precipitated this review.

The Hon. Richard Jones: Including a general purpose standing committee inquiry.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: As the Hon. Richard Jones says, one review resulted in the General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 "Report on Inquiry into Oil Spills in Sydney Harbour: Final Report No. 10", dated May 2001. That committee reviewed the outcomes of those inquiries and was generally satisfied with the response and follow-up to the crisis. As I said last week to a group of shipping companies, the industry can be generally pretty proud of its record because it is no mean feat to receive a tick of approval from a parliamentary committee chaired by none other than the Hon. Richard Jones that inquired into the responses and follow-up to the oil spillage. However, the committee made one simple request of the Government. Recommendation 9 states:

That Sydney Ports Corporation/Waterways Authority in their 2000/2001 annual report to Parliament include a list of each of the recommendations made in the investigation report by 1) the State Marine Oil Response Committee; 2) the Inspector of Marine Accidents, Australian Transport Safety Bureau and 3) the Australian Maritime Safety Authority concerning the Laura D'Amato oil spill and details of the specific steps taken to implement these recommendations or detailed reasons for any decision not to implement any recommendation.

In keeping with the arrogance of this Labor Government it has failed to ensure that the Waterways Authority and the Sydney Ports Corporation have incorporated that report into their annual reports. The annual reports of both bodies made only a passing reference to the Laura D'Amato oil spill, despite its significance, and neither attempted to address recommendation No. 9. The lack of accountability of the Waterways Authority has emerged as a matter of great concern to waterways users in New South Wales. It demonstrates contempt for the Parliament because the recommendation required few resources to implement it. That is one reason why Mr Scully should be considered as only a temporary steward of the Waterways Authority.

The Opposition notes with satisfaction that the bill also amends the Ports Corporations and Waterways Management Act 1995 so that all penalties recovered for offences under marine legislation will be paid into the Waterways Fund, except those payable to a port corporation under proposed section 21A. So far, moneys derived by way of fines have gone into consolidated revenue. This was unintentional and the Treasurer has belatedly agreed that the ports corporations will receive penalties in the event of successful prosecutions. It would be interesting to know to what purpose the money has previously been put, but at least we have been assured that from now on it will be used to assist the ports corporations and the Waterways Fund to maintain clean waters in New South Wales. I conclude with the serious concern I have expressed about the dramatic hike in penalties and the plea that the judiciary be sensible and take into account the factors outlined in the second reading speech if it ever contemplates imposing maximum penalties for oil pollution.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [3.16 p.m.]: The Greens are pleased to support the Marine Legislation Amendment (Marine Pollution) Bill. It is important that there are significant penalties for polluting the marine environment, and the Greens hope that the size of the penalties will act as a deterrent to international shipping companies in particular, and encourage them to take greater caution when in Australian waters. The bill is consistent with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL. That convention was adopted on 2 November 1973 and covered pollution by oil, chemicals, harmful substances in packaged form, sewage and garbage.

The protocol of 1978 relating to the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships-the 1978 MARPOL protocol-was adopted at a Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention in February 1978 that was held in response to a spate of tanker accidents in 1976-77. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships was signed and is a good example of an international treaty. MARPOL came into force on 2 October 1983 and the original New South Wales legislation in 1987 was in response to it. Record-keeping on oil spills began in 1968. In 2000, 48,600 tonnes of oil was spilled, excluding war-related causes. This was the lowest quantity since 1968. By rough calculation, that is 48,600,000 litres, so the 300,000 litres from the Laura D'Amato in Sydney Harbour was only about 0.6 per cent of all oil spills around the world that year, and we know the serious threat it posed to the health of Sydney Harbour.

Oil tankers are a leading source of oil spills, although pipelines, production wells, storage facilities and refineries are also significant sources of spills. To quench the industrial world's thirst for fossil fuels, oil tankers transport some 107 million tonnes of oil each day. Unfortunately, many tankers are still single hulled-another good example of how the search for profit overrides the public interest, which would require double-hulled tankers as the norm. The Greens were pleased that the bill includes the doctrine of public trust. In the other place, Bryce Gaudry said:

This doctrine assists in the determination of appropriate methods to protect the natural environment. The doctrine advocates that public resources and property are held in trust for current and future generations and that it is appropriate to impose severe penalties on those who degrade the natural environment.

The doctrine of public trust comes to us from the Roman Emperor Justinian, who in 530 AD ordered that the laws of the Roman Empire be written down. Thus the Institutes of Justinian, the body of Roman civil law, were written. Tucked away in those numerous volumes covering every aspect of Roman life and commerce was the provision that:

By the law of nature these things are common to all mankind: the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea.

Although Rome fell, much of Roman law was incorporated in English law, on which Australian law is based. The Greens think the doctrine of public trust applies to a great many more issues than marine pollution and we will regularly remind the Government of its advocacy of this doctrine. Similarly, the member for Kogarah, Miss Burton, when speaking about the Laura D'Amato spill, said:

That spill, which had a damaging effect on the environment, incurred certain commercial costs and resulted in the depletion of marine life in Sydney Harbour. In determining appropriate penalties the issues to be addressed involve the intrinsic worth of clean marine environment. How much is too much when the lives of animals and the health of habitats are at stake?

She asked that rhetorical question of the House. The Greens would like to see the same logic applied terrestrially. On my reading, the bill refers also to pollution by ballast water that contains oily substances. However, the bill does not contain provisions regarding marine pollution from living organisms. It is well known that organisms introduced into the Australian marine environment from ballast water are now causing major problems, particularly in harbours and estuaries.

The marine environment of Botany Bay, for example, has been highly impacted by human activities, particularly shipping-related activities, since the early days of European settlement. This has resulted in considerable pollution in various forms that affects the marine biota of Botany Bay. Introduced marine organisms may also affect the habitat of, and compete with, the endemic marine fauna and flora of the bay. Toxic dinoflagellates-planktonic algae-such as the Alexandrium species may cause fish kills and also have a detrimental effect on aquaculture activities, including rendering shellfish such as oysters and mussels unsuitable for human consumption. Indeed, the consumption of shellfish thus affected can cause a fatal illness.

Interestingly, a significant source of pollution from marine organisms are the woodchip ships that ply their dirty trade between Japan and Newcastle and Twofold Bay. Tasmania-which has the disgraceful record of exporting more woodchip than anywhere else in Australia-has several new environmental pests that are believed to have entered its waters via woodchip ships. They include the shape-shifting microbe pfiesteria shumwayae, which has been devastating fish stocks in America, and the Northern Pacific sea star, asteria amurensis, which is a ravenous shellfish feeder that devours oysters, scallops, abalone, mussels and Japanese kelp-which is another weed.

The social and economic cost to our community from these organisms has not yet been determined. I think it is a great shame that governments of all political persuasions cannot consider the impact of industrial activity, such as the marine trade including woodchip ships, and the real cost to the environment, and subsequently the community, of industries that create financial advantages for a small section of the community but have a massive impact on the ecosystem and resources that should be available to us all.

The Greens would like to see legislation that not only deals with oil and chemical pollution in the marine environment but also addresses the pollution of our marine environment by introduced marine organisms. Similarly, this legislation does not deal with the pollution of the marine environment from antifouling paints. Antifouling paints are used to coat the bottoms of ships to prevent sea life such as algae and molluscs attaching to the hull, thereby slowing down the ship and increasing fuel consumption. In the early days of sailing ships, lime and later arsenic were used to coat ships' hulls. These days the modern chemicals industry has developed antifouling paints using metallic compounds. These compounds slowly leach into the sea water, killing barnacles and other marine life that have attached to the ship. However, studies have shown that these compounds persist in the water, killing sea life, harming the environment, and possibly entering the food chain.

One of the most effective antifouling paints, which was developed in the 1960s, contains organotin tributylin, which has been proven to cause deformation in oysters and sex changes in whelks-who knows what it might do to those who eat a substantial amount of affected oysters. The Greens call on the Government to continue to treat marine pollution seriously and to introduce legislation in line with the international convention on this matter in order to prevent the pollution of our marine environment from antifouling paint. Furthermore, we urge the New South Wales Government to lobby the Federal Government to ratify the proposed International Maritime Organisation convention on antifouling paints.

It was interesting to hear the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner say that this legislation has shifted the focus away from pollution by domestic boats and small recreational craft. I think that is a great shame. While major craft cause obvious pollution problems, pollution from small craft has a cumulative effect, which in many ways reflects the debate between commercial and amateur fishers. We often hear accusations-which may or may not be appropriate-about the impact of professional fishing on our marine environment. However, significant numbers of smaller recreational vessels can also have a major impact on our marine environment, particularly in the form of antifouling paints, sewage discharge and reckless behaviour by boat operators. This contributes to a build-up of marine pollution in offshore areas and in enclosed estuarine waters that cannot release pollutants. If we add this to urban run-off and the less than satisfactory methods of sewage treatment and disposal, we have a recipe for significant ongoing pollution that must be addressed by the Government and the community. With those comments, the Greens are pleased to support the Marine Legislation Amendment (Marine Pollution) Bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.28 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the Marine Legislation Amendment (Marine Pollution) Bill. This important bill will dramatically increase penalties under the Marine Pollution Act, including increasing the penalties for the discharge of oil, an oily mixture, or a noxious substance from a ship from $220,000 to $500,000 if the offender is an individual, and from $1.1 million to $10 million if the offender is a body corporate. The bill will also require certain ships in State waters to be adequately insured against oil pollution and to carry evidence of that insurance on board. I seek the Government's guidance as to whether there will be any problems with ships securing that insurance, which this legislation will make compulsory. Has the Government inquired as to whether insurance companies have placed any restrictions on issuing such policies, as they seem to be eliminating from their coverage most of the areas they consider to be high risk?

The legislation will permit an inspector to detain a ship if he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that the ship does not have adequate insurance. That gets back to the point I was just making. The bill will also amend the Ports Corporatisation and Waterways Management Act 1995 to require all penalties recovered under the marine legislation to be either paid to a port corporation, if a member of staff of the Port Corporation prosecuted the offence or issued the penalty notice, or to the Waterways Fund in any other case. That is a good provision as any damage that has been caused by pollution obviously will have a long-term harmful effect on the harbour or coastline. It is only fitting, therefore, that either a port corporation or the Waterways Fund should receive the revenue from any penalties imposed and that it not go into consolidated revenue. If that revenue is given to those bodies, obviously the Government should not then deduct the amount of that revenue-in some cases it could be millions of dollars-from the budget allocations to those bodies, otherwise the effect of the amendments in this legislation will be lost.

The bill will increase fines relating to a failure to report a spill or a failure to co-operate with an investigation from $275,000 to $2.75 million for corporations and from $55,000 to $120, 000 for individuals. We have all seen evidence of the massive damage that can be done by pollution from ships, especially recently on the Barrier Reef. It seems that because nowadays ships are being mass produced for economic reasons they are more prone to damage from the effects of a violent storm or from hitting a reef or coastline. These ships, because of their size and length, split in the centre or at some part of the water line, and this means that pollution is immediate and dramatic. For those reasons this bill is very important. I hope-and not necessarily only from an insurance aspect-that shipbuilding methods will be further reviewed to ensure that ships that are required to carry large, heavy and dangerous cargoes such as oil or chemicals are safe. The Christian Democrats are pleased to support the bill.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.32 p.m.]: The Democrats support the bill. The Marine Pollution Act 1987 is the main statute governing pollution from ships in marine and estuarine waters. It enacts the international convention for the prevention of pollution by ships which is referred to as the MARPOL Convention. The Act prohibits discharges of oil and other noxious substances into State waters. It sets out powers to inspect and detain ships believed to be responsible for such discharges. The Marine Legislation Amendment (Marine Pollution) Bill is the first major revision of this Act.

The bill will amend the Act in three major ways. It will substantially increase penalties for some offences; it will amend the offences to overcome a loophole; and it will require all vessels entering State waters to have, and to show evidence of, insurance for oil pollution. The proposed increases in penalties are for offences of improper discharges, failure or delay in reporting incidents and failure to co-operate in the investigation process. The increases apply only to commercial vessels. Pleasure craft are specifically excluded and addressed under the Protection of the Environment (Operations) Act. The increases are significant. For example, at present the maximum fine for corporations for discharges is $1.1 million. It will be increased to $10 million. Such penalties will be brought into line with those provided by other countries, and they will provide more appropriate incentives for compliance with the Marine Pollution Act.

The bill also amends the defences available to those involved with improper discharges. At present one such defence exonerates those who spill oil as a consequence of damage to their vessel or its equipment. The interpretation of this defence is that the damage must be external to the ship, such as through collision or grounding. Only damage arising in such circumstances where the master or owner has acted with intent to cause damage or has acted recklessly and with knowledge of the possible consequences has been excluded from this defence. The bill will exclude not only intentional or reckless acts but negligent ones as well.

In a current prosecution under the Act, however, both the Land and Environment Court and the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal interpreted that the defence also includes spills that occur through wear and tear. There is a concern that if this view is accepted, owners who have failed to maintain their vessels may use this defence to defeat the objectives of the legislation. Schedule 1 to the bill aims to close this loophole by specifically excluding wear and tear.

The third part of the bill addresses insurance to cover the consequences of spills. Vessels entering New South Wales waters will be required to have such insurance. Recent amendments to Commonwealth legislation do not cover all vessels using New South Wales waters. Vessels under 400 tonnes and those engaged solely on intrastate voyages are subject to New South Wales law and are not covered by the Commonwealth legislation. This amendment brings those vessels within the same regime as all other vessels in New South Wales waters. A particular ship may be declared exempt from this requirement by order of the Minister and a class of ships may be exempt by the regulations.

The Democrats support legislation that will bring penalties for these offences in New South Wales into line with similar penalties around the world. We support bringing vessels under 400 tonnes and those engaged solely on intrastate voyages under the same umbrella that covers other vessels entering New South Wales waters. Removing wear and tear as a defence for oil spills could be seen as superfluous if one considers the Port State control system and Article 94 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Port State control requires the inspection of ships that enter the port of a State. Under international maritime law entry into the ports of a foreign country subjects the ship, cargo and crew to the laws of that State and gives the Port State power to inspect the ship, and its cargo and crew. The inspection should ensure that the ship complies with international conventions and national laws. In Australia the primary responsibility for inspections lies with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority [AMSA]. Ships can be detained until proper requirements are met. Article 94 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 also stipulates that flag States have the sovereign responsibility of ensuring that their ships are operated and maintained in a manner that minimises risk to seafarers, the marine environment and cargo. Therefore, no ship in new South Wales waters should suffer from wear and tear significant enough to cause a spill. However, the convention acknowledges that unless some evidence arises from the physical examination, it will generally rely on the registration of the flag State. The convention states that it is also axiomatic that some flag States are better than others in their registration requirements and the port State has little control over such deficiencies, short of doing a full survey of all ships-and that is impractical, if not impossible. Therefore, by removing the defence of damage caused by wear and tear, New South Wales can, to some extent, encourage shipowners to properly maintain their ships.

The bill is important and should be supported. Following the Laura D'Amato spill there was quite a lot of pollution. The effect of the oil spill was made clear by many people in the northern suburbs of Sydney ringing up to complain of an appalling smell, which I could detect also at my house. At the investigative hearings conducted by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 on 22 February 2001 I asked about what levels of benzene were involved. Interestingly, the responses I received were almost comic in their inappropriateness. It seems that the benzene level was being measured in Rozelle, but because a southerly wind was blowing at the time I was happily assured that there was no change in the measurements. As there was a large amount of gas in the northern suburbs it seemed absurd that there would be no change in any reading involving benzene, which could well have been the result of spilled oil.

Rozelle monitoring station is, of course, south of the harbour and the spill occurred on the north side of the harbour. I was then assured that everything was fine because the level had been measured very thoroughly on the Thursday. Unfortunately, the spill was on a Sunday night. It bordered on the absurd for the claim to be made that the benzene level in the air was fine four days later! However, that did draw attention to the fact that in order to protect the environment additional pressure must be placed on ship owners to maintain their vessels and that those who do not should be punished. Similarly, more work is needed with regard to air monitoring. I commend those matters for consideration by the Government. They were discussed at the public hearing on 22 February 2001. The Australian Democrats support the bill.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [3.40 p.m.]: I support the Marine Legislation Amendment (Marine Pollution) Bill. Like others who have spoken in this debate, I too am disappointed that the Government has not responded to the report on the inquiry into oil spills in Sydney Harbour that was produced by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 on 29 May 2001. This House has passed a motion asking the Minister to request the Government to respond to the report. I suggest that adoption of the recommendations of the report would not be onerous for the Government. The inquiry found that the oil spill did not have as much a negative impact as had been anticipated. Professor Underwood stated that this was because we did not use the same techniques to clean up the Laura D'Amato spill as were used for the Exxon Valdez spill. There were appalling repercussions following the Exxon Valdez spill, not just from the oil but from the attempts to clean up the oil. Dr Peter Scanes from the Environment Protection Authority [EPA], in agreeing with Professor Underwood-this appears on page 47 of the report-said:

The Exxon Valdez example did not occur in this harbour because the methods of cleaning were far less severe and so the biological communities in those areas cleaned were virtually indistinguishable from areas which were not cleaned in our case so that the cleaning did not cause any environmental damage.

Dr Scanes had said:

During the spill response, all efforts were made to keep people and machinery off habitats. Virtually all of the oil recovery was from water, the exception was the beach in Balls Head Bay. Shell primarily led that recovery. For that recovery, walkways were put in place and lots of precautions were taken so that over the areas where people moved there was very little possibility that oil was going to be trampled into the sediment.

A number of years of research were taken into account on the day of the spill. It ensured that we did not make the same mistakes as were made with the Exxon Valdez. In the end there was probably no loss or reduction of species in Sydney Harbour in the long term, although individual birds, animals and fish may have been killed. But, fortunately, the overall impact was far less than had been anticipated in the media. The committee heard evidence from Craig Bohm from the Marine and Coastal Community Network on the value of the harbour, particularly for divers. He stated in his evidence:

The opportunity exists to extend the outer boundaries of the [North Harbour Aquatic] Reserve and increase the protection afforded by it to the level of a marine sanctuary. There is limited commercial and boat-based recreational fishing in the area of the Reserve, and with the exception of a few sacrificial land-based recreational fishing areas this fishing effort could be removed. There is also the potential for many... areas to be included into an expanded Sydney Harbour Marine Sanctuary.

I was very much hoping that my proposal that Sydney Harbour be declared a marine park would be accepted by the committee, but it was not. Such a declaration would only enhance the attractiveness of the harbour, and it is possible to declare a working harbour a marine park. Some members believed that the priorities of a working harbour and those for a marine park are not compatible, but that is not so. On our tour of the harbour Craig Bohm showed us film taken by him while diving in the harbour. There is an extraordinary amount of biodiversity in the harbour just a metre or so below the surface, which I witnessed this morning while travelling on the JetCat. It is a very rich area. Dolphins and even whales are returning to the harbour now that it has been cleaned up.

Some years ago the Premier helped to launch a campaign to bring the dolphins back to the harbour. After 200 years of attack from pollution, overfishing and whaling the harbour is now becoming richer. We now realise what a valuable resource the harbour is. It is bringing more and more benefit to the people of Sydney with increased tourism. Evidence was given to the committee on the value of tourism and how much the harbour was worth. The oil spill may have deterred some people from visiting but we have no evidence of that. Tourism NSW claims that each visit lost costs something like $1,202-an enormous amount of money for each person who does not visit. So it is important for the harbour to be adequately protected from further oil spills such as the Laura D'Amato oil spill, which was the most significant spillage in the harbour for a long time. Between 250 and 300 tonnes of light crude oil went into the harbour between the hours of 18.26 and 18.50 on 3 August 1999.

I congratulate organisations such as the Sydney Ports Corporation and the EPA on reacting very efficiently indeed to this spillage. Probably the world's best practice was followed during the clean-up. They should be given credit for ensuring that the spill did not have the negative impact it might have had if the techniques used during the Exxon Valdez spill had been employed. Four of the eleven smaller spills in the harbour since 1995 have occurred during bunkering operations. Recommendation 8 of the committee's report was that the Sydney Ports Corporation give consideration to the deployment of booms during major bunkering operations on Sydney Harbour. I hope that recommendation will be adopted. The Government's response to the report should indicate whether all the recommendations have been adopted. All members on the committee agreed with the recommendations. I support the bill. It is time to make sure that those who despoil our harbour or other New South Wales waterways suffer the consequences and that there is adequate money to pay for any cleanup that is necessary.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.47 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The Government acknowledges the concerns raised by the Greens with regard to introduced marine pests. Whilst ballast water contaminants are of concern, the Government's advice is that, as there are further international treaties under development, the matter of penalties is, in the first instance, a Commonwealth responsibility. Furthermore, I am advised that the Commonwealth's amendments last year to the Quarantine Act provide interim protection until the international convention is in place.

In relation to the question of insurance raised by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, I am advised that as the vast majority-some 80 per cent-of shipping lines operate in North American waters, where penalties can be considerably higher, most ships already hold adequate insurance. I am advised further that the Waterways Authority has also made inquiries as to the availability of insurance and has been informed that appropriate policies are available for those ships not currently covered under international policies. I hope that satisfies Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.50 p.m.]: 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.

Schedule 1 of this Bill amends the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, which is the principal Act that governs the administration of sentences by the Department of Corrective Services.

A number of deficiencies in the Act have come to light with respect to the operation of the periodic detention scheme and the compliance of offenders with periodic detention orders.

Schedule 2 of this Bill amends the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, which governs sentencing procedures, including the procedure for sentencing to imprisonment by way of periodic detention and home detention those offenders who are eligible and suitable for these diversionary programs.

The Government believes that the criteria for eligibility and suitability of offenders for periodic detention and home detention needs to be tightened to protect the integrity of those schemes and thereby increase compliance with periodic detention orders and home detention orders.

I shall now outline the more important changes being made.

Section 87 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 governs the granting of leave of absence to a periodic detainee. The Commissioner of Corrective Services may grant leave of absence to a detainee for health reasons, or on compassionate grounds, or on the ground that the offender is in custody, or for any reason the Commissioner thinks fit, so that such leave becomes authorised leave.

Existing section 87 (3) allows a periodic detainee to apply for leave of absence up to 7 days after the beginning of a detention period. Existing section 87(3) means, therefore, that a detainee's absence cannot be regarded as unauthorised until the lapse of 7 days from the day on which the detainee failed to report for periodic detention. Consequently, there is at present a delay of at least 7 days (and effectively 10 days for weekend detainees) between the day on which a detainee fails to report and the day on which the Commissioner is able to apply to the Parole Board for revocation of the detainee's periodic detention order.

The amendment to section 87 will remove this delay by requiring a periodic detainee who is unable to report for a detention period to notify the Department of Corrective Services by phone advising their inability to attend before the detention period commences. The 7-day period to submit a written application will only apply to those detainees who first provide notification by phone - any detainee who does not make the telephone call before the beginning of a detention period may be regarded as absent without leave immediately. The written application must contain documentary evidence to justify the detainee's absence, such as a medical certificate.

There may, however, be instances where a periodic detainee cannot telephone in advance to advise their inability to attend a detention period. Existing section 93 already provides a safeguard by allowing a detainee to apply to the Parole Board for a direction that leave of absence be granted in respect of a detention period where the Commissioner has previously refused it. Of course, the detainee needs to convince the Parole Board why it should make such a direction-and that will not change.

As a further safeguard, new section 175 (1A) allows the Parole Board to rescind a revocation which results from unauthorised leave of absence if satisfied that it would be manifestly unjust not to rescind the revocation or if satisfied that the revocation was made on the basis of false, misleading or irrelevant information.

I shall give two examples of the kind of situations which may lead to the Parole Board exercising its powers under new section 175 (1A). First, if a detainee did not telephone because he was in hospital in a coma, and his periodic detention order was revoked for that unauthorised absence, the Parole Board could rescind that revocation on the "manifestly unjust" ground.

Likewise, if a detainee did in fact telephone the Department of Corrective Services to advise an unavoidable absence but the Department attributed the telephone call to another detainee by the same or similar name and revoked the detainee's periodic detention order on the basis of that absence, then the Parole Board could rescind that revocation because the information on which the revocation was based (namely, that the detainee had not telephoned) was false.

The amendment to section 163 (1B) makes it clear that, if the Parole Board revokes a periodic detention order on health or compassionate grounds, the Board may only make such other orders as are sought by the Commissioner and which the Board considers appropriate.

Only the Commissioner can make such an application, though of course a periodic detainee may request that the Commissioner do so in appropriate circumstances.

New sections 163 (1C), 165 (3), 167 (6) and 168A (4) all apply where an offender, who is subject to a periodic detention order or home detention order, is subsequently sentenced to a term of full-time imprisonment which is yet to commence. These new sections provide that the Parole Board must revoke any existing periodic detention order or home detention order, and must not rescind such a revocation order or re-instate a periodic detention order or home detention order that has previously been revoked, in respect of such an offender.

The amendment to section 163 (2) (a) makes it clear that if a periodic detainee has failed to report for 3 or more detention periods without authorised leave of absence, the Parole Board must revoke the detainee's periodic detention order, on the application of the Commissioner of Corrective Services, regardless of whether the 3 unauthorised absences occur in one sentence or in consecutive sentences.

New section 175 (1A) provides that the Parole Board cannot rescind a revocation order that it has made under section 163 (2) (a)-that is, on the basis of 3 unauthorised absences.
For instance, a detainee serving 2 consecutive sentences of 3 months periodic detention, who accrues 2 unauthorised absences during the first 3 months sentence, must have his or her periodic detention order revoked in respect of the second sentence on the application of the Commissioner after 1 more unauthorised absence-the slate is not wiped clean just because one sentence has been served.

This requirement places such a detainee in the same position as a detainee serving just 1 sentence of 6 months periodic detention, whose periodic detention order would be revoked if he or she were absent without authorisation on the same dates as the first-mentioned detainee.

The Commissioner of Corrective Services has a discretion to apply to the Parole Board under section 163 (2) for revocation of a periodic detention order when the detainee concerned has accrued 3 unauthorised absences. New section 163 (2A) requires the Commissioner to apply for revocation of a periodic detention order if the detainee concerned has accrued 3 consecutive unauthorised absences.

New section 163 (3A) restricts the power of the Parole Board to defer making a decision on the Commissioner's application for revocation on the basis of 3 unauthorised absences. Under new section 163 (3A), the Board will only be able to defer making a decision if it wishes to obtain further information, such as verification of the reason for an application for leave which the Commissioner has rejected.

The Government believes that offenders who flout their periodic detention orders by failing to attend periodic detention should reap the consequences of their behaviour swiftly and surely. The amendments streamlining the revocation procedure for unauthorised absences, and making revocation mandatory for 3 consecutive unauthorised absences, promotes the integrity of the sentencing process by ensuring that offenders sentenced to periodic detention actually attend periodic detention as required by their sentence or suffer the consequences.

Those consequences are severe. Currently, if an offender's periodic detention order is revoked, unless he or she is eligible and found suitable for home detention, the offender must serve all of the non-parole period of their sentence in full-time imprisonment. For instance, a detainee sentenced to 2 years imprisonment by way of periodic detention, with a non-parole period of 18 months, whose periodic detention order is revoked after 6 months, must serve at least the remaining 12 months of the non-parole period in full-time imprisonment-not just the equivalent time that they would have been detained 2 days per week over the remaining 12 months.

On the other hand, the Government believes that an offender who does suffer the consequence of failing to attend periodic detention by having their periodic detention order revoked, should be able to learn a lesson from that experience and have a second chance to comply with the periodic detention order.

New section 164A is an important initiative which allows periodic detainees a second chance. This section allows the Parole Board to re-instate a periodic detention order that it has revoked if the offender concerned has since served at least 3 months full-time imprisonment and has been re-assessed as suitable for periodic detention.

New section 164A reflects existing section 168A, which enables the Parole Board to re-instate a home detention order that it has revoked after the offender has served at least 3 months full-time imprisonment. Section 168A was inserted by the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment Act 2000. The New South Wales Law Society suggested at the time that the Parole Board should also be able to re-instate a previously revoked periodic detention order, and the Government agrees. In applying consistency to periodic detention orders and home detention orders, it is appropriate that the Parole Board have identical powers with respect to the revocation and re-instatement of periodic detention orders and home detention orders.

I wish to emphasise that, under new section 164A, re-instatement of a periodic detention order by the Parole Board will not be automatic. The detainee must apply for re-instatement and must again be assessed as suitable for periodic detention-and the assessment will address the reason the periodic detention order was revoked in the first place. If, for example, the revocation was based on unauthorised absences, the assessment will consider whether the detainee's current circumstances make him or her more likely to attend than previously. The Parole Board will retain a discretion whether or not to re-instate a previously revoked periodic detention order, in the same way the Board retains such a discretion under section 168A in respect of the re-instatement of a home detention order.

Section 168A has also been amended. As I have mentioned, section 168A currently allows the Parole Board to re-instate a revoked home detention order after the offender concerned has served 3 months full-time imprisonment. New section 168A (1A) provides that, where a home detention order was made under section 165 (which allows the Parole Board to make a home detention order in lieu of a revoked periodic detention order), and the Board has subsequently also revoked the home detention order, the Parole Board may re-instate the original revoked periodic detention order rather than the subsequently revoked home detention order.

Some members may at first consider that new section 168(1A) gives an offender too many chances. After all, the new section will mean that an offender may breach a periodic detention order and a home detention order, and still have the original periodic detention order re-instated. I wish to make it clear that, firstly, such a scenario will happen only rarely. Secondly, the offender concerned will have served at least 3 months full-time imprisonment before re-instatement can be considered. Thirdly, and most importantly, such an offender will return to periodic detention only after the Parole Board, an independent statutory authority chaired by a retired judge, has carefully considered all relevant reports and has decided that the offender should return to periodic detention - the original sentence considered most appropriate by the sentencing court.

Members should also bear in mind that, in some instances, home detention orders are revoked not because of a breach by the detainee, but because one or more of the detainee's co-residents withdraws their consent for the detainee to reside with them, and the detainee is unable to find alternative accommodation suitable for the home detention scheme. In these circumstances it would be unjust if the only alternative was to send the offender to full-time imprisonment.

Section 165 has itself been re-drafted to clarify that the term "remainder of the sentence to which the periodic detention order relates" includes the non-parole period of a sentence in some circumstances but excludes the non-parole period of a sentence in other circumstances.

New section 165AA has been inserted to replace existing section 165 (3), which states that the Parole Board may "stay the execution of the offender's sentence" when the Board refers the offender for assessment for home detention. New section 165AA provides that the Parole Board may make a temporary release order with respect to an offender whose periodic detention order it has revoked, pending its decision whether or not to make a home detention order. The new section states that a temporary release order extends an offender's sentence (and the non-parole period of the sentence, if applicable) by the period for which the offender is absent from custody pursuant to the temporary release order and, in the case of an offender for whom a warrant of imprisonment is issued under section 181, by the period between the issue of the warrant and the offender being taken into custody. Section 181 has been amended consequent to new section 165AA.

I now turn to proposed amendments to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

The Department of Corrective Services has advised me that in recent years there has been a significant shift in the type of offender being sentenced to imprisonment by way of periodic detention. There is now a significant "gaol culture" within periodic detention centres due to the sometimes lengthy periods of full-time custody many detainees have previously served. The Government believes that periodic detention is not an appropriate sentence for hardened criminals, and that the periodic detention scheme can be improved if unsuitable offenders are excluded from it.

New section 65A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 provides that an offender who has previously served full-time imprisonment for more than 6 months is not eligible for periodic detention.

Section 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 sets out factors of which a court must be satisfied before making a periodic detention order. Similarly, section 78 sets out factors of which a court must be satisfied before making a home detention order. To assist it in considering these factors, a court obtains an assessment report from the Probation and Parole Service on the suitability of the offender concerned for periodic detention or home detention, as the case may be.

The Department of Corrective Services informs me that all assessment reports for periodic detention and home detention contain a statement that the offender is assessed as either suitable, or not suitable, for periodic detention or home detention, as the case may be.

The amendments to section 66 and 78 provide that, when a court deals with an offender contrary to the Probation and Parole Service's assessment report, the court must indicate to the offender its reasons for departing from the assessment report and must also make a formal record of those reasons. For instance, if the assessment report states that an offender is not suitable for periodic detention but the court nevertheless sentences the offender to imprisonment by way of periodic detention, then the court must give reasons for doing so. Thus, while judicial officers will retain their existing powers in the sentencing process, they will have to give reasons for proceeding contrary to an assessment report. The requirement to give reasons regarding an offender's suitability for a sentencing outcome will enhance the transparency of the sentencing process.

New section 80 (1A) emphasises that home detention is not to be used as a sentencing option when an offender might appropriately be dealt with by way of periodic detention. Thus, where a court refers an offender for assessment by the Probation and Parole Service as to suitability for both periodic detention and home detention, the assessment as to suitability for periodic detention is to be completed first and, if the offender is found to be suitable for periodic detention, no assessment as to suitability for home detention is to be completed.

The amendment to section 80(1A) effectively recognises the principle stated in section 4(2) of the former Home Detention Act 1996. That section stated:

"It is not the object of this Act to divert to home detention offenders who might be appropriately dealt with by way of periodic detention or by a non-custodial form of sentence."

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [3.51 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on this bill. The Opposition will not oppose the bill; but, we intend to move some amendments to it in Committee. The Opposition has been a critic of the Government's administration of the periodic detention system for quite some time. It is particularly concerned that a system that ought to be well managed by the Government has virtually become an optional system for those who are given the sentencing option of periodic detention. In debate on this bill in the other House the honourable member for Davidson revealed problems relating to the Wollongong detention centre, where, on 17 November, an after-dark party involving pizza and movies was held. At earlier similar parties prison guards were said to be partying with female prisoners, who were allowed to wander around freely. They are further examples of the poor management of corrective services by the Minister and his predecessor.

The public is entitled to believe that periodic detention has an element of punishment for the commission of crime; that is what it is all about. In recent times that option has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance. I highlight a concern that was raised during the budget estimates committee hearings concerning the number of offenders subject to periodic detention orders who from time to time do not turn up for that detention. For example, on 3 February only 73 per cent of the 915 offenders subject to periodic detention orders bothered to turn up. Obviously, in some instances, there would be good reasons why offenders did not attend, but it defies belief that more than one-quarter of all offenders who are subject to detention orders simply did not bother to turn up. Astounding as it may seem, many prisoners fail to inform the corrective institution before the time they are due to turn up that they will not be attending. In such cases the institution does not know where the offender is or what is happening. A week later, or when the offender gets around to it, the offender will obtain a medical certificate or provide a reason to the institution for his or her failure to attend in accordance with the order.

Quite clearly this sentencing option should be tightened up. Its administration must be improved to provide that offenders subject to a detention order must attend unless they can provide notice in advance, such notice to be supported by good and proper reasons. A similar situation was disclosed recently by the Auditor-General in his report on managing sick leave within NSW Police and the Department of Corrective Services. The Auditor-General was very critical of the department's handling of sick leave, and this was the subject of debate in the other House. It was reported that the department's sick leave policy provides that managers may rely on medical certificates to validate absences due to seek leave. The Auditor-General said that such a policy means that sick leave that is supported by a certificate from a medical practitioner is not monitored.

It is of great concern to the Opposition that there is no monitoring of the department's sick leave policy. Of concern also is the fact that the same pattern is evident with offenders who are subject to detention orders. With regard to the department the Auditor-General recommended that the pattern of sick leave should be further investigated. Clearly, if the department's leave policy is to be subject of investigation, so too should the policy relating to prisoner absences be the subject of investigation. Over time the Opposition has drawn attention to those problems and proposed some reforms. Once again the Government has attempted to steal our thunder by introducing reforms that have been Opposition policy for some considerable time.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [3.57 p.m.]: The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Periodic and Home Detention) Bill will amend the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The bill aims to tighten the periodic detention system and reform elements of the home detention scheme. In particular, the Government wants to tackle poor levels of compliance with periodic detention orders. Recent figures published by the Department of Corrective Services indicate that in January 2002 there were 954 periodic detainees in New South Wales of whom 686 attended periodic detention. In July 2002 that number was 892 detainees, of whom 690 attended. While that is an improvement, lifting performance in that area is necessary. The majority of changes introduced by the bill are not controversial.

It is my view that the bill will go some way to improving and streamlining the periodic and home detention system operating in New South Wales. The first major area of reform is the Government's aim to address a delay in recognising unauthorised absences from periodic detention. Under existing legislation offenders may apply for leave of absence up to seven days after the start of the detention period. This means that there is a seven-day lag, and sometimes 10 days, between the date on which the offender failed to turn up for periodic detention and the date on which the Commissioner for Corrective Services can apply to have the order revoked.

Under the proposed amendment, offenders who find themselves unable to report for periodic detention must apply for leave of absence before the detention period commences. I understand that they will be able to telephone a special number to advise the department they cannot attend. They then have seven days in which to explain their absence by providing original documents, such as a medical certificate. That is a simple and commonsense procedure. The second main change provides that if an offender fails to attend three periods of detention without leave, the commissioner may apply to the Parole Board to have that person's periodic detention order revoked.

This rule will apply irrespective of whether the three absences without leave take place in one sentence or consecutive sentences. In other words, the offender's record of unauthorised absenteeism will not be cleared at the start of any new sentence he or she might serve. Thirdly, when an offender accrues three consecutive absences without leave the commissioner must apply to have the offender's periodic detention order revoked. It is expected that these last two changes will lift compliance generally and ensure that offenders do not flout their duties under the scheme. This leads me to the fourth major change. Where a periodic detention order has been revoked it may be reinstated in certain circumstances. Essentially, this gives offenders a second chance at getting themselves out of prison and back on to a periodic detention program. However, I understand that this opportunity is neither immediate nor open to everyone. The individual must have served at least three months in prison before applying, and must be found suitable by the Parole Board. The board will assess whether the offender's situation has altered in a way that makes it more likely than before that he or she will attend periodic detention.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. What action did he take immediately following his meeting with senior officials from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [CFMEU] on 11 September where they expressed serious concerns about safety standards on the former BHP steelworks site at Newcastle, including their warning that if he did not do something about their concerns someone would be killed and, further, that demolition contractors and the main steelworkers union should have been removed from the site? Did he at any stage, prior to the fatal accident on the site last Thursday order WorkCover to investigate overall the safety standards on the site, not just the first accident we brought to his attention last month?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The honourable member referred to the tragic accident on the former BHP site at Newcastle. An inquiry has not yet been concluded into the accident, but I take this opportunity on behalf of the Government and the House to issue proper condolences to the family and friends of the person killed. It is an important beginning point. We must ensure that we do not draw any unacceptable or inappropriate conclusions about the cause of an accident until a proper inquiry is completed. As Minister, I have asked WorkCover to give this investigation the absolute top priority. The authority has assigned its State Co-ordinator, Demolition, to the investigation. In addition, the newly created Workplace Fatalities Investigation Unit will assist. WorkCover has advised that, following the accident, the authority revoked the demolition permits for the site. WorkCover also advised that it has issued one prohibition notice and three improvement notices to the demolition company.

WorkCover will convene a technical panel to review the induced collapse method as a safe system of work. The panel will also advise on interim changes to workplace procedures, pending the outcome of both WorkCover's investigation and any potential coronial inquest into the death. WorkCover anticipates that the investigation will not be completed for at least two months. A report will then be submitted to the Coroner. The New South Wales Labor Council has approached my office about setting up a meeting with the Australian Workers Union, whose member died on that site, and the CFMEU, a union with a strong interest in the construction industry, to discuss these issues. I can assure the House that WorkCover will devote expert resources to this investigation, and will do all it can to establish the cause of the accident.

The meeting that the Leader of the Opposition referred to in the preamble to his question was, I assume, one that occurred shortly before this incident. At that time, representatives of the CFMEU and one of the foremost authorities on occupational health and safety from the trade union perspective, Mr Brian Miller, advised me that the occupational health and safety laws in New South Wales are among the best in the world. Mr Miller acknowledged the significant progress we have made in this State over the past few years. The Leader of the Opposition would know that the incidence and rate of workplace injuries have been falling for six consecutive years. Regrettably, in 2001 there were 139 fatalities-too many-but 42 fewer in number than the year before. We can draw some conclusions about the impact of Health and Safety 2000 and Health and Safety 2001, the new Act and regulation respectively. Their effect on employer and employee culture has been significant, even though it is early days.

In July, unions, employers and the Government gathered in Bathurst at the Workplace Safety Summit. The Hon. Greg Pearce represented the Opposition, and was in attendance for most of the deliberations of the summit. There was broad agreement that, with a united effort, we could reduce the incidence of workplace death and injury by 40 per cent over the next decade. The matter that the Leader of the Opposition raised is one that exercises the minds of everyone involved in industrial issues. I need only acknowledge the obvious: demolition is a hazardous and risky industry. Everything will be done to ensure- [Time expired.]

The Hon. TONY KELLY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Police. Will the Minister provide the House with the latest information on the New South Wales police medal?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Is this a ministerial statement?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: No, it is not. Yesterday I had the privilege of presenting the first of the New South Wales police medals to some of the longest-serving members of the New South Wales Police Force. The presentation of the New South Wales police medal provides an opportunity for the community to formally thank the police for the hard work they do on a daily basis. After becoming a Minister, I quickly learned the level of the dedication of our police, and how this is displayed on a daily basis.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You should have known that when you were at the Labor Council. That is a disgrace!

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Every time they pull on the uniform or step onto the street they engage, potentially, in an act of bravery. Although specific acts of bravery or exemplary work have long been recognised-

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: What were you doing down at the Labor Council when you were supposed to be representing them? Were you asleep down there?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Even Andrew Tink attended yesterday, and it was done on a bipartisan basis.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You said you found out about their hard work only when you came here. What have you been doing for the last few years?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I would have thought that the honourable member could have let this one go through. It is an important issue. Certainly, it was important to the 54 officers and their families yesterday. In the spirit of yesterday, I would ask the honourable member to behave himself for five minutes. We, as members of the public, also need a way to say thank you to the officer who puts in a decade carrying a gun and a badge, to the officer who sets out every day with the aim of protecting others, and to the officer who takes criminals out of circulation. That is why the Government introduced the New South Wales police medal, which will be awarded to police who achieve 10 years ethical and diligent service.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You can have mine, if you like.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The honourable member will not qualify.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: I've already got a medal.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The honourable member does not have a medal for ethical and diligent service. He misses out on the diligent part. The medal will be awarded at a time in an officer's career when he has distinguished himself through years of hard yards on the street. Yesterday, we recognised 54 of the longest-serving police officers in the force. Police received not only their police medals, but also the clasps and ribbon bars denoting 35, 40 and even 45 years service in the New South Wales Police Force.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: Police service.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Police Force. I am sure we would agree that this is a lifetime achievement. But we must remember that the New South Wales police medal is the community's way to say thank you. In line with that spirit I said yesterday that in future the awarding of New South Wales police medals would be conducted through the Police Accountability Community Teams [PACTs]. The teams are being rolled out across the State to give local communities their say in local policing. They feature the local commander, the local member of Parliament, the mayor, and business and community representatives. The PACTs are a perfect forum for public recognition of the work of our dedicated police.

Commissioner Moroney and I have been touring the State. At many of the locations we visited, communities had already held their first PACT meetings. They welcome our back-to-basics community focus on policing. PACTs provide local accountability. However, I also want PACTs to play an integral part in recognising the efforts of long-serving and local police officers. I was also pleased to be able to present these awards in the same week that we will be remembering police officers who have died in the course of their duty. It is in the same week as Police Remembrance Day. While recognising the hard work of those 54 long-serving officers, I hope that the entire community will take time on Friday to pay a tribute to all of our 14,000 police officers but especially take time to remember those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice while protecting our community. [Time expired.]

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is to the Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast. Is the Minister aware of the Premier's statement in another place on 18 September, referring to the provision of assistance to drought-affected communities, "I am proud that New South Wales has acted quickly and compassionately"? Why has the Government not applied this same logic for speed and compassion to Mangrove Mountain chicken growers, who are still being threatened with legal action by NSW Agriculture for clean-up costs from the 1999 Newcastle disease outbreak? When will this mean Government waive its bills?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has referred me to recent comments by the Premier about the Government's response to the drought. I think he has publicly acknowledged on a number of occasions the swift, full and comprehensive response of the New South Wales Government.

The Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti: No, he has not.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: He has not denied it so I assume that is the case. He refers me to statements made by the Premier and until he quoted them to me I was not aware of that specific occasion on which the Premier said those words, although I was aware of the general nature of those comments. In respect to the Mangrove Mountain farmers, I will refer the question to my colleague the Minister for Agriculture and get an answer as soon as practicable.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO: My question without notice is to the Minister for Community Services. Is it a fact that approximately 120,000 children in New South Wales attend 850 community-based out-of-school hours services? If so, can the Minister advise why it is that these out-of-school hours services in New South Wales are not regulated by the Government? Given that the Department of Community Services regulates and licenses child care centres and other children's services in New South Wales, can the Minister inform the House what steps, if any, the Government will take to regulate out-of-school hours services and to monitor the quality of services and standards of care to ensure that school-aged children are well cared for?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Many parents rely on out-of-school hours care and it is a service that is extremely important in terms of their other responsibilities. The Government is committed to having good-quality standards for the operation of outside school hours care services. However, the honourable member has misunderstood the fact that the regulation of this sector is actually the responsibility of the Federal Government. Nonetheless, out-of-school hours care services in New South Wales currently operate according to voluntary national standards. In 1993 New South Wales was the first State or Territory in Australia to introduce a voluntary code of practice for outside school hours care services. I am advised that the code was developed by the out-of-school hours sector in partnership with government to set a range of standards that provided service operators with good practice guidelines for the operation of services.

The code was a forerunner of the development of the national standards that were agreed to by community service Ministers in 1995. States and Territories have implemented these national standards to varying degrees. In 1999 the State Government spent $1.3 million on upgrading service equipment to the standards. There are a number of legislative protections that include coverage for children attending out-of-school hours care services, such as occupational health and safety and the Food Act where food is provided. Screening checks are required on those who work with children attending the services. As I have said, the Commonwealth Government is responsible for the provision and funding of the services. I understand that the Federal Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, the Hon. Larry Anthony, member of Parliament, has announced the development of a quality assurance system for outside school hours care services.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is to the Special Minister of State. Why did it take the tabling of a document in the other place by the Minister for Public Works and Services to confirm the attendance of the Special Minister of State at a briefing to discuss the Oasis development at Liverpool?

The Hon. Eddie Obeid: Charlie, I thought you had given up that line.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: Eddie, you should give up. You are in enough clag. Why did the Special Minister not relay that information to the House when he stated on 27 August, "I do not have any knowledge of the Oasis project-and nor would I claim any knowledge of it-other than what is in the public media"?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Hon. Charlie Lynn for saving me the trouble of quoting from my original answer. On 13 November 2000 I attended a briefing on the Oasis project, accompanied by ministerial colleagues. I received a very general outline of the project. I listened for approximately 45 minutes. The information covered in that briefing-bearing in mind the date, 13 November 2000-has since been widely and more comprehensively covered in the media over the past 22 months than was covered in the briefing at that time. The Leader of the Opposition in the other place raised this matter last Thursday. He showed that either he is not doing his homework or he is unable to understand two simple sentences of English, or he has deliberately misrepresented me.

On Thursday last week the Leader of the Opposition in the other place verballed me. He verballed me in a fashion that even the Leader of the Opposition in this place would never have thought to verbal me; even in his previous role I do not think he would have ever considered verballing me that way. My colleague the Minister for Police has likened the member for Pittwater to a well-known character from literature-a little boy with a wooden heart, who told untruths to impress everyone and turned into a jackass. Certainly, there are some similarities with what the Minister for Police has been saying.

The Leader of the Opposition in the other place claimed about me, "He denied being at any Oasis briefings." I did not deny that. In August I was asked a flippant, almost foolhardy, question, I think by the Hon. Greg Pearce, about what I knew about Tom Domican being an industrial relations consultant at Oasis. Even honourable members opposite could barely conceal their mirth at that stupid question. In the course of my answer I told the House I had no knowledge of Mr Domican or the project other than what was in the public media. That was absolutely correct at the time and remains absolutely correct. The member for Pittwater is the boy who did not do his homework and told untruths to impress everybody-and he went to a good Christian Brothers school, too. I am sure they are very embarrassed about him. The information covered in the briefing 22 months ago has since been widely and more comprehensively covered in the media.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, representing the Premier, and Minister for Citizenship. An article in today's Sydney Morning Herald written by Professor Jock Collins stated, "Carr recently renamed his Ethnic Affairs Commission the Community Relations Commission, arguing that the term "ethnic" had no salience in the lives of Sydney's diverse community today. However, he continues to use the term "ethnic", but in relation only to crime." Does the Premier agree that Professor Collins was correct? If so, is the Premier deliberately linking the word "ethnicity" to crime? Given that law and order will be a hot issue, as is to be expected, in the forthcoming State election, will the Premier refrain from ethnic profiling until the research of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research is finalised?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: This is a matter on which the Premier has made his views known on a number of occasions. I will nevertheless refer the question to him.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. What is the Government doing to provide home care services to Aboriginal people in the Hunter and on the Central Coast?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: Home Care Service New South Wales does a magnificent job throughout the State. Many people rely on this service in order to remain in their own homes and not enter residential or institutional facilities before time, or perhaps ever. Last year it provided 4.3 million hours of service to more than 56,000 households in New South Wales. Home Care Service New South Wales has been helping Aboriginal people in the Hunter and on the Central Coast since 1984. The first branch of Home Care Service specifically designed for Aboriginal people in the Hunter and on the Central Coast opened at Islington. It later relocated to Hamilton, with a further branch opening at Wyong. In 1992 these two branches amalgamated to form the Daramulen Aboriginal branch of the Home Care Service. It was based at Wyong, with additional service outlets at Hamilton, Taree and Muswellbrook. This year the Government is providing almost $1.4 million in funding for the Daramulen branch.

I was pleased to recently open the new Broadmeadow premises of the Home Care Service, which provides assistance to Aboriginal people. The premises will accommodate three office staff, who will look after the 13 field staff who report to the branch. The new premises will enable the staff of the Daramulen branch to provide an improved service for older Aboriginal people and those with a disability. Last year the branch provided 17,885 hours of service to 234 older Aboriginal people as well as those with a disability. Services include general housework, helping with showering, dressing and eating, shopping and respite care.

The New South Wales Government recognises that being able to remain at home is crucial for indigenous people, who have strong connections to their land and community. That is why in 1998 Home Care Service New South Wales developed tailored services for Aboriginal people. This has led to the establishment of nine Aboriginal service branches, staffed by Aboriginal people and delivering culturally appropriate services to Aboriginal clients throughout New South Wales. This is particularly important when it comes to home care because this can be a particularly intimate service that involves workers entering people's houses and dealing with a range of personal issues. Therefore, it is important that the service is provided in a culturally appropriate manner.

I am pleased to advise the House that the Aboriginal service delivery model used by the Home Care Service is so successful that it won a Gold Medal Award for Excellence in the Premier's 1999 Public Sector Awards. The new Broadmeadow premises will allow Home Care Services New South Wales to continue to enhance the quality of life of older Aboriginal people and those with a disability. It will also continue to help to ease the burden on families and carers.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware of an action in the Supreme Court by the Ombudsman to require a senior policeman to provide rosters under freedom of information laws? Does the Minister support the response of the Police Association to the Supreme Court action-namely, to suggest that the Police Integrity Commission and not the Ombudsman should be responsible for investigating allegations of police misconduct? Is the Minister aware that the Special Crime and Internal Affairs Unit of NSW Police has indicated its preference for an external watchdog such as the Ombudsman? Will the Minister take steps to affirm the independence and integrity of the Ombudsman so far as his jurisdiction to deal with police misconduct is concerned?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Good question.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: It is a good question; it is a pity that the Opposition did not come up with it. I am certainly aware of the details outlined in the Hon. Peter Breen's question. The Police Association is concerned for the safety of its members as a result of a number of Opposition applications made under freedom of information legislation for the delivery of police rosters.

The Hon. John Ryan: Old ones.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The Hon. John Ryan is wrong. I do not mind his interjecting, but in this instance he is wrong. The association is concerned that criminals will be advantaged by the disclosure of operational information. I certainly share its concerns. In addition, these politically motivated requests from the Opposition are wasting valuable police time that could be spent on the streets. The Opposition is fiddling with matters of which it has no knowledge and is clearly acting irresponsibly. More importantly, the Opposition is stopping police from policing. I have been in the field and heard complaints from front-line police officers about Opposition requests for information and the hundreds of hours that this wastes annually.

In the interests of transparency, I have already put police numbers on the Internet. I have also put police assistance line waiting times and performance times on the Internet. There is no doubt that this Government is about transparency and about providing adequate information. It is not about putting our front-line police and their safety in jeopardy. This is very embarrassing for the Opposition: lt has requested information that threatens the safety of our police officers. Opposition members must respond in a jocular manner in order to overcome their severe embarrassment. To date, the Government has been forced to release old police rosters. Being forced to release contemporary rosters will be highly problematic for the association and the force. That is why I will sit down with representatives of the association, the New South Wales police force and the Ombudsman to work out a sensible way of providing information to the community without jeopardising the operational safety of New South Wales police.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You don’t want to release the information because it shows you've been telling fibs.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I acknowledge that interjection. Mr Tink acknowledged in the Sydney Morning Herald-this is a surprising comment from the shadow Minister for Police-that publishing recent rosters could cause safety problems and said that the Wood report cited a vital role for the Ombudsman in monitoring police. We support the role of the Ombudsman in monitoring police but we do not want to jeopardise the safety of police officers, as Andrew Tink acknowledged. I am glad he has taken the view that it is not appropriate for this material to be in the public domain.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is directed to the Minister for Fisheries. Given the alarm in the Lake Cathie district about the putrid state of the lake as a result of fish kills, particularly as school holiday visitations start this week-business that is crucial to the local economy-why did NSW Fisheries appear not to have any representation whatsoever at this morning's meeting at which more than 200 concerned local citizens gathered to discuss this issue? Is the Minister aware that some schoolchildren have vomited after swimming in the lake in recent days? What is he doing to ensure that NSW Fisheries takes a leading role, together with any other relevant agencies, including Hastings Council, in addressing this issue urgently?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: That is a very important and serious question. I am not aware of the issue to which the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner referred, but I will take the question on notice, obtain details and then report back to the House.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: My question is addressed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Could he please advise the House of the latest success of the New South Wales film industry?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am pleased to inform the House that two films shot in regional New South Wales have just featured in the world's largest public film festival in Toronto, Canada. The films, Dirty Deeds and The Nugget, were screened at the Toronto International Film Festival-known as "the Festival of Festivals"-which, I am advised, is the most important film event outside Cannes. The festival, which was held on 4 and 5 September, featured some 345 films from 50 different countries, showing on 20 screens throughout Toronto.

I take the opportunity to congratulate the cast and crew of the films on their inclusion in this major international film event. It is, I believe, a very big vote of confidence in the New South Wales film industry. It is an industry which is growing every day and it certainly provides an opportunity for regional New South Wales to be promoted on the international stage. The State Government has in place a number of initiatives to promote New South Wales as an attractive place to make films. These initiatives include: the $ 500,000 Regional Film Fund, which supports film production in regional New South Wales and has assisted films such as Dirty Deeds and The Nugget; the pilot Regional Film Investment Tour, which took producers to locations in the Hunter and Broken Hill; and the creation of numerous local film and television offices such as those in the Hunter and the mid North Coast, to liaise with film producers looking to film in regional areas. The State Government, through the New South Wales Film and Television Office, assisted both films. Dirty Deeds features an all-star cast including Bryan Brown, Toni Collette and John Goodman. I notice the Hon. Greg Pearce is very silent during question time. It just goes to show that the biggest bullies are always the biggest chickens. The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: Frequently the Minister departs from the relevance of questions because he complains that he is responding to interjections but on this occasion he did not even get an interjection. He was complaining he did not get one. I am not sure that a lack of interjection against the Minister gives him the right to stray from the requirement of the standing orders that an answer must be relevant to the question. Could the Minister be reminded about the need to be relevant?

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister of the sessional order that requires an answer to be relevant to the question asked.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Dirty Deeds features an all-star cast, including Bryan Brown, Toni Collette and John Goodman, and was shot in Broken Hill. It explores Sydney's crime world in 1969 and details the experiences of two Americans who tried to take it over. The Nugget was filmed entirely in Mudgee, in the State's central west. It stars Eric Bana, Belinda Emmett and Peter Moon, and it tells the story of three road workers who stumble upon the world's largest nugget. The importance of the New South Wales film and television industry to our economy is, of course, very well established. Since 1995 the industry has grown by some 73 per cent, contributing $3.5 billion of income to the State. Feature and documentary production has also directly benefited regional New South Wales, injecting close to $10 million into regional economies over the past five years. [Time expired.]

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Planning. Can the Government confirm that Australian Silicon is not intending to build its charcoal plant at Mogo? Can the Government further confirm that such a plant will not be built at Mogo or anywhere else in New South Wales?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I will take the question. I am not sure whether every member of the House is aware but today Australian Silicon Limited informed the Stock Exchange that it would possibly relocate the proposed silicon plant that was destined for Lithgow. In its statement the company highlighted "the overall risk to the project based on statements attributed to State Opposition members and candidates". This was a major investment for a number of areas of New South Wales.

As the Premier pointed out, it was not environmentalism that defeated this project, it was NIMBY-ism and a reckless and inexperienced Opposition. It goes to show what happens when you set a teenager to do an adult's job. The Leader of the Opposition in the lower House, Mr John Brogden, will go down in history as the first Leader of the Opposition, certainly in my memory-my deputy leader asked me if I knew of any other parallel situation-who by his comments has destroyed a major investment in New South Wales.

The Hon. John Ryan: You are misleading the House.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am misleading the House, am I? As recently as Sunday the Leader of the Opposition said, "I will not let this go ahead if elected in March."

The Hon. John Ryan: In Mogo.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: That is right, in Mogo. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition knew that if the charcoal plant did not go ahead in Mogo the whole project was off, that it was dead. Indeed, the managing director of Australian Silicon, Mr Peter Anderton, said as recently as last Saturday, "The charcoal plant is one part of a very large project and unless we sort it out the project cannot go ahead." I am told that as long as eight months ago the Opposition was informed of the basic fact: No charcoal plant at Mogo; and no silicon smelter at Lithgow. Yet the Opposition pursued this.

The Hon. Don Harwin is looking very sad and sorry for himself, because he played a major role. At least we can say for him that he is not the Leader of the Opposition-the Leader of the Opposition is a Mr John Brogden. What has happened is that his recklessness has destroyed this project for New South Wales. That means 120 new jobs in Lithgow gone, it means 12 new jobs in Cowra gone, 53 new jobs in the Eurobadalla shire gone, 20 million trees for the Murray-Darling Basin gone, and $100 million in export income gone.

I have no doubt that the disgraceful actions of the Opposition in this matter will ensure that none of them will be welcome in Lithgow or Cowra for as long as anyone in this House will be able to remember. I suspect they will not be welcome in too many regional areas of New South Wales. In particular, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out- [Time expired.]

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I ask a supplementary question. After that diatribe will the Government answer my question and confirm that such a plant will not now be built elsewhere in New South Wales?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The only proposal that was before the Government was for a silicon smelter at Lithgow and, as part of that proposal, a charcoal plant at Mogo.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is to the Treasurer. Why did you deliberately mislead the Parliament a moment ago in claiming that the Mogo carbon plant and the Lithgow silicon smelter had been lost to New South Wales, when Australian Silicon's own announcement to the Australian Stock Exchange today makes no mention of taking their project to other States, referring instead to examining other site locations for an integrated facility? Minister, why did you not read the section of Australian Silicon's release which confirms that the silicon smelter will be located in close proximity to the company's quartz deposits at Cowra, which they will be using for the first five years, which means that the smelter development would almost certainly have to be located in the middle of regional New South Wales, given that Cowra is in the middle of New South Wales? Why did you mislead the House?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I met with the managing director of Australian Silicon in my office last night.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: There it is-his own words.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Show it to me.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: No, you have got it.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: They will not show it to me.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: There you are, Minister. There is a copy.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: There was no mention that this silicon smelter would go anywhere near Cowra.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to order for the first time.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Will the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development please advise the House of the latest achievements for business under the New South Wales salinity strategy?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I am pleased to provide the House with an update of some key outcomes of the salinity business development program. This program is part of the Government's salinity strategy and aims to stimulate business responses to salinity. Whilst members are no doubt aware that salinity is a major environmental menace, it is also proving to be an alternative industry for regional entrepreneurs. Three recent examples of initiatives to which the Government is providing assistance include, first, the establishment of the first saline aquaculture research centre in Australia located at Wakool as part of a major salt interception scheme. I understand that the scheme will determine which fish species grow successfully in inland saline water and will "enable" fish production in four major salt interception schemes.

This is a potentially lucrative business opportunity, with inland saline aquaculture sales currently estimated at $2.6 million over five years and $7.8 million over the next 10 years. The second initiative is the formation of a company to market lamb raised on old-man saltbush. I understand that this lamb has a unique flavour, and there are already indicators that a major niche market exists. The company receives lamb from 58 producers, and the number of suppliers is expected to grow to more than 300. There are great prospects for the emergence of old-man saltbush raised lamb as a major market segment in the domestic and export market red meat industry. In fact, estimated sales are $3 million for 2002 and $6 million for 2004.

Third, a partnership project with the councils of Dubbo and Wagga Wagga to pilot test and examine the feasibility of using new technologies to remove salt from saline water under the two cities is well under way. Markets for the extracted salts and "clean water" have already been identified. The final report for this project will be presented in October. Several proposed business ventures will pump ground water and extract salts at regional locations. Projected turnover of these businesses is expected to be $5 million by 2005. It is indeed encouraging that we are identifying and maximising salinity opportunities and finding solutions to generate new technologies, jobs and investments in regions across New South Wales while also helping to diversify and strengthen their economic base.

The Hon. IAN COHEN: I address my question to the Treasurer, representing the Minister for Land and Water Conservation. Does the Minister acknowledge that despite the cap on diversions the amount of water pumped from the Macquarie River has increased by 38 per cent over the last five years? Is the Minister aware that the increased water usage has deprived the Macquarie Marshes to such an extent that there has been a dramatic decrease in both the number of species and the density of water birds in the area, that colony sizes of more than 100,000 nests estimated during the floods of the 1950s are unlikely to occur again, and that the number of annual breeding events each decade has declined from 10 to five in that time? How will the Minister ensure that the draft Macquarie-Cudgegong river water sharing plan allows for sufficient water to enter the Macquarie Marshes to halt the decline in water bird numbers?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I undertake to get a timely answer from the Minister for Land and Water Conservation.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. In his 29 August response to Coalition questions about the near fatal accident at the former BHP steelworks site he said:

That no-one suffered an injury, or worse, is a tribute to our occupational health and safety laws and regulations and to the way in which WorkCover is working with employees to put them in place. It proves they are working.

Will the Minister now concede that last week's accident on the same site proves that the laws, especially at this site, are not working, particularly when a senior member of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [CFMEU] has said, "WorkCover clearly haven't been doing their job otherwise that last disaster wouldn't have happened and this wouldn't have happened"?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I offer to the Hon. Don Harwin a restatement of the answer that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition earlier in question time. That is that on the last occasion I met with senior officers of the CFMEU, including the senior safety officer, Mr Brian Miller, he indicated to me that he was of the view-as is the CFMEU and as are the employer and employee industrial organisations in New South Wales-that occupational health and safety laws in New South Wales and the new regime that is developing out of the new regulatory framework are second to none in the world. We have amongst the best and most flexible occupational health and safety laws in the world.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: How many prosecutions do you make to enforce them?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I will leave the inane interjections of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans and make the obvious point that, regardless of the number of prosecutions, the people who have died will not be brought back to life. The really important area of occupational health and safety is prevention. There is a very widely held view that we have the best occupational health and safety regime in the world. It is one that we can be very proud of. An urgent inquiry has been set up with WorkCover's best people in charge. There is full co-operation with all of the employers on the site and the unions. The Australian Workers Union has majority coverage of employees at the site and its member was the deceased person. The CFMEU obviously has an interest and expertise in construction and demolition and an interest in industrial safety on construction sites. All the parties are working with WorkCover to establish the causes of the accident. Clearly, a number of points need to be made about demolition. It is inherently a risky undertaking that is hazardous to employees. It is closely supervised by the relevant authorities-in this case WorkCover.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Are you going to support my corporate manslaughter bill?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It would not make any difference to the deceased and his family who was and was not prosecuted. That is a matter for the coroner, police and WorkCover in investigating the death. It is important to establish why the accident occurred, whether there were any flaws in the approvals process or the engineering system involved, whether the accident was preventable and what needed to be done next time to make sure that such an accident would not recur in the given circumstances. The Hon. Don Harwin referred to the fact that I made comments about the collapse of ore bridge No. 2, another structure on site that was demolished at about this time last year. It was demolished using the induced collapse method of demolition.

A video of that collapse has been widely distributed. Obviously the ore bridge collapsed prematurely. I simply make the point, one by which I will stand in any forum, that that incident indicated that the emergency procedures in place at that time were sufficient to guarantee the safety of the employees. It was an inherently risky undertaking. Three weeks previously an identical structure had been demolished without incident using exactly the same procedure. We are talking about, literally, life-and-death matters. If members want to make spiteful political points, they can. However, the Government's focus is reducing occupational health and safety hazards. [Time expired.]

The Hon. RON DYER: My question without notice is directed to the Special Minister of State. Will the Minister inform the House how the Motor Accidents Authority is helping parents of children with brain injuries?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It is estimated that four in every 1,000 children aged up to 18 are affected by a serious brain injury. Unfortunately, many sudden brain injuries are acquired in motor vehicle accidents. As honourable members may be aware, the brain injury recovery process is slow. Some children may spend several months in hospital only to face many severe challenges when they return to their home, their school, their family and the community. Until now little information has been available for parents of children with acquired brain injury syndrome. That is why earlier today I was pleased to launch a booklet entitled "Step by Step: A guide for families of children and adolescents with a brain injury".

The five-part guide was funded by the Motor Accidents Authority and prepared by paediatric brain injury specialists at Sydney Children's Hospital, Randwick and the Children's Hospital at Westmead. The booklet provides clear information for parents and carers about brain injury support services available in New South Wales. More importantly, it provides information on the different interventions required at each stage in a recovering child's development. Families will now have the right information at the right time. The booklet is a result of the knowledge and experience of two highly skilled, specialised paediatric brain injury services at two renowned hospitals-the Sydney Children's Hospital, Randwick and the Children's Hospital at Westmead. The authors also sought the advice of affected families, rural brain injury programs and education staff.

I commend everyone involved in this outstanding project. In particular, I place on record my appreciation to the Parent Advisory Committees from the brain injury programs at Randwick and Westmead. It was their experience, in a difficult and stressful situation, that has helped professionals craft invaluable information for other parents at a time of crisis. It is a sign of the booklet's success that strong interest has been shown from a United Kingdom publisher to adapt the guides for international distribution. The professional staff who attended the launch this morning had worked with parents on a number of initiatives that should receive the support of the House and various public authorities in order to ensure that young children with brain injuries, especially acquired brain injuries, are given maximum opportunities to return to a normal and healthy life.

The Hon. ALAN CORBETT: I address my question to the Minister for Community Services. Why has the Adoption Act 2000 not yet been proclaimed? Can the Minister tell the House when the Act will be proclaimed?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I thank the Hon. Alan Corbett for this important question. The Adoption Act 2000 was produced as part of significant reforms across the entire community services sector. It resulted from recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in the mid-1990s, and was consistent with changes introduced to the care and protection of children and young people. The Adoption Act 2000 contains provisions that support the Government's introduction of permanency planning. After extensive public consultations, regulations have been prepared to support the introduction of the Adoption Act 2000.

I am advised that because the Act is a significant element of the Government's reform program it is important that it should not be introduced at a time when reviews of interconnected work on child protection services and demand factors affecting the Department of Community Services are unclear. It is important not to introduce change for the sake of change, but rather to get the changes right. The delay in proclamation does not demonstrate any lack of commitment by the Government to the Adoption Act 2000, but demonstrates its ongoing commitment to the reform of the sector as an integrated whole.

The Hon. JOHN JOBLING: My question is to the Treasurer, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Why has Treasury-presumably on the advice of the Governments's $2,000 per day consultant, Don Anderson-rejected the employee buy-out offer from Pacific Power International's work force?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Effectively, it did not stack up. As I understand it there were three offers. Off the top of my head I am not familiar with the details of all three offers, but I know that they were carefully considered by the sales task force and were rejected.
The Hon. John Jobling: Will you consider it?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I will have a look at it, yes.

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question without notice is to the Minister for Mineral Resources. Will the Minister advise the House what action the Government has taken to improve safety in smaller metalliferous mines in New South Wales?

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I commend my colleague for his continuing interest in this State's mine safety. The Carr Labor Government has made a strong commitment to improving all mine safety. The small mines campaign focuses on safety performance, communication and understanding of mine safety laws. The campaign has been implemented across regional New South Wales to help small-scale operators understand their obligations under the Mining General Rule. The general rule is the safety regulation for all mines and quarries, other than coalmines. The Government's safety concerns mean that all metalliferous mines, including small mines, must prepare mine safety management plans. The Carr Government has focused greater efforts on more effective communication and education. In November 2000, the Government began a statewide program to assist small-scale miners understand the mine safety laws and their legal obligations. The program explains how the law and the safety management plan work together for better health and safety performance.

The campaign starts with two workshops, held approximately three months apart. This is followed by mine site visits from the New South Wales Department of Mineral Resources to provide practical assistance in developing safety management plans. In October 2001, the Government conducted an assessment of the program with a questionnaire sent out to more than 800 mines and local government councils. Feedback from the questionnaire has resulted in the continuation of the Small Mines Program. So far 30 of our safety staff have made 350 presentations at the workshops. Response has been excellent with 401 people attending the 41 regional workshops held up to the end of July. A further five workshops are to be held across regional New South Wales before the end of 2002. As a result of the workshops more than 400 site visits have been undertaken. A further 200 visits are planned before the completion of the current programs in December 2002.

Department of Mineral Resources officers continue to work closely with small mines, ensuring safety standards are consistently improved. With the co-operation of government and industry this campaign will provide significant safety improvements to the many small mines across the State. Protecting the health and safety of mineworkers across New South Wales will continue to be a priority for the New South Wales Government.

The Hon. MALCOLM JONES: My question without notice is to the Minister for Community Services. Will the Minister consider having the Department of Community Services emergency Helpline independently audited for its effectiveness?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: There is no doubt that, for a range of reasons, Helpline is one aspect of the Department of Community Services operations that has attracted significant scrutiny over the past year or so. Initially, no-one could anticipate the massive increase in child protection reports that accompanied the introduction of Helpline. In conjunction with the new legislative framework, this certainly led to the early phases of the operation of Helpline being less than ideal. A lot of attention has been paid to significant wait times, difficulties experienced by people accessing Helpline, and a lack of response. Those issues have been well documented. The Department of Community Services and I acknowledge that in its early phases its operation was less than ideal.

It is important to note that in recent times additional resources and operational improvements have significantly improved the performance of Helpline. In June the average call wait time had fallen to 7.23 minutes. The introduction of a new computer system in July resulted in that figure jumping to more than 12 minutes. However, the department has advised me that call wait times are again decreasing. The new computer system is important, because it will provide greater ability to track duplicate reports and improve the ability of Helpline staff to refer calls directly to support services, which has been another area of criticism. Recruitment action to fill vacant positions is nearly complete. I have been advised that when additional resources are in place call wait times will again decrease dramatically and Helpline will be able to offer a significantly improved service.

I further advise the House that the operations of Helpline are being examined through a number of other processes, including the social issues committee, which is conducting an inquiry into the operations of child protection services in New South Wales, and the Kibble committee, which the Government established. Although the Kibble committee is examining demand management and workload within the Department of Community Services, it is also examining the interface between Helpline and community service centres. Those two processes, together with an ongoing commitment to reform to ensure that Helpline works in the most effective way possible, should continue to see waiting times decrease.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, Minister Assisting the Premier on Public Sector Management, and Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast) [5.02 p.m.]: As honourable members may be aware, a dispute has arisen in Broken Hill concerning the passing on to workers of the $18 State wage case increase. The honourable member for Murray-Darling highlighted the importance of the dispute, which raises some important questions about the operation of the State and Federal industrial relations systems. The State of New South Wales is intervening in this dispute to support the New South Wales industrial relations system.

As the House is aware, in May, following a submission from the Australian Council of Trade Unions [ACTU], the Australian Industrial Relations Commission awarded an $18 a week increase in the award safety net. The following day the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission, of its own initiative and consistent with the requirements under the New South Wales Act, initiated State wage case proceedings. The Industrial Relations Act requires that New South Wales adopt national decisions unless there is a good reason not to do so. As Minister for Industrial Relations I intervened in this matter to support a flow-on of the national decision to New South Wales workers. The New South Wales Government supports the Industrial Relations Commission in trying to ensure that this wage increase is given to New South Wales workers as soon as possible.

No party to the State wage case proceedings, either employer or employee, opposed the flow-on. A few weeks later the New South Wales commission awarded the full flow-on of the $18 into New South Wales awards on application. All New South Wales workers who did not receive an equivalent wage increase in the last State wage case in May 2001 will get the full $18. Yet, in Broken Hill the local chamber of commerce now refuses to pass on this increase to its workers, in defiance of the decisions of both the Federal and State industrial relations commissions. If the chamber of commerce wants to argue that it cannot afford the increase, the decision of the New South Wales commission allows that argument to be heard.

The chamber has gone so far as to propose that Broken Hill workers enter into a non-union Federal certified agreement to get around this wage case decision. In accordance with its powers under the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act, the Industrial Relations Commission has directed that the parties negotiate to end the dispute. Instead of complying with the commission's order the chamber of commerce has appealed, alleging an inconsistency between the State Industrial Relations Act and the Commonwealth's Workplace Relations Act. As the case involves a constitutional issue-the relationship between State and Commonwealth industrial relations legislation-the State of New South Wales is intervening to argue in favour of the New South Wales industrial relations system and the rights of the workers of Broken Hill.

Of course, the Howard Government is intervening in support of the chamber of commerce, in spite of the $18 increase being the decision of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. If the Commonwealth's intervention is successful, Broken Hill workers will not receive the $18 wage increase to which all other workers in Australia are entitled. Now is the time for members of the New South Wales Opposition to differentiate themselves from their Federal colleagues. They can put on the record their support for the independent umpire of the Industrial Relations Commission in New South Wales and federally. They can let the workers of Broken Hill know whether they should get the same increase that every other Australian worker has received.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [5.05 p.m.]: The ministerial statement by the Minister for Industrial Relations identified what he refers to as discrepancies-indeed failings-in the system in New South Wales. The point that drives home the difference between the Coalition and the Minister is his reference to non-union certified agreements, which was one of his strongest points. The Government and the Minister want to ensure that the 25 per cent of the work force who are members of a union are the only ones represented in this Government's approach to industrial relations. We never hear about the other 75 per cent who do not want to be involved in a union, who would rather exercise their freedom of choice and sit down with an employer to negotiate a workplace agreement. The Government does not want to talk about workplace agreements. It puts them on the bottom shelf and hopes that people will not pay any attention to them.

The Opposition is committed to ensuring that 100 per cent of the employees in this State have a consistent voice in State Parliament, not just the 25 per cent the Government purports to represent. It is a bit rich to hear the Minister talk about inconsistency and the nasty approach taken by the Federal Government. One need only mention to the Minister the two dreadful words that put fear into his heart, workers' entitlements, to realise that the Government is inconsistent in protecting the entitlements of workers. We currently have on the table a workers' entitlements scheme promoted by the Federal Government, but neither the Government nor the Minister are prepared to play ball with the Federal Government to ensure that workers' entitlements in this State are protected. It is disappointing that we do not have the opportunity to discuss the merits of this issue beyond the Minister's contribution, other than to assert the position of the New South Wales Opposition, of which the Minister is well aware.

A few months ago the Minister was present when I said that the New South Wales Opposition would ensure the continuation of the New South Wales industrial relations system. The Minister knows that, but he is being somewhat mischievous by suggesting otherwise. He has continued to do that in contributions he has made in this House in the past few days. Tony Abbott knows it. He and I have had this discussion, and we accommodate each other. We will maintain the New South Wales industrial relations system, and it is mischievous for the Minister to suggest that we are opposed to it. The Minister should tell the House what he would do to protect workers' entitlements, but he will not; nor will he talk about measures to protect the 75 per cent of the work force who are not members of a union.

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to the resolution of the House of Thursday 5 September 2002 the following documents:

(1) documents relating to the M5 East Motorway received this day from the Director-General of the Premier's Department, and referred to in paragraph 1 of the resolution of the House, together with an indexed list of the documents.

(2) a return identifying documents received from the Director-General of the Premier's Department, and referred to in paragraph 4 of the resolution, which are considered privileged and should not be made public or tabled.

The Clerk advised the House that, according to resolution, the documents were available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [5.10 p.m.]: Earlier I referred to major reforms made by the bill. The bill inserts a new section 65A into the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. This change concerns me. Under the new provision, offenders who have previously been imprisoned for more than six months are automatically ineligible for periodic detention. I understand from the Minister's second reading speech that this reform targets a gaol culture that is emerging in periodic detention centres. The Department of Corrective Services has found that there has been a recent change in the types of offenders serving their sentences under the scheme: ones that are bringing with them longer histories of criminality and expertise and are beginning to present a risk to the rehabilitation of other offenders. By excluding offenders who have already served six months in prison the Government wants to eliminate, as much as possible, hardened criminals from entering periodic detention centres. This in turn will reduce their potential influence over other offenders, which is admirable.

Before I outline my reservations about new section 65A, I would like to say something about sentencing generally. Traditionally, the basis for sentencing an offender to imprisonment is to achieve four things: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. As honourable members no doubt know, the balance that is struck between the four elements has proven to be very delicate over time. In particular, there has been long and heated dispute as to whether retribution or rehabilitation should take precedence in the sentencing process.

Retribution is the punishment or the just deserts for the criminals' wrong doing. There is no doubt that punishment is necessary. It is an important expression of the community's objection to certain kinds of behaviour. However, in terms of general public debate, tougher punishments are all too frequently seen as the answer to solving crime. This is a very simplistic approach. In my opinion complex problems cannot be answered by simple solutions. Simply imposing harsher penalties will not deal with the problem of crime in any comprehensive sense. In the past I have repeatedly referred to the occurrence of crime and punishment.

It is for this reason that courts have a range of a sentencing options that include, among other things, home detention, bonds, suspended sentences and fines. Effectively, there is a hierarchy of punishment, with periodic detention being one down from full-time prison detention. It is crucial to have sentencing options. It enables members of the judiciary to keep less serious criminals out of the prison system and gives suitable offenders improved prospects for rehabilitation. Many regard schemes such as periodic detention as being soft on criminals. It is not. It is being realistic and pragmatic because we all know that prison life is hard and brutalising and that liberty is restricted. Also, it does not necessarily modify behaviour.

Periodic detention is critical because it enables people to continue employment, to be productive and, most important, to stay involved with their families. This will naturally help offenders reform their behaviour, and ultimately that is of greater benefit to society. The Law Society of New South Wales wants new section 65A deleted from the bill. The Law Society feels it is too restrictive and does not give any discretion to the judicial officer to assess the nature of the present and previous events, the offender's background and current circumstances, and his or her age or personal characteristics. Nor does it matter when the previous imprisonment occurred. The six-month period of imprisonment might have been served 20 years ago but still the offender would not be eligible for periodic detention. In short, the Law Society believes that new section 65A potentially knocks out too many offenders who would otherwise be suitable for, and assisted by, periodic detention.

To a large extent I agree with the Law Society about new section 65A. In determining the appropriate sentence, judicial officers should have the discretion to assess the offender's entire situation. The causes of crime are many and although someone may have served six months full-time imprisonment, that alone should not be the deciding factor. Every case that comes before a court is different and each should be decided on its merit. I do not believe that the judiciary should be hamstrung by this kind of legislation.

The Hon. Richard Jones will move an amendment in Committee to change the bill to provide that a person who has previously served full-time imprisonment for more than six months "within the last 10 years" will not be eligible for periodic detention. This cut-off period is an improvement. Although the 10 years is arbitrary it does not eliminate all judicial discretion from the decision-making process. Therefore, I will support the amendment. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.16 p.m.]: The aim of this bill is to protect the integrity of periodic detention orders and home detention, thereby increasing compliance with orders. A briefing note argues that the effect of the bill will be increased incarceration of the disadvantaged, increased financial costs in the maintenance of prisons, an increase in the number of prisoners serving short periods of incarceration, and a decrease in the discretionary powers of both the Parole Board and the courts. For these reasons the Democrats oppose the bill.

The detention order requires the detainee to notify the Department of Corrective Services by telephone before the detention period begins if he or she is unable to attend detention. If three detention periods are missed without authorisation, the detention order will be mandatorially revoked. Thus, the offender must serve all of the non-parole period of the sentence in full-time imprisonment. The Royal Commission into New South Wales Prisons 1976-78 endorsed the policy of using imprisonment only as a last resort. This is clearly against the intent of the bill. Incarceration has numerous negative effects that are amplified when imposed upon the disadvantaged. The indigenous, women and the mentally ill will all find it more difficult to meet the tightened requirements of the periodic detention regulations and, thus, will be more likely to serve their sentence in full-time custody.

The rate of imprisonment for adult indigenous persons for the March quarter was 1,710 per 100,000. This is 15 times the imprisonment rate for non-indigenous persons. Indigenous people are underrepresented in the non-custodial categories such as periodic detention. The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research says that the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in prison could be reduced by 54 per cent if prisoners given less than a six-month sentence were given non-custodial alternatives. This bill will target and discriminate against indigenous people, who are already disadvantaged.

It should be noted that the Western Australian Attorney General has given a very progressive speech against short sentences, arguing that their administrative costs and effects are such that they are not worthwhile and that alternatives must be pursued. Also, 60 per cent of women in prison, mostly for illicit drug use, have children. Between 30 per cent and 40 per cent are sole parents. Incarceration punishes their children, often continuing a cycle of abuse and neglect that began with the mothers themselves. Clearly, periodic or home detention would be more appropriate for these women.

Research conducted by Professor Tony Vinson and Dr Eileen Baldry of the University of New South Wales found that alternatives to custody could be found for more than half the women in prison. That evidence was given to the Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population last year. Of those incarcerated in gaols, 50 per cent of females and 33 per cent of males have undergone some form of treatment or assessment for an emotional or mental problem.

This evidence was in submission No. 267, which was presented by the New South Wales Department of Health to the parliamentary inquiry into the State's mental health services. This bill will make it more difficult for the mentally ill to comply with periodic detention regulations, and thus will further increase their over-representation in full-time custody. A better response would be to increase rehabilitation and development programs to give the mentally ill the supervision, counselling and assistance they need.

By tightening the eligibility and suitability criteria of offenders for periodic detention this bill will hit the disadvantaged hardest. Far from protecting the integrity of the scheme, the bill makes a mockery of a system that clearly does not give people a fair go. Non-custodial detention for this group should be encouraged, not denied through increased red tape. Furthermore, it is problematic that imprisonment is the appropriate response to a revoked order. Under the Periodic Detention of Prisoners Act 1981 the court, when cancelling orders, could substitute a different sentence such as a bond. As a consequence of conveying the function from the court to the Parole Board, this can no longer be done. When cancelling a periodic detention order it should be possible to substitute a different non-custodial sentence when appropriate to the specific offender concerned, as the Law Society recommended to the select committee.

This bill will increase the resources allocated for corrective services in Australia. The bottom line is that that money could be spent on more gaols, which seems unrelated to the crime rate, or on lessening the commission of crimes by treating problems at their source-in other words, spending money on the causes of crime. Resources allocated for corrective services in Australia are divided into two categories: prisons and community corrections. Total recurrent expenditure on corrective services in Australia was approximately $1,179 million in 1998-99, of which $1,049 million, or 89 per cent, was for prisons; and only $130 million, or 11 per cent, was for community corrections.

The Department of Corrective Services reports that the average cost per offender per day to complete a community-based program delivered by the Probation and Parole Service is $8.63, or $3,150 per year, compared with $138.93 per day, or $49,458 per year, it costs to keep a minimum-security inmate in full-time custody. These figures were provided last year to the Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population. In addition, it costs thousands of dollars extra to facilitate the return of institutionalised prisoners into the community. Indeed, their return is often not facilitated: they are simply dumped back into the community, resulting in a high likelihood of recidivism.

Prisons are clearly a massive financial cost to the community. This bill will increase that cost as it will increase the prison population for no community gain. It is tearing up the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population and moving in precisely the opposite direction. The Government is foolishly wasting State money and doing social harm. In 2001 the Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population recommended prohibiting courts from imposing sentences of six months or less. Yet the bill will have exactly the opposite effect. As periodic detainees have their orders revoked there will be an increase in prisoners serving shorter sentences, thus blocking the prison system.

A better alternative would be to free resources so that they could be redirected into managing and rehabilitating prisoners who pose the biggest problems. The dislocation experienced by offenders who are sent to gaol for less than six months is also huge. Sentences of less than six months do not include a period of supervision by the Probation and Parole Service. Accordingly, an offender's return to the community after imprisonment can be more arduous, increasing the possibility of his or her reoffending.

The bill also prohibits the Parole Board from removing the revocation of a periodic detention order in certain circumstances. This aspect of the bill removes the Parole Board's discretionary powers. Rather than ensuring that revocations are dealt with by experts with prior experience, this bill will increase the influence of the Legislature. These issues should clearly be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Under the bill, the court will receive a report from the Probation and Parole Service on the suitability of an offender for periodic or home detention. When the court deals with the offender contrary to that assessment, the bill provides that the court must make a formal record of its reasons. This aspect of the bill will increase the already overworked court caseload, with the clear intent of removing the court's independence and forcing it to accept the assessment of the Probation and Parole Service. Under the separation of powers doctrine, the court does not have to explain itself to the Legislature. The bill clearly aims to remove the court's discretionary powers and is part of the Government's attempt to control the court's decisions.

There is a perception that periodic detention is not effective, and some support for this view is found in poor compliance with the program. The reasons for that poor compliance are less clear. Is there an inherent problem with the program or could aspects of its implementation be improved? It would seem that the Government has not done enough research in this area. If the Government is truly concerned about ensuring the integrity of the periodic detention scheme, consideration should be given to enhancing the support offered to periodic detainees. The provision of counselling, welfare, or drug detoxification services will help to ensure conformity with administrative procedures, thus reducing unauthorised absences. This would be a far better way of achieving what the bill pretends it is attempting to achieve. This bill should be opposed, and the Australian Democrats will oppose it.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.25 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Periodic and Home Detention) Bill. This bill is the result of the observations and experience by Department of Corrective Services staff that the periodic detention and home detention systems must be modified. I believe we should support the bill, and thus Department of Corrective Services staff, who perform a very difficult role in our society. The amendments in this bill will tighten the Periodic Detention Scheme and make several amendments to the Home Detention Scheme.

A periodic detainee who is unable to report for periodic detention will have to telephone a special phone number before the commencement of the detention period to inform Corrective Services staff that he or she cannot attend. The detainee will still have to provide written justification for the absence, such as a medical certificate, within seven days. Nevertheless, the Parole Board will be able to grant leave of absence in special cases, even if the detainee failed to telephone. A detainee could have a genuine reason for his or her failure to contact Corrective Services staff-for example, the detainee may have been involved in a serious traffic accident.

If a periodic detainee is serving consecutive sentences, absences without leave [AWOL] incurred in serving the first sentence will be counted along with other AWOLs incurred in serving the second sentence towards the accumulation of three AWOLs, at which time the Commissioner for Corrective Services may apply to the Parole Board for revocation of the periodic detention order. The commissioner is allowed some discretion in that regard. The Commissioner for Corrective Services must apply for the revocation of the periodic detention order if the detainee incurs three consecutive AWOLs. A detainee whose periodic detention order has been revoked and who has been sent to prison as a consequence may reapply to the Parole Board for periodic detention after serving three months in prison. This procedure already applies to home detainees whose home detention orders have been revoked.

One aspect of the bill that is causing controversy and giving rise to proposed amendments is the determination that an offender who has previously served a term of full-time imprisonment for more than six months will automatically be ineligible for periodic detention. As I said earlier, this legislation is the result of observations and experience from within the periodic detention system. There has been a change of attitude within that system and there is now a significant gaol culture within detention centres because many detainees have previously spent lengthy periods in full-time custody. While in gaol these detainees adopt tough or unco-operative attitudes. They believe they can beat the system and that the State and the law are mugs. They then pass that attitude on to detainees who are serving periodic detention for minor offences.

Some members say they are opposed to this requirement. However, the sole purpose of the requirement is to assist the rehabilitation of those who have been sentenced to periodic detention, not to have them influenced by people who have been previously in prison. If people who have served formerly in gaol have such attitudes, I believe rehabilitation will be prevented. This pro-rehabilitation requirement will benefit those who have committed only minor offences and have been granted periodic detention, and they are the people we should be focusing on; not people who have been in gaol. We should be focusing on those most vulnerable. We would support the Government's legislation in that regard. The court must give reasons for departing from an assessment report. Such reports are prepared by the Probation and Parole Service. If an assessment report states that the offender is unsuitable for periodic detention and the court nevertheless sentences the offender to periodic detention, the court must give reasons for departing from the report. We support the passage of this bill.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [5.31 p.m.]: This is bad legislation introduced by a conservative, uncaring and hard-line government that wants to be regarded as tough on criminals in the lead-up to the 2003 election. If this bill passes the gaol population will increase, and that will mean more single mothers and single fathers. It will also mean more votes for the Greens and the Democrats, who have more compassion and a better understanding of the effects of gaol on people.

The Government believes that the criteria for eligibility and suitability of offenders for periodic detention and home detention need to be tightened. Currently the Commissioner of Corrective Services may grant leave of absence to a detainee for health reasons, or on compassionate grounds, or on the ground that the offender is in custody, or for any reason the commissioner thinks fit, so that such leave becomes authorised leave. Currently a detainee's absence cannot be regarded as unauthorised until the lapse of seven days from the day on which the detainee failed to report for periodic detention. So seven days must pass before the commissioner can apply to the Parole Board for revocation of the detainee's periodic detention order.

Amendments in this bill will require a periodic detainee who is unable to report for a detention period to notify the Department of Corrective Services by phone advising of his or her inability to attend. The person will then have seven days to submit a written application, and that written application must contain documentary evidence, such as a medical certificate, to justify the detainee's absence. Any detainee who does not make the telephone call may be regarded as absent without leave immediately.

The bill also provides that if a periodic detainee has failed to report for three or more detention periods without authorised leave of absence the Parole Board must revoke the detainee's periodic detention order on the application of the Commissioner of Corrective Services, regardless of whether the three unauthorised absences occur in one sentence or in consecutive sentences. The bill provides that the Parole Board may reinstate a periodic detention order that it has revoked if the offender concerned has since served at least three months full-time imprisonment and has been re-assessed as suitable for periodic detention.

It should be remembered that home detention orders are not always revoked because of a breach by the detainee. Sometimes it is the case that one or more of the detainee's co-residents withdraws their consent for the detainee to reside with them, and the detainee is unable to find alternative accommodation suitable for the home detention scheme. The Minister says that the Government does not believe that periodic detention is an appropriate sentence for hardened criminals. Amendments to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 provide that an offender who has previously served full-time imprisonment for more than six months is not eligible for periodic detention. Six months hardly qualifies someone as hardened.

A court will obtain an assessment report from the Probation and Parole Service on the suitability of the offender concerned for periodic detention or home detention. When a court deals with an offender contrary to the Probation and Parole Service's assessment report the court must indicate to the offender its reasons for departing from the assessment report and must also make a formal record of those reasons. The Law Society contends that the proposal to remove eligibility for a periodic detention order from offenders who have served full-time imprisonment at any time in their past for more than six months, is an inappropriate fetter on judicial discretion. Quite clearly suitability cannot be arbitrarily determined merely having regard to the fact that a person has previously served full-time imprisonment.

No account will be taken of the differing circumstances of the offenders: their age, patterns of offending behaviour, length of time between offences and so on. It will serve only to discourage offenders from rehabilitating themselves. Since 1998 the use of periodic detention orders as a sentencing option has declined. The manner in which the court is required to determine sentences to be served by way of periodic detention has been criticised judicially. In R v Wegener [1999] NSWCCA 405 His Honour Mr Justice Sperling noted:

It follows that, speaking generally, a term of imprisonment which is appropriate if served by full time custody would be much too lenient to be appropriate if served by periodic detention. There may be cases where that would not be so but they would be exceptional. In the result, I do not see how a court could, in the ordinary case, conscientiously make an order for periodic detention in relation to a sentence imposed in the usual way. Yet that is what the statute now contemplates will happen. The statute, as amended, seems to me to be unworkable.

I do not support the amendments to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act 1999. The Minister argued that he would not accept the Opposition's amendments as moved in the other place, which provided that a periodic detention order may not be made in respect of a sentence of imprisonment for any offence for which the maximum penalty includes imprisonment for five years or more, or any sexual offence, because it would quite rightly take away the discretion of the court to deal with a person coming before it for sentence.

Quite clearly, the Government's provision that offenders who have served full-time imprisonment of six months or more should not be allowed to have periodic detention also removes that very discretion the Government apparently wishes to preserve. In the United States the incarceration rate is 478 per 100,000 people. New South Wales has an incarceration rate, as at 30 June 2001, of almost 200 people per 100,000, and the indigenous imprisonment rate in New South Wales is just over 2,000 prisoners per 100,000 indigenous adults. America's "tough on crime" policy is one that this Government and this Opposition are fighting to emulate. Their keenness to lock people up is equally matched by an almost complete lack of interest when people get out of gaol.

It must be remembered that the average inmate goes to prison disadvantaged in almost every way. He or she is poor, is poorly educated with a meagre employment record, has drug problems, has mental problems, and is functionally illiterate. Prison could fix some of these social disadvantages but generally it does not. The typical inmate is released with all the problems he or she went in with-but he or she now has the experience of being behind bars and a record that makes it more difficult to find a job or re-integrate into society. Prison programs have an effect on the rate of recidivism. Instead of doing something more about strengthening these programs, this Government is talking about removing periodic detention as an option for people who have served more than six months imprisonment. Figures from the Department of Corrective Services show that proposed section 65A will reduce the numbers of offenders entering periodic detention by around 7 per cent. A policy paper published by the British Government when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister noted:

Imprisonment is not the most effective punishment for most crime. Custody should be reserved as punishment for very serious offences, especially when the offender is violent and a continuing risk to the public.

The Carr Government is trying to out-Thatcher Thatcher! On average, holding someone in prison for a month in Britain costs twice as much as the cost of administering the average community service order. Imprisonment also has other drawbacks, and they reduce its effectiveness as a crime prevention measure. The Thatcher Government could not be regarded as being soft on criminals, but it did pride itself on its economic rationalism. Keeping people out of prison could be the result of an economic rationalist approach.

John Walker, Senior Criminologist at the Australian Institute of Criminology, notes that the average time served by sentenced prisoners in Australian States and Territories varies from just over two months to more than seven months, and the estimated average cost of imprisonment per prisoner per annum varies from about 13 times to almost 40 times the cost of a non-custodial order. In 2001 the average cost for an inmate in maximum security per prisoner per year was $49,458 in New South Wales, while the average cost per community based order per person was $3,150.

Quite clearly, we should be doing something more to encourage the use of alternatives to full-time incarceration as opposed to legislating for their effective removal. This Government has overseen a declining trend in people attending periodic detention and has not done anything to investigate this trend, such as reviewing the sentencing methodology for forms of imprisonment that may be imposed as alternatives to full-time detention, as proposed by the Law Society, or undertaking the research study recommended by the Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population. Perhaps they should do that.

Victoria has the lowest imprisonment rate per 100,000 adults of any State in Australia-it is approximately half the rate in New South Wales. Fourteen years ago the Victorian Government was spending almost 30 per cent more money than was spent in New South Wales-and more than double that spent in other States and Territories-on community based orders. Currently Victoria is still spending more than is being spent by New South Wales per community based order per person.

The report of the Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population noted that the prison population would be substantially reduced, and it would cost less, if greater use were made of sentencing alternatives to full-time detention. The prison population consists of men and women who are, on average, of lower socioeconomic status, of poorer health and of lower levels of education than the rest of the population. Indigenous men and women and those with an intellectual disability or a mental illness are significantly overrepresented. The South Eastern Aboriginal Service noted that changes made in 1999 to the Periodic Detention of Prisoners Act shifting the function of cancelling orders from the courts to the Parole Board had a disastrous effect for Aboriginal imprisonment because magistrates were more inclined to show leniency if required. The secretary of the Parole Board gave evidence to the committee that the board does show leniency. He noted that it would be very rare for a person to be immediately incarcerated for simply missing three periodic detention orders. He said:

The committee rarely applies for revocation on three because a person has just come to notice. A chance is given for them to do something.

The chance for them to do something is being removed through this bill, which provides that if a periodic detainee has failed to report for three or more detention periods without authorised leave of absence the Parole Board must revoke the detainee's periodic detention order regardless of whether the three unauthorised absences occur in one sentence or in consecutive sentences. I cannot support this bill as it currently stands and I will move an amendment in Committee to provide that a person who has previously served full-time imprisonment for more than six months within the last 10 years-which is very reasonable, I would have thought-will not be eligible for periodic detention, as opposed to the Government's position, which is that an offender who has previously served full-time imprisonment for more than six months at any time in the past is not eligible for periodic detention. This is a bad deal from a very conservative, hard-line government.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [5.42 p.m.]: The Greens strongly oppose aspects of the Crimes Legislation (Periodic and Home Detention) Bill. I concur with the assessment of the Hon. Richard Jones that the bill provides a cheap line for the upcoming elections and is sending the Government in absolutely the wrong direction. Sadly, once again the Government is taking draconian action in the pre-election law and order auction. The bill seeks to tighten-unnecessarily in the Greens' view-the periodic and home detention schemes. The most alarming aspect of the bill is the proposal to disqualify an offender from participating in the periodic detention scheme if he or she has previously served full-time imprisonment for more than six months. The Greens are strongly opposed to this proposal. Members of this House who support the proposal are extremely uncharitable. People who offended a very long time ago should now be able to access a scheme that is far more humane to people who may now have families.

Periodic detention is an important sentencing option. New South Wales began periodic detention in 1971 as an experiment in alternatives to custodial sanctions. Periodic detention is a valuable sentencing tool. It gives the courts the ability to impose a custodial sentence while allowing offenders to maintain their ties to the community by remaining in employment and living with their families for the greater part of each week and contributing to the community through community work. This is extremely important as it is well documented that offenders who are released back into the community with no employment and decreased family and social networks are more likely to reoffend than those who have strong employment and family and social ties. Periodic detention is also a much cheaper sentencing option than full-time imprisonment.

The Government's proposal would exclude any offender who has previously served full-time imprisonment for more than six months. There is no time limit on this proposal. In other words, a person may have committed a crime 20 or 30 years ago and been imprisoned for more than six months. That person may have been rehabilitated and but for that indiscretion led an exemplary life. He or she may have an excellent job and family and social commitments. If the person reoffends, he or she is immediately ineligible for periodic detention. The hands of the judge handling the case will be tied if he or she is of the view that the offence warrants some kind of custodial option. Periodic detention cannot be an option and the judge may feel he or she has no choice but to impose a custodial sentence because of the nature of the offence. Such offenders could lose their jobs and be separated from their families. It seems unfair that this kind of person is automatically disqualified from being sentenced to a period of periodic detention. In a letter sent to the Minister from the Law Society and supplied to the crossbenchers the following is pointed out:

The Law Society believes that this provision will be an inappropriate fetter on judicial discretion. It is conceded that past imprisonment is an issue relevant to assessing the suitability of offenders for periodic detention. However, suitability cannot, and should not, be arbitrarily determined merely having regard to the fact that a person has previously served a full-time imprisonment.

The Law Society is concerned that the proposed new restriction will operate to prevent an assessment being made of some offenders' suitability to serve a fresh sentence by the most appropriate means. It will permit no account to be taken of the differing characteristics of those offenders, their age or circumstances, their differing patterns of offending behaviour, the length of time between offences.

The Greens intend to move an amendment in Committee to place a time limit on the provisions of proposed section 65A. The effect of the amendment will be that a person will be ineligible for periodic detention only if he or she had served full-time imprisonment in the last five years. The Greens will also move an amendment to ensure that only those who have been imprisoned for more than one year in the previous five years are ineligible for periodic detention. The Greens strongly oppose the bill as put forward by the Government.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.46 p.m.], in reply: The Government thanks honourable members for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, however, seems to have misconstrued some elements of the bill, as he does with most bills that come before this House. He seems to think that periodic detention has no custodial element. Periodic detention is not non-custodial. Persons are sentenced to a period of imprisonment, such imprisonment to be served by way of periodic detention, as provided in section 6 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. With that brief comment I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Ms Burnswoods Mr Colless Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Mr Dyer Mr Egan Ms Fazio Mrs Forsythe Miss Gardiner Mr Gay

Mr Harwin Mr Hatzistergos Mr M. I. Jones Mr Kelly Mr Lynn Mr Macdonald Reverend Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Oldfield Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce Dr Pezzutti Mr Ryan Mr Samios Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Mr West Tellers, Mr Jobling Mr Primrose

Mr Breen Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Mr Corbett Mr R. S. L. Jones

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Schedule 1

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.55 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3 in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1. Insert after line 32:

[3] Section 89 Failure to report or reporting late extends term of sentence

Omit section 89 (4). Insert instead:

(4) The sentence to be served by an offender who fails to report, or who reports late, for one or more detention periods (otherwise than where leave is granted) is, by this subsection, further extended:

(a) by 2 weeks, for the first detention period for which the offender fails to report or reports late, and

(b) by 6 weeks, for the second and any subsequent detention period for which the offender fails to report or reports late.

[4] Section 89 (5)

Omit the subsection.

No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1, line 27. Omit "consecutive".

No. 3 Page 6, schedule 1, lines 1 to 27. Omit all words on those lines.

Amendment No. 1 relates to section 89 of the Act. Item [3] seeks to replace subsection (4) of section 89 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, which extends the term of a sentence for a failure to report or late reporting. The current penalty for failing to attend without reasonable excuse is an additional week's detention for the first and subsequent offences. The Opposition believes that there should be a hierarchy of penalties to make offenders realise that it is not an option for them to attend periodic detention only when they feel like it; punishment should fit the offence.

If a periodic detainee fails to report without excuse under the conditions of a system that will be strengthened by this legislation, he or she should be made aware in no uncertain terms that the Government takes a dim view of that failure to attend. The periodic detainee should be made aware that his or her time spent in periodic detention will be increased if there is a breach. The amendment provides a penalty hierarchy under which a second offence will attract three additional weekends of detention-a fairly substantial deterrent. The amendment is designed to provide a clear warning to offenders in the form of three strikes and you are in; that is, imprisonment without an option of periodic detention.

Amendments Nos 2 and 3 relate to the concept of consecutive offences. The Government wants to make it obligatory for the Commissioner of Corrective Services to make an application to the Parole Board for revocation of a parole order on the basis of a periodic detainee failing to report for three or more consecutive detention periods. The Opposition believes that if a periodic detainee fails to turn up three times without justification, or without appropriate excuse, or he or she goes away without official leave three times during the period of detention, the detainee should not pass go, but should go into full-time gaol. The final amendment seeks to removes proposed section 164A. The option of periodic detention is part of the hierarchy of punishments. If the Government is prepared to give periodic detainees a number of chances for being absent without leave as proposed by the Opposition, there should be some additional sanctions. The Government has rejected those sanctions. I commend Opposition amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.58 p.m.]: The Government opposes Opposition amendment No. 1. The Government believes that the addition of one week to the original sentence each time a detainee is absent without leave is an effective penalty for an unauthorised absence. Of course, if a detainee is repeatedly absent without leave the commissioner will apply to the Parole Board to have the detainee's periodic order revoked. Revocation results in full-time imprisonment.

The Government opposes Opposition amendment No. 2. If the amendment were accepted, some detainees who are well on the way to completing their periodic detention order will have their order unnecessarily revoked. For example, a detainee serving 18 months periodic detention who has one unauthorised absence after four months, a second unauthorised absence after eight months, and a third unauthorised absence after 12 months would automatically have his or her periodic detention order revoked. However, such a detainee is likely to successfully complete his or her order, based on his or her attendance record for 49 weeks out of 52 weeks. The Government's intention is to target detainees who flout the system, not those who are clearly going to complete their orders.

The Government opposes Opposition amendment No. 3. Proposed new section 164A brings periodic detention into line with home detention. Just as the Parole Board can reinstate a revoked home detention order after a detainee has served three months full-time imprisonment, the Parole Board will be able to reinstate a revoked periodic detention order after the detainee has served three months full-time imprisonment. If the detainee's behaviour in prison is unsatisfactory, or if the Parole Board considers that the detainee is unlikely to comply with a reinstated order, the board would not reinstate the order.

Amendments negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

The CHAIRMAN: There are conflicting amendments. I propose to allow the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, the Hon. Ian Cohen and Hon. Richard Jones to move amendments concurrently. After consideration of those amendments I will put questions relating to them seriatim.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.00 p.m.]: I move Australian Democrats amendment No. 1:

Page 13, schedule 2, lines 4 to 11. Omit all words on those lines.

The amendment will remove proposed new section 65A in schedule 2 to the bill, which seeks to amend the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The amendment in the bill intends to preclude certain offenders from accessing periodic detention as a sentencing option. This section applies to any offender who has previously served a period of six months imprisonment or longer. The proposed Government amendment is an unreasonable restraint on judicial discretion. There is no time limit as to when a crime was committed. It may be that the offender has not committed a crime for 20 years. In that case the offender should be considered for periodic detention. The offender may be 50 and hardly a danger to the community. The offender may be Aboriginal, and being on home detention within his or her community would be a definite plus in any rehabilitation.

It should be noted that six months is not a very long prison term. The types of offences that would attract such a sentence are not in the category of serious crimes. They may be offences such as fraud or driving offences and not include murder or major drug offences. The Law Society has advised that the use of periodic detention orders as a sentencing option has declined since 1998, despite the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Increase in the Prisoner Population, which recommended that alternatives to full-time imprisonment should be explored in detail. A further tightening of the breach and the revocation procedures in the bill will lead to a lessening of the chances prisoners have to rehabilitate themselves. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [6.02 p.m.]: I move the following amendment:

Page 13, schedule 2, line 8. Insert ", within the last 10 years," after "who".

People of 19, 20 or 21 who offend by smoking marijuana and are imprisoned for six months under this Government's legislation or under the legislation proposed by the Opposition and who then fall foul of the law again, perhaps for a driving offence, when they are 35 or 40 are not hardened criminals. It is very easy to attract a six-month gaol sentence for a relatively minor offence, such as being in possession of a marijuana joint or smoking marijuana, which is still on the statute books. I have seen it happen. People in that situation would go to gaol automatically. It is following a hard line not to allow people access to periodic detention when they would otherwise be eligible for it. It is shocking that the Government will not accept this amendment, the amendment of the Greens or the amendment of the Australian Democrats.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [6.03 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 13, schedule 2, line 8. Insert ", within the last 5 years," after "who".

I seek to amend the amendment moved by the Hon. Richard Jones by deleting "10 years" and inserting instead "5 years". The bill specifies that anyone who has been imprisoned for six or more months is ineligible for periodic detention regardless of when that imprisonment occurred. In other words, the period of imprisonment may have been 20 or 30 years ago. This is unfair because some individuals who may be suitable for periodic detention will be excluded. As I stated in the second reading debate, periodic detention is an extremely useful sentencing tool. It allows offenders to maintain employment, live in the community, and maintain family and social ties for most of the week. Loss of employment, and family and community ties have been linked to recidivism. The Greens amendment specifies that an offender would not be eligible for periodic detention if the offender had been imprisoned for six or more months in the past five years, as opposed to the indefinite timeframe proposed by the Government. It also amends the 10-year timeframe proposed by the Hon. Richard Jones, for which we have a great deal of sympathy. However, in the hope that the Government may reconsider, we felt that a compromise of five years was reasonable and doable. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.05 p.m.]: Mr-

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Call your stockbroker.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is one thing I have never done in my life. I do not have a stockbroker. I have very few shares, only little give-aways.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Are they on the pecuniary interest list?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Yes, they are. They are indeed. I have no stockbroker. I make it clear now: I have no stockbroker and I have very few shares. The Government opposes the Australian Democrats amendment. Periodic detention is not an appropriate sentence for hardened criminals. The periodic detention scheme can be improved if hardened criminals are excluded from it. The Department of Corrective Services has noticed that there has been a significant shift in the type of offender now being sentenced to periodic detention, many of whom bring with them a gaol culture from lengthy periods of full-time imprisonment. The bill will remove these offenders from the periodic detention scheme. On 30 June we had 896 periodic detainees, 202 of whom had previously served a period in full-time custody, and 62 of whom had previously served a period of more than six months in full-time custody and represents 6.9 per cent of the periodic detainee population at that date.

The Government opposes the amendment of the Hon. Richard Jones because it would allow hardened criminals to enter the periodic detention scheme. The amendment would allow a criminal such as William Henry Finch to serve periodic detention. Finch was convicted of murder in 1955 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was released on licence in 1974. He did not reoffend for nearly 20 years. In 1994 Finch was sentenced to periodic detention for a new offence, but his periodic detention was order was subsequently revoked in 1995. In August 1997 and again in May 1998 Finch was sentenced to periodic detention. Subsequently, in September 1999 the Parole Board revoked both periodic detention orders. In addition, Finch was convicted of attempting to bring drugs to a periodic detention centre.

Not only was Richard Finch unsuitable for periodic detention on the basis of his lengthy period of imprisonment, which was confirmed by the revocation of his periodic detention orders, but he retained the gaol culture he picked up during his imprisonment, as evidenced by his conviction of trying to bring drugs into a periodic detention centre whilst serving his sentence. The Department of Corrective Services estimates that proposed section 65A will result in a reduction in the number of periodic detention revocations by approximately 7 per cent. The Government opposes Greens amendment No. 1 for the same reason it opposes the amendment moved by the Hon. Richard Jones, namely it would allow hardened criminals to enter the periodic detention scheme.

The Hon. IAN COHEN [6.08 p.m.]: The Government's argument is totally unconvincing. It takes away the whole concept that a judge presiding over these cases can make an appropriate decision about the individual at hand. By leave, I move, also Greens amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 13, schedule 2, lines 8 and 9. Omit "6 months". Insert instead "one year".

This amendment specifies that a person is only eligible for periodic detention if the offender has previously served a term of imprisonment of one year or more. The Government proposal is six months. Introducing a six-month cut off period would exclude many offenders who may be suitable for periodic detention, although it is still up to a judge to assess the situation. According to statistics supplied by the Law Society stemming from the average monthly statistics of the Department of Corrective Services, periodic detention sentences have declined remarkably in the last few years. In January 1998, 1,520 people were sentenced to periodic detention. This declined to 1,080 in December 2000 and 892 by July 2002. As can be seen from the statistics, over the past years there has been a dramatic decline of this inexpensive, workable sentencing option. The Law Society, in a letter addressed to members of the crossbench, stated:

The Law Society has raised its concerns about the declining value of periodic detention as a sentencing option on a number of occasions and is concerned that the current proposal will do nothing to address the inherent problems with the periodic detention scheme.

The Greens believe that the Government's proposal will further significantly reduce the number of individuals sentenced to periodic detention. The Greens amendment seeks to arrest this decline. I commend Greens amendment No. 2.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.10 p.m.]: I support the amendment. I am disappointed that the Government has given anecdotal evidence. When dealing with legislation individual stories should be left to the courts to deal with because that is their role. Our role as parliamentarians is to make general principles. The Government should respect the separation of power between the judiciary and the Parliament in the decision-making process and if it must take this broad view, it should accept the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population, which examined these issues. However, the Government appears to be deliberately ignoring the recommendations of that committee on issues that are far more systemic. The Government's unthinking response is very disappointing.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [6.11 p.m.]: The Government proposal will cost taxpayers an extra $3 million a year. I wonder whether the Treasurer has been consulted on that.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.12 p.m.]: I have already outlined our support for the legislation as it stands. I remember when the concept of periodic detention and home detention was first introduced. The granting of either is not a right but a privilege. At that time there was considerable debate whether that privilege should even exist. The Government is trying to make the system work and, if the changes are not made, the system will collapse.

The Hon. Richard Jones: Why?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: Because it is not working. There will be criticism, the system will then be scrapped and the benefits will be lost. Let us make the system work efficiently.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.12 p.m.]: The Government opposes Greens amendment No. 2 moved by the Hon. Ian Cohen. The Government sees no reason to change the period as currently contained in the bill.

Amendment of the Hon. Richard Jones negatived.

Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 negatived.

Australian Document amendment negatived.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [6.14 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 4:

No. 4 Page 13, schedule 2. Insert after line 11:

(2) A periodic detention order may not be made in respect of a sentence of imprisonment for any of the following offences:

(a) any offence for which the maximum penalty includes imprisonment for 5 years or more,

(b) any sexual offence (that is, any offence arising under Division 10 or 10A of Part 3 of the Crimes Act 1900),

(c) any offence prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

The Opposition has learned, alarmingly, that there are instances when sex offenders have been sentenced to periodic detention. We do not believe-nor do we think the public believe-that that is appropriate. As the Government acknowledged, periodic detention is part of a hierarchy and it is a lesser punishment to full-time incarceration. We do not believe that any offence for which the maximum penalty is five years or more, that is, a serious offence as defined in the Crimes Act, or any sexual offence should be punishable by periodic detention. I commend the amendment.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.14 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment, which would take away a discretion that is properly with the courts. A sentencing court is in the best position to decide whether an offender should serve his or her sentence by way of periodic detention or in some other way.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.19 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. TONY KELLY [6.19 p.m.]: Tonight I would like to discuss the band of prosperity that is rapidly developing throughout the State's Central West. Recent unemployment figures released from the Federal Department of Employment and Workplace Relations support this picture of a dynamic and growing region. This is demonstrated by a glimpse at some of the figures. For example, the unemployment rate in the Cabonne Council area is only 4.3 per cent, in the Orange City Council area it is only 4.7 per cent and in the Blayney Council area it is an amazing 3.6 per cent. These are all well below the national and State unemployment averages. They point to a regional economy that is modern, dynamic and facing up to the challenges of the new global economic conditions.

The Carr Government has also been there since 1995, backing businesses in the Central West, with programs designed to see communities through times of change and transition, helping them attract investment in jobs, and encouraging businesses to set up shop or relocate in rural and regional New South Wales. We have backed this commitment with an unprecedented program of government department job relocations to rural and regional New South Wales. Besides creating more than 2,000 new jobs, we have taken jobs locked up by the former Coalition Government in the high rents and costs of Sydney and relocated almost 1,500 of these jobs-and the pay packets they bring with them-to rural and regional New South Wales.

Besides jobs and investment the Carr Government is ensuring that rural and regional New South Wales communities have the schools, hospitals and roads to encourage further growth. This year's budget shows a record commitment to our education and health systems, with 28 per cent of those living in country New South Wales receiving more than 36 per cent, or some $2.5 billion, in capital works and road maintenance programs. Country New South Wales is a clear priority for the Carr Government. We will continue to back regions like the Central West and keep talking them up as fantastic places to live, ideal places to invest and perfect spots to locate and grow a business. Yet all we hear from Opposition members is a picture of doom and gloom for country New South Wales, matched only by their electoral prospects.

We currently have the astounding spectacle of Coalition members of Parliament falling over themselves to see who can talk up crime in their communities the most. In preying on people's fears as some sort of vote winner, Coalition members are simultaneously talking down communities such as Orange and Goulburn-the latter described by its local National Party member of Parliament as having a crime rate as bad as that of Cabramatta. This is not just needlessly scaring the vulnerable members of these communities but sending a poor message to those who wish to invest or relocate their businesses and families to country New South Wales.

The Leader of the Opposition visited Orange in the past few weeks. Did he praise the great economic success stories such as Cadia and Ridgeway mines or the recent positive employment figures that I mentioned earlier? No, he told the people of Orange-with no supporting evidence, mind you-that the town was in the grip of a crime wave, with would-be criminals lurking around every street corner. The people of Orange were obviously taken aback by these wild claims. What was their basis? I suggest that it was probably a pre-tour briefing by the honourable member for Orange to his leader. This is the same member of Parliament who in his recent column in the local Orange newspaper suggested that the amount of chewing gum seen on the streets presented a powerful case for introducing zero tolerance policing. No wonder Mr Brogden's "hubba bubba" campaign fell flat!

Rural and regional communities are tired of Opposition members continually talking down country New South Wales as a place to live. Rest assured that, even without an effective Opposition devoid of policies, the Carr Government will go to the people in March with an impressive list of achievements and a good set of policies, building on what we have already accomplished and recognising the natural advantages and opportunities of rural and regional communities. In so doing, we will continue to support country New South Wales as a great place to live and to do business.

The Hon. JAMES SAMIOS [6.23 p.m.]: Our multicultural society is also a multi-religious society and religious groups play an important role in underpinning Australia's social cohesion. I refer in particular to the contribution of the Greek Orthodox Church in this regard. Last Sunday I attended the St Andrew's Brotherhood dinner, which was held to raise funds for the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. The archdiocese runs its own theological college, which is part of the Sydney College of Divinity at the University of Sydney. It plays an important role in providing the church with priests and theologians, who serve the needs of some 700,000 or so Australian Greek Orthodox Christians.

The event was attended by Archbishop Stylianos, who had returned from an overseas trip on Saturday. He spoke as head of the theological college in the presence of Bishop Seraphim of Apollonios, a consular representative, college lecturers, my parliamentary colleague the Hon. John Hatzistergos and his wife, parish presidents and supporters numbering several hundred or so. The theological college is now some 17 years old and presently has 19 students, five of whom are in their final year. During that period the college has made a very important contribution to underpinning the cohesion of our multicultural society as far as the Greek Orthodox Church is concerned. The archdiocese also maintains and runs three high schools, welfare centres, nursing homes and in excess of 120 parishes throughout Australia.

The church is significant to our multicultural society because it offers security not only to migrants but to those born in Australia who relate to the culture and spiritual values of their religion. His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos has played a pivotal role in that regard, attending to the needs of the college and of the church. He and his bishops and priests must be commended for playing an important role not only in the church and for those who adhere to the Greek Orthodox faith but also in our multicultural society in Australia.

The Hon. ALAN CORBETT [6.26 p.m.]: A pesticide incident that occurred recently at St Matthew's Catholic Primary School in Windsor has highlighted the urgent need for the Government to introduce a regulation under the Pesticides Act 1999 for the mandatory prior notification of pesticide use in New South Wales schools and child care centres and in any other environments where children or sensitive individuals may be present. The details of the incident has been difficult to clarify. Some teachers and parents feel that they have been victimised and are unable and reluctant to give details about the incident. I am still awaiting a response to and acknowledgement of a letter that I wrote to the Area Administrator for the Catholic Education Office on 4 September this year requesting clarification of the issue.

The incident at St Matthew's allegedly occurred on 16 June this year and involved the application of chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate pesticide. The pesticide was applied under the floors of several classrooms by a pest control company as a preventative treatment for termites. According to reports from teachers and parents at the school, children and staff re-entered the classrooms the following day and raised concerns with the principal about the strong smell in the classrooms and the strange taste in their mouths as well as headaches, flu-like symptoms and the feelings of anxiety they were experiencing. Despite the requirement to give 14 days notice of the intention to use pesticides, neither teachers nor parents were informed about the treatment before or after it occurred. Teachers from the treated classrooms have stated that the ventilation in the classrooms is very poor.

Teachers and parents continued to raise concerns about the smell and the possible impacts on their health and the health of their children in the treated classrooms as they and the children continued to experience unexplained health symptoms. Copies of the material safety data sheet and information about the exact formulation of the chlorpyrifos used were requested but have still not been provided to teachers or parents. According to two teachers and a parent, their concerns were largely dismissed by the principal. The sequence of events that followed is not clear. It is uncertain whether school authorities reported the incident to WorkCover or to the Environment Protection Authority. It appears that the teachers have alerted the Independent Education Union.

Sampling of the classrooms was undertaken by private companies several times. However, the last sampling results have apparently been withheld from parents and teachers. Two teachers from the treated classrooms have since left the school and the circumstances of their departure are unclear. They claim they were told that they were troublemakers and that their position was intractable. They are currently on leave awaiting appointments to other schools. I have asked these teachers to alert me to any recriminations that may result from their stance. Many aspects of this incident are concerning, and I am extremely worried that children and staff may still be exposed to dangerous levels of this chemical in the indoor air and from contaminated surfaces.

It is well known that children are many times more susceptible to the health effects of pesticide exposure than adults. It is also extremely concerning that the use of chlorpyrifos-a nerve-poisoning pesticide with recognised and documented serious health effects-is still permitted in schools and child care centres. The United States Environment Protection Agency undertook a Revised Risk Assessment and Agreement with Restraints on Chlorpyrifos in June 2000. The agreement that was reached included a cancellation of practically all indoor and outdoor residential uses of chlorpyrifos, as well as an effective ban on its use in schools, parks and other settings where children may be exposed.

I call on the Ministers for Health, Education and the Environment to ensure that the National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals in Australia urgently reviews the registration of chlorpyrifos and immediately cancels its use in environments where children and sensitive individuals may be exposed to it, in line with the United States decision. The New South Wales Government should also urgently introduce a regulation to ensure that the entire school community has prior notification of any intended pesticide use in schools and child care centres. Staff and parents must be informed about potentially hazardous chemicals that are being used in their workplace. Pesticide exposure is too serious a matter to ignore as it potentially has significant ramifications in relation to liability and compensation, as well as serious and sometimes permanent impacts on the health of those unfortunate enough to be exposed.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [6.30 p.m.]: Unfortunately my colleague the Hon. Ian West is not able to deliver a speech this evening on a matter of great concern to him. He has conveyed to me an amount of information which I would like to share with the House. Four weeks ago almost 500 employees of Sydney's Hilton Hotel were informed by their managers that they would be sacked in November this year. The Hilton is closing its doors on 29 November for a $400 million refurbishment, but it could afford to give its workers only eight weeks redundancy pay. Many of these employees have worked for the Hilton for more than 20 years. Eight weeks pay is an insult. It is important to note that this paltry provision is under the Federal award and that the equivalent State award affords double that amount of redundancy pay.

After many years of service these workers see their colleagues as a second family and the hotel as a second home-this is the thanks that they get. Earlier plans discussed with employees suggested that sections of the hotel would be closed off for refurbishment but that the Hilton would remain open for business throughout. Staff were rudely shocked when they discovered that the plan was to sack them in only a few months' time with no guarantee of future employment with the company.

Understandably, the employees' union, the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union [LHMU], of which the Hon Ian West is a proud member, has been waging a vigorous campaign to gain four reasonable objectives: first, a better redundancy deal for the whole work force-full-time, part-time and casuals; second, the right of return for all Hilton workers once the renovations are complete; third, a quality retraining and placement service to help hotel workers find alternative employment; finally, a first-ever union enterprise agreement when the hotel reopens.

There is also great public support for employees in their struggle for decent treatment from the Hilton. Mr Oded Lifschitz, Hilton Hotel's Australasian vice president, has been the target of more than 2,500 emails from all over Australia and the world, calling on him to guarantee Hilton workers more than a paltry eight weeks redundancy pay and employment on the reopening of the hotel when refurbishment is complete. An American Telco executive decided to show his support for employees who had made his many visits to the Sydney Hilton pleasurable, by inviting them to a $10,000 dinner at his own expense.

Only after this negative publicity for the Hilton group has it been willing to meet the LHMU at the negotiating table. This very afternoon in the other place, workers from the Hilton were present to witness a debate on this issue, which saw my party colleagues the honourable member for Liverpool, Paul Lynch, and the honourable member for Wentworthville, Pam Allan, call on the Hilton to treat their workers with the loyalty and decency that has characterised their many years of service. Interestingly, Chris Hartcher, who is the honourable member for Gosford and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, agreed that the actions of the hotel were disgraceful and that the Government should boycott the hotel until a fair outcome is negotiated through the union. It is a pleasure to see such bipartisanship.

The most recent development is that the union met with hotel management this afternoon and some progress was made in the negotiations to secure a fair outcome for the workers, but there is still a long way to go. The union is asking for a redundancy package of four weeks pay for each year of service for permanent employees, but the company has so far refused. The most outrageous treatment has been reserved for the many casual employees of the hotel, some of whom have been with the Hilton for as long as 20 years. They are currently being offered nothing. The company regards 15 years only as a significant service for casuals, which the union has understandably rejected.

It is also interesting to note that these workers in Sydney are being dictated to by company executives in London and Singapore about whether their 20 years of service to the company is worth more than eight weeks pay. I urge Hilton workers to persevere in their struggle for a decent package. Along with my colleague the Hon. Ian West I also urge hotel management to see the light, reverse the negative publicity that is being focused on the Hilton, and treat the workers decently at the negotiation table.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [6.35 p.m.]: Tonight I put on the public record a letter from a young lady whose family has a property adjacent to the Kaputar wilderness area near Narrabri. The letter states:

Sir, I feel it necessary to write to you on the matters that are currently affecting rural Australia. I am a 17 year-old girl who attends a boarding school and has every intention of returning to the land, but to tell you the truth I am now beginning to doubt whether it will be worthwhile to do so.

With things like the Threatened Species Act, the Wilderness Act and the Native Vegetation Act now preventing farmers from making a decent income. Once these are placed upon you, as I understand it, they are almost impossible to remove, and even then your land has a scar and seems to go down in value.

The main point of this letter is to ask people a question, what about us? Yes, us the next generation that are wanting to go back to the land? What is in it for us? The prospects don't exactly entice you back to the land, let me assure you.

Another thing is, do the people that are doing this to the backbone of Australia really realise what they are doing? What are we going to do as a nation when the taxes are raised because farmers cannot use their land to produce food? I bet that our city counterparts are going to be the first to complain and demand an explanation as to why they have to pay yet another toll rise.

I have come to hear about these problems through a personal experience, and I for one am infuriated, but has anyone bothered to ask the next generation what we think?

What about the so-called "public consultation" process, I wouldn't have heard a thing if it wasn't happening to me. No one in my school knows about it, and the sad thing is, it will affect them, they are saying to me, "when did this happen?" "No you are lying, we haven't heard about it so it can't be true."

Do you know how frustrating it is to know these things and have no one listening. The people that know about this are filled in a soundproof room, screaming at the top of their lungs with no one listening. The Carr Government is not winning the support of rural Australians by wanting to make this a great "green country". If they are not careful they are going to get more than they have bargained for.

Taking away people's livelihoods is not the best way to win votes or have they not recognised this tiny, crucial detail? As for the other bodies that are helping them to destroy our futures and the current lives of people, well I am nothing short of disappointed. How can they do this to people? Don't they understand the implications? I am sure that if we were to walk into their house and repossess everything that they have ever owned or worked for, they wouldn't be too happy, and neither are we.

Now when I look at a farm, while driving around the countryside, I notice things that I normally wouldn't. I notice that farmers in the past have made mistakes, but they have also taken giant leaps forward to maintain high levels of biodiversity, in fact they are so high for a reason, the farmers of today want to keep our country looking good, and if you ask me they are.

Farmers do take care of their land, as they are the ones who will suffer if they don't. So why don't you give them a break. These giant national parks that the government is dreaming of are a waste of time. Australia already has trouble supporting the populations that it carries. Imagine if we took away yet more useful land, it would eventually kill us. Is that what we want?

When I grow up, I will be looking for a property, but it won't be for all the right reasons, I will be looking for one that can't be taken off me. I will be looking for a patch of dirt that is barren but can run what I need to live off, if it's even possible. I won't be living near a national park or a state forest or nature reserve, as a matter of fact I don't know if I even can live on the land when I grow up. Can you tell me why I should when all I want from it will probably be taken away? So before this green movement gets even further out of hand, think about us. We have to live with your huge mistake.

What about us?

Ashley Stuart,
All Saints College, Bathurst.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.40 p.m.]: In my recent trip to the Central West of New South Wales I had the fortune to meet a number of rural people who are committed to the preservation of the region's precious natural assets. I thank David Paull, Charmaine O'Sheady, Ian Watts, Isabel Higgins, Sam Dunlop, Steve Meyer and many others for the great work they are doing in the western region of New South Wales. During my time in this region I visited areas such as Lake Cowal, Bathurst, Dubbo, Orange and West Wyalong. I have previously visited the area on a number of occasions and I have noticed a growing mistrust by farmers of their so-called traditional parliamentary representatives. There is a groundswell of support for greater conservation of the Brigalow Belt South. I note that the Government is committed to the establishment of new national parks for public lands and a sustainable value-added timber industry.

In my adjournment speech on 4 September I said that community groups in the region have formed a collective known as the Western Conservation Alliance. The Western Conservation Alliance has produced a report that describes the outstanding conservation significance of the Brigalow Belt south bioregion, which includes the Pilliga, Goonoo and Bebo State forests. The Western Conservation Alliance proposes a range of conservation and industry outcomes for the region. It lays the basis for positive solutions for all-for local communities and the environment. Its main report is accompanied by a socioeconomic report that promotes the diversification of regional economies, and new sustainable industries and job creation in the Brigalow Belt south bioregion. The report moves towards a solution that recognises and enhances conservation as a positive contribution to regional communities while promoting job opportunities.

The Brigalow Belt comprises just 6 per cent of New South Wales yet is home to 40 per cent of the State's plant species. Of the once vast region that stretches from Dubbo to the Queensland border, only one-third is left and, of that, only 2.5 per cent is safely protected. However, what is currently protected is threatened in a sea of agriculture. We need a sustainable outcome from the Brigalow Belt south. We need a future for working communities and for nature. To achieve this we need a shift to value-added strategies in the forest industry. This means thinning cypress regrowth, creating new timber products, and replacing native forest firewood with ecologically sustainable sources.

We need a comprehensive national park system to support increasing tourism, and active promotion to maximise visits. Benefits include the creation of jobs in construction and maintenance, accommodation, and services in surrounding towns. The region should get its share of Commonwealth and State funding to establish tree plantations for timber, to provide environmental services such as salinity control and to overcome other land degradation problems.

Funds need to be made available for farmers who are willing to protect private land conservation areas. Presently, State Forests' primary objective for the Pilliga, Goonoo and Bebo is logging. The Brigalow Belt, as well as being logged, is being mined, grazed and burnt. The nominated priority areas of the Brigalow Belt highlighted by the Western Conservation Alliance need to be protected through declared national parks. This is a heartland issue for the Greens. The New South Wales Labor Government has the power and responsibility to arrest the decline in temperate woodland species in western New South Wales. Ministers Yeadon and Debus have key responsibilities and they must act. The outcome on protecting the Brigalow Belt will considerably influence the direction that the Greens take in coming months with regard to a number of key political issues.

The Hon. RICHARD JONES [6.44 p.m.]: An article written by Roderick Frazier Nash entitled "Power of the Wild" that appeared in the New Scientist says that we should value and preserve wilderness not for what it can do for us but on its own terms. He wrote:

My purpose is to persuade you that wilderness is a moral resource. Human cultures have seen an extraordinary intellectual revolution in recent centuries that has transformed their view of the wilderness from a liability to an asset. That transformation has largely been promoted by anthropocentric arguments emphasising the value of wilderness to civilisation; recreational, scenic and spiritual values use man as the measure. But, as Henry David Thoreau wrote, the point of wilderness is that it is the home of "civilisations other than our own". Or, as children's author Morris Sendak put it more recently, it is "where the wild things are". Conceived as the habitat of other species, not as a human playground, wilderness is the best environment in which to learn that humans are members in, and not masters of, the community of life. And this ethical idea, working as a restraint in our relations with the environment, may be the starting point for saving this planet.

He went on to say:

We settled down, developed an ecological superiority complex and bet our evolutionary future on the control of nature. Now there were survival-related reasons to understand, order and transform the environment. The largest part of the energy of early civilisation was directed at conquering wildness in nature and disciplining it in human nature.

For the first time humans saw themselves as distinct from and, they reasoned, better than, the rest of nature. They began to think of themselves as masters, not members of the community of life.
Civilisation severed the web of life as humans distanced themselves from the rest of nature. Behind fenced pastures, village walls, and later, gated condominiums, it was hard to imagine other living things as relatives, or nature as sacred. The remaining hunters and gatherers became "savages". The community concepts, and attendant ethical respect, that had worked to curb human self-interest in dealings with nature declined in direct proportion to the "rise" of civilisation. Nature lost its significance as something to which people belonged and became something they possessed: an adversary, a target, an object for exploration.

The resulting war against the wilderness was astonishingly successful. Today we have fragments of a once-wild world, and with the wholesale disappearance of species. The ark is sinking-and on our watch.

Of course humans remain "natural". But somewhere along the evolutionary way from spears to spaceships humanity dropped off the biotic team and, as author and naturalist Henry Beston recognised, became a "cosmic outlaw". The point is that we are no longer thinking and acting like a part of nature. Or, if we are a part, it is a cancerous one, growing so rapidly as to endanger the larger environmental organism. Our species has become a terrible neighbour to the 30 million and more other species sharing space on this planet. Our numbers and our technology are wreaking ecological havoc. We have become the latter-day "death star", with the same potential for destruction as the asteroid that ended the days of the dinosaurs. There is not really any "environmental problem". It's a human problem. What needs to be conquered now is not the wilderness, but ourselves. We need to understand that it is civilisation that is out of control.

Mind pollution is more serious than chemical pollution. It is time to understand that there is no "good life" without a good environment and that it is a false prosperity that cannot be sustained over the long ecological haul. Growth must be dissociated from progress. Bigger is not better if the system is destroyed. As the deep ecologists recognise, we must now emphasise wholes over parts, and pursue justice at the level of entire ecosystems. A new valuation of wilderness is an excellent place to start.

The transformation that led some to view wilderness as an asset probably began with the Romantics. For example, Byron wrote in 1817 in the fourth canto of his poem Childe Harold's Pilgrimage:

There is a pleasure in pathless woods,
There is a rapture on the lonely shore,
There is society, where none intrudes,
By the deep sea, and music in its roar:
I love not man the less, but Nature more...

But this insight developed into a largely anthropocentric justification of wilderness, as something to be valued and preserved for people. Recreational, spiritual and scenic values all used man as the measure, and so did the early ecological arguments for wilderness, with their utilitarian emphasis on protecting species that possibly held the cure to cancer. More recently, wild ecosystems have been praised as resources capable of providing environmental "services" and supporting human health. These are the arguments that, sometimes, sell nature on the political stage.

But wilderness is not for people at all. It is where the wild things, the willed things, are.

[Time for debate expired.]

Motion agreed to.