1

The President (The Hon. Dr Meredith Burgmann) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

Bills received.

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

Motion by the Hon. Michael Egan agreed to:

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

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

The President tabled, pursuant to the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, the report entitled "New South Wales Auditor-General's Report—Financial Audits—Volume Four 2003—Total State Sector Accounts", dated November 2003.

Ordered to be printed.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 calendar days after assent as at 11 November 2003.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos tabled the following papers:

Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984—Reports for year ended 30 June 2003:

Public Trustee
Zoological Parks Board.

Ordered to be printed.

Petition praying that the House repeal the new gaming machine tax and undertake a review before further tax increases are considered, received from the Hon. Charlie Lynn.

Government Business Notice of Motion No. 1 and Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

Debate resumed from 11 November.

Mr IAN COHEN [11.11 a.m.]: Yesterday, before being interrupted for question time, I was speaking to clause 14 (5) (a) of the bill, which allows large agricultural-based corporations, such as Elders and Wesfarmers, to establish shopfronts where veterinarians would have consulting rooms but would be unable to perform surgery. The Australian Veterinary Association [AVA] has indicated that such a situation could spell disaster for many established and professional small practices in rural and regional New South Wales, as the large corporations would be able to undercut and take business away from them. A number of amendments to this clause will be moved at the Committee stage. The Greens are open to further communication from the Government if it has any further information. We have the same concerns as the AVA that large corporations will take business away from small practices in rural and regional New South Wales. This, in turn, will mean that many veterinary practices will be forced to close. It could also mean that there will be no veterinary surgery or hospital in rural and regional communities to treat sick animals or to provide animal management to service them.

Consulting work is the bread and butter of rural and regional veterinarians. It also subsidises a range of other services, such as large animal work, which are less profitable. If rural and regional veterinarians lose this work to large corporations, they will be unable to make the significant contributions they currently make to their local communities. Veterinarians who suffer from decreased income as a result of loss of bread-and-butter work to large corporation consultancy rooms will no longer be able to fund pro bono work, such as free microchip programs, responsible pet owner education programs and the treatment of native wildlife. They will also no longer be able to contribute to animal surveillance and the detection of outbreaks of both exotic and emerging diseases, thereby putting the livestock industry at risk.

The retention of clause 14 (5) (a) in the bill will decrease rather than increase competition, as it will, in effect, replace numerous small businesses in regional and rural New South Wales with a few monopolies. This will add further hardship to rural communities, which are already reeling from the departure of banking services, medical practices and other businesses from their towns. I had intended to move an amendment during the Committee stage to delete clause 14 (5) (a). However, I understand that the Opposition will be moving a similar amendment. In that case, I will withdraw my amendment and support the Opposition's amendment. It is important that we protect small veterinary practices in regional communities. I ask the Minister to address this issue in his reply. We have seen the draining of resources from rural communities. We do not want veterinary practices to go the same way as so many other services in regional areas.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.15 p.m.]: The Veterinary Practice Bill is part of a suite of bills that have been introduced as a result of the national competition policy review and are intended to establish a more coherent framework for professionals offering services in the marketplace. The Australian Veterinary Association [AVA] supports the large majority of the bill, but has raised concerns about some aspects. My office has spoken with the AVA about its concerns. There is almost a religious belief that competition will improve the market. But are we talking about competition at a small level between individuals, or between multinational companies? When we talk about competition between multinationals, a multinational company comes in and soaks up the small businesses and, if the market is lucrative, another multinational company will come along and compete. We must be careful about the extent of competition.

Recently I visited Nelson, a town on New Zealand's South Island. In the past 12 months the town has experienced a property boom and its property values have doubled. There are a few very expensive restaurants on the waterfront, most of which are owned by the same person. That is an example of how, if there is to be effective competition, businesses should not be owned by the one entity. Do regulators such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [ACCC] consider that effective competition occurs with a lot of small players or that one or two large players will do? I believe that collusive arrangements are far more common in oligopolies. This seems to have escaped the attention of regulators. It is called competition if huge corporations eat up small practitioners but compete with each other. That may be the antithesis of competition. The so-called benefits of competition must be balanced against the need for professionalism.

As Mr Ian Cohen said in his contribution to the second reading debate, if the bread and butter work, which provides most of the money to small practices, is given to the large corporations, small practitioners will not be able to survive. Major veterinary surgery is a minor part of the business of small practices. Their practices will become unviable. The larger practices in country towns, which are the mainstay of veterinary care for our major export industries, will be put at risk. A veterinarian in the city who looks after the pets of relatively wealthy people during restricted hours has an easier job than a veterinarian in a rural area who drives for miles to perform an internal examination of a cow at an inconvenient hour. Rural practices will be rendered non-viable because of the dogma that large corporations should be able to compete with small practices. We need to bear in mind that this competition policy, which is seen as a religion or panacea, will have a detrimental effect on rural communities. I do not believe that the ACCC has got it right. I have written many times to the ACCC about these issues because I believe it is allowing the expansion of large corporations with huge amounts of market power.

For example, clause 14 makes it an offence for a corporation to represent itself as a veterinary practice unless one or more of the veterinary practitioners has a controlling interest. The penalty will range from a $5,000 fine or 12 months imprisonment or both for an individual, to $11,000 for a corporation. That is very welcome because it means the veterinary profession will keep control of practices. However, clause 14 (5) exempts corporations that provide veterinary services but whose principal business is the supply of agricultural goods. That means companies such as Wesfarmers and Elders will be able to open a small shopfront in their establishments and compete with vets in providing basic pet care and specialist products. I am not criticising these companies; they will make a buck if they can. Nor am I suggesting that it is their intention to set up such shopfront services. However, people are familiar with the goods they sell and the services they provide. If one needed to take one's dog to the vet one might be tempted to visit the shopfront for greater convenience. Of course, those companies might then use their bargaining power to sell veterinary products at discount prices and thus shift market share from smaller independent vets.

As I said, it may result in veterinary practices becoming unviable in country areas. Farmers and the Australian Veterinary Association argue that the Veterinary Advisory Committee should be government funded. The New South Wales Farmers Association is concerned that the cost of the committee could be onerous given that it will need to meet frequently to consider documenting veterinary acts that are to be restricted, which is the new method to define what vets may do. Having an identical secretariat for the Veterinary Practitioners Board and the advisory committee does not necessarily provide the level of independence and transparency that the public expects. Amendments will be moved to rectify the concerns I have mentioned in respect of clause 14, and obviously I want those amendments accepted.

I can speak with some experience about the difficulties that professions have experienced with corporations involved in what I believe is ologopolistic behaviour. Mayne Health negotiated—if that is the appropriate word given the relative bargaining power of doctors and corporations—with its general practitioners to collect 55 per cent of their gross Medicare income. When the GST was introduced Mayne Health added that to the cost of the services it was providing. It was then taking 60 per cent of the gross income earned by medical practitioners. It bought practices primarily from GPs who were getting tired of the fact that the Medicare rebate was declining against the consumer price index—it had not risen in real terms. The doctors were getting older and were having to work harder and harder. It was an attractive option to sell their practice and hang around earning a consultancy fee for a couple of years so it did not look as though their practice had been sold to a big corporation.

The big corporation brought in a few young doctors who had to work in corporate medical practices because they did not have the capital to establish their own practices. Of course, the managers then spent their time cutting costs by reducing the secretarial staff numbers and the hours worked. The doctors retained responsibility for notes and quality control if anything went wrong and in return they received 40 per cent of the already diminished Medicare rebate, which as everyone knows has declined to about 50 per cent of what it was when the scheme was introduced. Of course, that is a Federal issue. However, 60 per cent of the money theoretically being paid to doctors by Medicare was going to Mayne Health, for which it was providing a very poor secretarial service. I believe that doctors have already lost control of general practice. The reason they are surviving in specialist practices is that they can act as a cartel. That went on to such an extent with Mayne Health that the doctors rebelled. Initially there was a big rise in Mayne's share price as costs were cut, but the company is selling out of the health sector because many of the doctors kicked up a fuss about the way they were being treated and said that they would no longer work for the corporation. That caused a competitive disadvantage. That scenario is an unsatisfactory outcome for medical control of the medical profession and quality control in medicine generally.

Optometrists work as independent entities in examining eyes and prescribing corrective measures. However, optical equipment manufacturers, such as OPSM, make and dispense optical devices. Of course, a greater amount can be made by making spectacles, retailing frames and so on than by doing the hard yards of working out what prescription is required. Legislation provides that no-one may own an optometrical prescription. A patient who has obtained a prescription can take it anywhere in the world to be filled. However, optometrists have their rooms in facilities also occupied by optical manufacturers and dispensers. Many patients do not realise that they can take a prescription anywhere to be filled. From a legal point of view, the optometrist is a distinct entity from the optical equipment manufacturer and dispenser. Companies ensured that patients leaving optometrists' rooms were approached and told, "Wonderful, come this way and I will show you our fabulous range of frames." Most people do not realise that there is a separation between the two entities.

OPSM was on the board of the Australian Optometrical Association, and I understand that at one stage it even had a majority. The association comprised a group of suppliers who clubbed together to buy frames at lower prices, because a large number are imported and expensive. The members of the board knew which practices were buying what because they were buying as a group and OPSM was able to identify the lucrative practices and expand by targeting practitioners who were making the most money. It was an ideal situation because they knew what their opposition was doing. OPSM had more than 50 per cent of the optometry turnover—not 50 per cent of the practices—in Australia. It has now sold out to an Italian company, Luxo Optical. The Australian Optometrical Association has split and optometrists have formed an independent group in an attempt to fight the tide of corporate control.

Luxo Optical and other optometrical dispensing companies are buying the wholesalers, which means they are becoming vertically integrated. They have control of some optometrists and wholesaling and retailing and they may begin to make their own frames. In fact, the independent optometrists, who are only one professional group in the chain, are having great difficulty competing in the marketplace. Some time ago this issue was referred to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which did not want to take it on. The dogma of competition is the Trojan horse for one company to say that it did not have huge market power as it got control of just above or below 50 per cent—depending on the definition—of the Australian market. What sort of competition is that? Not much. Obviously in this case, if the most lucrative work in terms of total turnover is done by one corporation, it will be a sad day for optometrists. The wider issue of protecting professions and allowing them to be professional by introducing real competition and maintaining standards must be examined. The simple dogma that all competition is good even if ants are competing with elephants must be given the shove. I will support the legislation if that provision—clause 14 (5) (a)—is removed.

It is interesting that the amendment relating to larger corporations competing directly with veterinarians was a late inclusion. That is odd. The success of powerful lobbies with this Government is a worry. We support the regulation of veterinary practice, provided veterinarians are given a fair go. That is what is important in this legislation, and that is what the Democrats support.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.29 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Veterinary Practice Bill, which we believe is very important. We received submissions from the Australian Veterinary Association in which the association said it was not happy with the title of the bill, and suggested it should be entitled simply the Veterinary Bill. As members are aware, this legislation is the result of a competition policy review of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986, and amendments are designed to improve consumer access to veterinary services and to ensure that the highest standard of veterinary service is available in New South Wales.

I agree with some of the remarks of the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans about the competition policy review. I know there is a lot of concern in other areas, such as pharmacies, newsagents and so on, that services cannot be provided unless they are economically viable. The bill provides for the registration of persons as veterinary practitioners, creates the Veterinary Practitioners Board, regulates the conduct of veterinary practitioners, creates offences that prohibit persons from representing themselves or others to be veterinary practitioners when they are not registered as such or representing a premises as a veterinary hospital if it is not licensed, and repeals the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986.

Crossbench members have had a number of discussions with representatives of the Australian Veterinary Association, particularly Mr Bruce Cartmill, the President of the New South Wales division. Following those discussions, there has obviously been a lot of negotiation between the association and the Government in finalising the bill. From my observation the Government has taken on board the majority of the association's concerns, with the exception of that relating to clause 14 (5) (a), which deals with agricultural supply firms operating veterinary practices. Indeed, the association has continued to write to us regarding that clause, as recently as 11 November. The clause has been mentioned previously, and I foreshadow moving an amendment that I believe will, in the main, satisfy the association's concerns.

The association believes it would be better to simply remove clause 14 (5) (a) from the bill. However, it does not have a strong objection to the strategy I propose by way of the foreshadowed amendment, which has been distributed to members. By way of contrast, the New South Wales Farmers Association is, in the main, happy with the bill. The association supports the retention of clause 14 (5) (a). In its submission the association said:

This Clause states that a firm whose principal business is the supply of goods or materials used in connection with agriculture, can operate as a vet practice, so long as the supply of vet services is at the same premises from which the agricultural goods and services are supplied.

This is an exemption to the general provision in Clause 14 that states a corporation must not represent itself as a vet practice unless one or more vet practitioners has or have the controlling interest in the corporation (ie have the capacity to determine the outcome of business decisions about the financial and operating policies of the practice).

The exemption would allow a rural merchandise firm to employ a vet and advertise its services as such.

The NSW Farmers' Association recommends the retention of Clause 14 (5) (a) for the following reasons:

_ vet practices could be increased in number if rural suppliers take this option, potentially assisting farmers

_ potential to increase vet jobs in rural areas and reduce the current decline and/or movement of graduates into small-animal, city-based practices

_ creates more competition between vet practices, potentially increasing services provided at better rates.

The Christian Democratic Party's policy has been to work as closely as possible with the New South Wales Farmers Association as a peak body and take on board its advice in supporting policies to be introduced in the House. The Christian Democratic Party amendment addresses concerns about agricultural-based corporations setting up veterinary practices. It would prohibit unsatisfactory professional conduct or misconduct. The amendment provides for penalty units upon conviction. It addresses some of the concerns of the Australian Veterinary Association by protecting rural vets from untoward behaviour while maintaining anti-competition policy.

Importantly, the amendment mirrors similar provisions in the Victorian Act. The Chief Veterinarian Officer of the Victorian Department of Primary Industry, Dr Hugh Miller, says that this model has functioned in Victoria without incident. He states that there has been absolutely no untoward effect from removing the ownership restrictions on the practices in that State. Dr Miller is also a member of the Veterinarian Practice Board of Victoria. The amendment has the support of the New South Wales Farmers Association and, I trust, other members of the House. For those reasons we support the bill. We will not support the removal of clause 14 (5) (a), because we believe that our amendment satisfies the concerns that have been raised.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

Bill introduced, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) [11.38 a.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill extends by five years the authorisation under the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983 of certain rice marketing arrangements that would otherwise contravene the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act 1974. This issue was last addressed by the Marketing of Primary Products Amendment (Rice Marketing Board) Act 1998, which approved the same exemption until 31 January 2004. The exemption was originally made to authorise the Rice Marketing Board to maintain an agreement with Ricegrowers' Co-operative Ltd, under which the board appointed the co-operative as its agent and sole buyer of rice produced in New South Wales, ownership of which has been vested in the board. The legislation authorising the Rice Marketing Board was reviewed under the national competition policy in 1995. At that time it was recommended that the ownership of all rice grown in New South Wales continue to be vested in the board while discussions were held at the national level over proposals for a national single desk for rice exports.

Under the provisions of the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1983, ownership of the New South Wales rice crop was vested in the board until 31 January 2004. Further, an authorisation under the Trade Practices Act was provided for under the Marketing of Primary Products Amendment (Rice Marketing Board) Act 1998. Since that time, there have been ongoing negotiations between the Commonwealth, the rice industry, and State Governments concerning the establishment of alternative national arrangements. Particular attention was given to examining a means by which the Commonwealth Government might empower the board's single desk export activity and allow deregulation of the domestic market. These tri-partite negotiations were abandoned in early 2003 as a result of a number of difficulties encountered at the Commonwealth level.

As a consequence, the New South Wales Government agreed that vesting should be renewed for a further five years, during which time a further review of the powers of the Rice Marketing Board would be undertaken under competition policy principles, and that recommendations would be made before vesting expires on 31 January 2009. It should be noted that if the Commonwealth Government makes any further serious threats to deduct any tranche payment that is owed to New South Wales under the national competition principles agreement, the Government will have to further consider the length of time for which this vesting arrangement can be sustained.

The bill also updates in clause 6 of schedule 7 to the Act the reference to the date of the current agreement between the Rice Marketing Board and the co-operative. The vesting arrangements do not interfere with the market price for rice, which is offered on world markets at a competitive and unsubsidised price. In fact the Australian rice industry already competes in the face of heavily subsidised producers in all of its key markets, including in Australia, where there is no import duty on rice. Rice is the most supported agricultural commodity in the world, with 80 per cent of the value of gross farm receipts subsidised by governments. The vesting arrangements under consideration allow the co-operative to market its exports in an organised way, and they have led to a highly effective, productive, and competitive rice industry. These arrangements have led to a quite remarkable export success story, and SunRice has developed into the fifth largest rice-food company in the world, with over 900 employees. Amazingly, this has been achieved through a very targeted marketing strategy that has won the company a 20 per cent share of the global medium grain rice market even though it produces only 4 per cent of the world's total rice trade.

In 2002, 85 per cent of Australian rice was exported to 72 countries, ensuring that over 40 million people across the globe consumed Australian rice each day. For the information of the House, SunRice, the marketing arm of the rice industry, is now an $800 million global business, with exports of up to $436 million, wholly owned by Australia's 1,834 rice growers and anchored in regional New South Wales. There are 571 growers in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, 281 in the Coleambally Irrigation Area, and 982 in the Murray Valley. The mills are situated in Leeton, Coleambally and Deniliquin and deliveries are made to major storages across the region, including Moulamein, Burraboi, Deniliquin, Blighty, Finley, Hay, Coleambally, Emery, Leeton, Gogeldrie, Benerembah, Griffith, Yenda, Willbriggie, and Murrami. In fact, New South Wales produces 99 per cent of Australia's rice. The rice industry strongly supports the extension of vesting. Because of the drought and its resulting effect on water allocation, the rice industry has faced uncertainty and a reduction in annual production, particularly in the past financial year.

The industry will welcome the certainty of marketing arrangements for the immediate future. It is these arrangements that allowed the industry to sustain much of its income in the face of one of the worst droughts in history, reducing production to below 550,000 tonnes a year from an average of around 1,200,000 tonnes, as the company took innovative measures to supply its markets from alternative sources. The vesting arrangements have also proved to be highly successful in promoting environmental objectives. The rice industry's commitment to research and development has seen the development of sustainability programs that have resulted in marked improvements in yields and water use efficiency.

In fact, growers in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area have increased their water efficiency from 5 tonnes produced per megalitre in 1985 to 9 tonnes megalitre in 2000. At the same time the average yield has increased from approximately 5.5 tonnes per hectare to 10 tonnes per hectare—very impressive figures indeed that people who have negative impressions of the rice industry should consider when they look at this industry and the amazing water efficiency performance that has been achieved over the past decade or so.

The sustainability of the industry has allowed it to be innovative with its product range, thus increasing the return to Australian rice growers. These developments have resulted in products that allow returns from between $990 and $7,836 per megalitre consumed. On average, 44 per cent of the retail price of rice was returned to producers, placing it ahead of any other food crop. These gains would simply not have been possible without the existing vesting arrangements.

This five-year extension of vesting for the New South Wales rice industry will clearly have a significant beneficial impact on the economy of the Riverina region and on the milling towns in particular. For example, Leeton, where 412 of SunRice's 820 highly skilled and qualified people work, is a major beneficiary. In fact, rice provides 20 per cent of the job opportunities in the Riverina and, as an industry, has $2.5 billion invested in land, plant and equipment. The leverage of the impact of this vesting decision is therefore even more significant than the premiums gained, and much of it ends up in the townships. Vesting provides an estimated net public benefit of $50 million per annum. Without it up to 4,000 jobs would be lost, and transitional unemployment in the Riverina region would increase by 5 per cent. The continuation of the rice vesting arrangements will ensure that the rice industry continues as an innovative and dynamic export earner for both New South Wales and Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Rick Colless.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [11.47 a.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.

The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 to facilitate the reconstitution of the Standing Ethics Committee as a Privileges and Ethics Committee with expanded functions.

The Legislative Assembly Standing Ethics Committee is a statutory committee which was first established under amendments to the ICAC Act in 1994.

Its major function is to prepare the Code of Conduct for members of the Legislative Assembly and to draft amendments to that Code.

The Code was first adopted by the Legislative Assembly on 5 May 1998.

The Committee also has a role in advising on matters involving members' ethics and standards and to conduct education on members' ethics.

It currently has no role in relation to matters of privilege, and is expressly prohibited from considering matters involving individual members.

In contrast, the equivalent Legislative Council Committee is established by resolution of the Council.

The Legislative Council Privileges and Ethics Committee has equivalent functions to the Legislative Assembly Standing Ethics Committee relating to members' ethics.

The Council Committee however, has additional functions in two areas: parliamentary privilege and citizens' right of reply.

The proposed amendments to the ICAC Act will repeal the existing provisions relating to the Standing Ethics Committee and allow the Legislative Assembly to constitute by resolution a Privileges and Ethics Committee.

For the information of members, I will make available a copy of the proposed resolution to establish a new committee, which the Minister tabled in the Legislative Assembly when he read his second reading speech. The resolution provides for the new Committee to have equivalent functions to the Legislative Council Committee, with one exception - the citizens' right of reply.

The Committee will not have the citizens' right of reply function as this is currently exercised by the Standing Orders and Procedures Committee. The new Privileges and Ethics Committee can liaise with the Standing Orders and Procedures Committee to determine which Committee would be the most appropriate to deal with this function.

The only additional function conferred upon the new Privileges and Ethics Committee (compared to the previous Standing Ethics Committee) is its role in considering matters involving parliamentary privilege.

This would include the power to examine and deal with contempts of Parliament and to consider issues relating to the control of proceedings and the publication of parliamentary debates and reports.

It would also allow the Committee to deal with any complaints about breaches of privilege by individual members referred to it by a resolution of the House.
The ICAC Act currently provides for the appointment of three community members to the Standing Ethics Committee.

In June 2002 the Legislative Assembly's Standing Ethics Committee recommended that the requirement for permanent community members be removed. The Legislative Council has no requirement for the appointment of community members to its Committee.

Given the expanded privileges role of the new Privileges and Ethics Committee, the Government agrees that the requirement for permanent community members should be removed. Matters affecting the privileges of members should be determined by members alone.

While community representatives will not be permanently appointed to the Committee, the bill provides for community representatives to be co-opted if required to assist in reviewing the Code of Conduct.

This will ensure that broader community input can be obtained in relation to the members' Codes of Conduct.

The ICAC Act currently provides that the Codes of Conduct are to be reviewed by each of the relevant Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council Committees at least once every two years.

The Legislative Assembly's Standing Ethics Committee Report released in June 2002 indicates that experience has shown that a review every two years is impractical. The Report suggests that since NSW has fixed four year parliamentary terms, it would be more appropriate for the Code to be reviewed once every Parliament. The Government supports this sensible proposal.

The bill extends the period for reviewing the Code of Conduct to every four years. This will have the benefit of freeing up the Committee to devote more time to its other important roles, such as educating and advising members about ethical standards.

Members will be aware of the recent ICAC Report on the Regulation of Secondary Employment of Members of the Assembly.

The Report contains a series of comprehensive recommendations relating to regulating secondary employment. The Report also contained a recommendation concerning enforcement and investigation of breaches of the Code of Conduct. The Government will respond to the ICAC's recommendations shortly.

I turn now to the proposed resolution establishing the Committee.

The Committee will consist of seven permanent members, being four Government members, two opposition members and one independent member.

The Committee's functions will be to:

• consider and report on any matters relating to privilege;
• provide advice and education relating to ethical standards; and
• prepare draft amendments to the Code of Conduct.

The Committee will have the power to:

• take evidence and send for papers; and
• obtain information and liaise with other similar committees in Australia.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [11.47 a.m.]: The Opposition does not support the Independent Commission Against Corruption Amendment (Ethics Committee) Bill. I say at the outset that it is an interesting piece of legislation that is impacted by a number of principles. I will be fascinated to hear in the debate the contributions of crossbench members and, indeed, to see how they vote. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Independent Commission against Corruption Act 1988 to replace the Standing Ethics Committee with a Privileges and Ethics Committee with expanded functions. The Independent Commission against Corruption Act currently provides for the appointment of three community members to the Standing Ethics Committee. That provision will not apply with the new committee. The only additional function conferred upon the new Privileges and Ethics Committee is its role in considering matters involving parliamentary privilege. Currently the code of conduct is reviewed at least every two years, and as New South Wales has fixed four-year parliamentary terms, it is proposed that the code be reviewed only every four years. The new committee will consist of seven permanent members, being four Government members, two Opposition members, and one Independent member, and an Opposition member will be deputy chair.

The Opposition was struck by a number of matters in the second reading speech of the Parliamentary Secretary in the other place. First and foremost, while the second reading speech provided a factual account of the purpose of the legislation, much as I have just done, it gave virtually no reason for the proposed change in the composition of the committee other than the justification for the bill that matters affecting the privileges of members should be determined by members alone. That was stated but not justified.

The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that it would be possible for community representatives to be co-opted to the committee but not on a permanent basis. That is indicative of the Government's view on the role of community members. Beyond an explanation that the code of conduct will be reviewed every four years, we have heard little justification for the bill. The Opposition's position, as outlined by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other place, is that this bill is yet another Carr Government retreat from public accountability. I was fascinated to read the arguments for and against setting up the ethics committee in late 1994. At that time the Independents in the other place strongly supported the concept of community participation in the development of a code of conduct. The then member for Manly, Peter Macdonald, said it was an important element of the bill and that the preparation of a code would entail some external involvement through the establishment of a standing ethics committee. He believed that public confidence would be enhanced through community participation.

The then Coalition Government moved a number of amendments following representations from the Independents. The concept emerged from events that had taken place from 1992 and the strong desire of the Independents to have enhanced public accountability and participation. The Opposition believes that the concept has worked well and that removal of community involvement will weaken public trust in members of Parliament. It will also encourage the conspiracy theories played out in the media from time to time, sadly on a too regular basis, about the actions of members of Parliament. A lack of community involvement in the committee will mean less public scrutiny. That is undesirable because in recent years the very institution of Parliament has been weakened by inappropriate media attacks and comments about and a misunderstanding of the work performed by members of Parliament. The best way to counter that is with the transparency that comes from community involvement in the development of codes of conduct.

The honourable member for Maitland expressed concern about the time it takes to select members of committees. Only recently the Legislative Council's Privileges and Ethics Committee was re-established, more than six months after the State election—so time is not necessarily of great concern to the Government. The honourable member for Maitland also outlined the importance of community representatives in forming a quorum. He said that from time to time meetings had to be cancelled or rescheduled to enable a quorum to be formed. However, that is a genuine problem that can occur at any time with any committee, certainly with the joint committees, and it is important to ensure that all parties are in attendance.

Members of the public should understand their obligations and be available to attend committee meetings wherever possible. They have been granted the right to be members, but with that right comes responsibility. I acknowledge the validity of the point made by the honourable member for Maitland, but it is insufficient for the Opposition to agree to the removal of citizen representation. The bill was originally debated in 1994 and the contributions by Government members make fascinating reading. They are now finally getting their way, because with the passing of this bill the composition of the Standing Ethics Committee of the Legislative Assembly will change. At the time the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries said:

The proposal to vest non-elected members of the Standing Ethics Committee with authority to determine standards of conduct for democratically-elected Members of Parliament, seems to strike at the very heart of the democratic process.

That is the rhetoric we have come to expect from him, particularly in Opposition, given his proclivity to exaggerate. The world has not come to an end; nor has this concept struck at the heart of the democratic process. Indeed, far from it. I believe it has led to greater community confidence and a better understanding of what takes place in the Parliament. I seek now to touch upon one principle that gave rise to the formation of two separate committees: the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Parliamentary Privilege and Ethics, on which I am pleased to serve as Deputy Chair, and the Standing Ethics Committee of the Legislative Assembly. This is interesting, because it requires me to justify the Opposition's position on the bill.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: It sure does.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE: I look forward to doing that and I have no difficulty in doing so. It is worth noting that when the bill was introduced in 1994 the Legislative Council took a different view: it wanted to establish its own committee. In particular, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile took a strong stance and moved a number of amendments. When the bill was returned to the other place the then Leader of the House, the Hon. Garry West, said:

Honourable members would be aware that the Legislative Council, in considering this bill, asserted its rights. It was not prepared to be dictated to as to the manner in which the Standing Ethics Committee should operate. The Legislative Council has indicated that it will establish its own ethics committee, which will not comprise any outside members, as provided for originally in the amendment. The amendment I am moving is clearly at the Legislative Council's invitation.

The Council took a view about the right to exercise its position and determine its committee. Opposition members of the Legislative Assembly have a strong view about the nature of the committee they believe is appropriate for the Legislative Assembly, that is, the current Standing Ethics Committee, which includes community representatives as well as members of the Council. On those grounds the Opposition resists the legislation proposed by the Government. As I said, we have heard little by way of justification for this bill. We certainly did not hear any justification in the Parliamentary Secretary's second reading speech. Last evening the honourable member for Maitland attempted to justify it, but there is no real understanding about an attempt to weaken an element of scrutiny and community involvement in what the Opposition sees as an important committee—a committee that grew out of a difficult period.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I address my question without notice to the Special Minister of State, and Minister for the Central Coast. Will the Minister guarantee to the thousands of parents, teachers and students on the Central Coast that the Department of Education and Training office is retained at Gosford and not moved to the Hunter? What action has the Minister taken in response to requests for assistance from the Central Coast Parents and Citizens Association, the Central Coast School Principals Council, Gosford City Council, Wyong Shire Council, Central Coast business groups and the Central Coast branch of the Teachers Federation?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the honourable member for his question because it gives me the opportunity to make a couple of points to the House about public education, the Government and the Central Coast. As Assistant Treasurer I am proud to say that the New South Wales Government has provided a record capital works budget for the Central Coast, with investment in schools and TAFEs the largest single part of that investment. The Deputy Premier, and Minister for Education and Training is doing an excellent job in ensuring that he devotes resources, not only on the Central Coast but across New South Wales, to front-line teaching, the needs of front-line education resources and the needs of students and teachers. He has embarked on a program of administrative reform in order to maximise resources—the scarce dollars that we have at our disposal—in the area of front-line teaching.

In relation to that restructure, the Minister has shown that he is listening to the views of the Central Coast and, indeed, of the New South Wales community at large. I will continue to argue that the Central Coast needs an administrative structure that reflects the best educational resources that can be mustered for the people of the Central Coast who are loyal supporters of the public education system. I must point out that the only person talking about closing the Central Coast office of the Department of Education and Training is the member for Gosford. I do not think anyone on the Central Coast, or for that matter anyone in Sydney, takes him particularly seriously. He wants my job as Minister for the Central Coast. In fact, he has made a career out of coveting other people's jobs. He wants John Brogden's job, too. He wanted Kerry Chikarovski's job, Peter Collins's job and Barry O'Farrell's job. Indeed, it is a very long list. The Government's record on education on the Central Coast is second to none. I can assure honourable members that as Minister for the Central Coast I am working with the Government and the Minister for Education and Training to ensure that we have the best educational resources possible.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister's definition of "best educational facilities on the Central Coast" mean that the parents, teachers and students of the Central Coast have a guarantee that the Department of Education and Training office will be retained at Gosford?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: As the honourable member knows, I am not in a position to give a guarantee about another Minister's portfolio. I have made my answer very clear. I refer to the relevant section of my substantive answer.

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: I address my question without notice to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer inform the House of the Government's efforts to help New South Wales food producers target international markets for halal and kosher food?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I can inform the House that the Government is working to help the State's food producers benefit from the international demand for religious foods, such as halal and kosher food. Both halal and kosher foods require strict preparation methods in line with religious customs. However, they both provide market opportunities for New South Wales food companies. The halal food consumer market in the ASEAN region is valued at $261 million and is worth another $267 million in the Middle East. According to Austrade, 60 per cent of the $5.7 billion in food imported to Malaysia is halal. The proximity of New South Wales to more than 400 million Muslims in the Asia-Pacific region provides an ideal opportunity for New South Wales companies involved in halal food production to boost their export income. The Department of State and Regional Development is investigating ways to overcome hurdles to the processing, accreditation, monitoring and certification of halal food producing companies. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should be interested in this.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I am interested in this but you are not doing it justice.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: This is of great interest to rural and regional New South Wales. Only Country Labor understands the importance of our export trade to country and regional New South Wales. The high level of food processing technology and stringent quality standards in New South Wales leave it in a strong position to lead Australia in building business partnerships with countries lacking capacity to produce large amounts of certified food to meet religious requirements. The department has worked with Australian Business Ltd and the Federal Government to distribute a halal directory, which identifies accredited businesses and products in New South Wales.

The Kosher food market, while smaller than the halal market, is also being considered for its potential as a niche industry for New South Wales food producers. About 84,000 Jewish people live in Australia, with 34,000 of them in New South Wales. Like halal, kosher food rules apply to the food production, storage, transportation, distribution, preparation and final consumption. According to the Department of State and Regional Development, the most commercially viable markets for kosher food exports are the United States of America, Israel, Canada, England, South Africa and New Zealand. I think honourable members will agree that this is a unique opportunity for Australian food companies to get into a value-added, export-oriented industry sector. The Government will continue to work with companies to ensure that they take full advantage of the benefits offered by these markets.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Local Government. Has the Minister been made aware of concerns of New South Wales councils that the Government's ongoing failure to fund maintenance and upgrades for grain rail branch lines will result in the closure of grain lines, a huge increase in the amount of grain transported on roads rather than rail and a massive increase in road maintenance costs? Furthermore, will he be questioning the Minister for Transport Services on his failure to maintain grain branch lines on behalf of New South Wales councils, which bear the great costs of this mismanagement?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The honourable member knows that the Federal Government has facilitated the problem. The New South Wales Treasurer, the Hon. Michael Egan, provided funds to assist with those branch lines. The problem that grain growers and councils in New South Wales currently face is facilitated because of the fight between the Australian Wheat Board and GrainCorp.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I address my question to the Minister for Local Government, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands). In relation to the latest generation of 3-G mobile phone towers, how many of the 500 towers erected are located on public lands? Will the Minister provide an itemised list of these towers located on public land and the rent public authorities receive as a result? How many towers are located within 300 metres of a school or other area where children regularly congregate, a location prohibited by European guidelines?

The Hon. Michael Egan: Point of order: The question is of such detail that no Minister could be expected to be carrying around that information in his head, as the honourable member knows. If the honourable member wants an answer to the question, I suggest that she should put it on notice. Clearly, it is not appropriate for questions without notice.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The question is extremely detailed, but it is in order. However, the honourable member would be advised in future to put such detailed questions on notice.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: As the President has indicated, the question requires a detailed answer. I will take it on notice and provide an answer.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Will the Minister please update the House on efforts to fight noxious weeds in New South Wales?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Australiawide, noxious weeds cost $3.3 billion a year in lost production and control measures. In New South Wales it is estimated that weeds cost $600 million in losses each year. As the House is aware, the Carr Government has taken many steps over the years to help fight noxious weeds while protecting the biodiversity of our native pastures. In October I announced a new $1 million effort to help reduce the threat of serious weeds in an area stretching from south of Sydney to the Victorian border. This initiative is a joint effort involving NSW Agriculture and local resource management groups, and will support several regional projects. In Monaro and Goulburn, we will tackle weed management in native grasses. In Mudgee, southern Monaro, Goulburn and Yass we will manage serrated tussock and Chilean needle grass. Our team of weeds experts will investigate toxicity problems throughout the Southern Tablelands.

In the Warragamba catchment area projects will focus on grazing management for agriculture, biodiversity and water quality. In Braidwood our teams will help address weed-resilient landscapes. In Bombala, the Snowy area, Cooma and Monaro, we will implement voluntary biodiversity conservation schemes. These projects will go a long way to help effectively manage noxious weeds in key areas of the State. Country Labor member for Monaro, Steve Whan, can attest to the difficulties weeds pose in his electorate specifically. He has been an avid supporter of weed management programs and has worked tirelessly to secure funding to help control the impact of noxious weeds. Many of the regional projects I highlighted will deliver a great benefit in his area, and we hope to apply what we learn to other regions of the State in due course.

I am also pleased to inform the House that many of the projects in this initiative have attracted Federal funding totalling more than $500,000 through the Natural Heritage Trust. The State Government is matching this amount through NSW Agriculture funded projects and the department's overall management, infrastructure and delivery of the initiative. This $1 million commitment is on top of the more than $7 million the New South Wales Government spends each year in grants to help control noxious weeds.

As honourable members will recall, earlier in the year I appointed Boorowa mayor, Mr Robert Gledhill, to oversee a review of the broader management and co-ordination of noxious weed control in New South Wales. Mr Gledhill has consulted with rural lands protection boards, shire councils and county councils, inviting them to lodge submissions. Other agencies such as the National Parks and Wildlife Service, State Rail and Forestry NSW have also been encouraged to contribute comments. The period for public submissions closes this week, and I look forward to Mr Gledhill's report by the end of the year. Mr Gledhill's review is a crucial tool in helping to ensure we get the best value from every dollar spent on weeds management. I look forward to sharing findings from Mr Gledhill's report in due course. He runs a very fine council and the people of Boorowa love him.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Justice, representing the Attorney General and the Minister for Police, a question without notice. When will the Government reopen the inquest into the case of the model Caroline Byrne and her tragic and mysterious murder at the Gap on 8 June 1995, to bring this tragic case to a close? The case has been stalled by missed opportunity, staff shortages and lack of evidence, and has cost the Byrne family countless grief and the taxpayer millions of dollars. Given that the key suspect, Gordon Wood, who was Rene Rivkin's driver, has given a false alibi, a colourful account of finding her body and has been touring the United States of America, do the police know of his current whereabouts? When will the police urgently question Mr Wood about what Coroner John Abernethy regards as "glaring inconsistencies", "inconsistent testimony" and "bizarre evidence before the earlier inquest"?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the matter to the Attorney General for an answer and provide the House with an answer in due course.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services. Did ageing and disability services tell representatives of peak disability service groups that some service providers may have been overpaid when the Government compensated them for increases to the Social and Community Services Award? Did these overpayments amount to thousands of dollars in some cases? How did the department find out about this problem and what estimate has been made of its extent? When will the department be in a position to report on the extent of the problem and inform service providers where they stand? Will the Minister rule out requiring service providers to repay the money, particularly if they were not aware when these funds were paid that they were overpayments and if the funds have already been expended in hiring staff and providing services to clients? If not, how does the Minister expect them to recover these amounts without compromising client services or sacking staff?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: This question follows on from a question the honourable member asked yesterday. As I advised the House yesterday, the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care has agreements in place with the organisations it funds. The department advised service providers in July 2003 and again in September that arrangements existing in 2002-03 were extended into this financial year, thus protecting the Government, providers and service users. Providers have already accepted two quarterly payments under the extended contracts. Before issuing new funding agreements the department is ensuring that the funding database used to identify the funding base of each organisation accurately reflects the movements of payments that have been affected. I am repeating what I said yesterday, because it would seem that the Hon. John Ryan still does not understand the issue. I am happy to go through it again, but it is important to explain to the House—

The Hon. John Ryan: Have they been told that they have been overpaid?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: That is exactly what I am answering. As I indicated yesterday, the increases in the Social and Community Services Award in 2001, 2002 and 2003 had a significant impact on the funding base movement of each organisation. It is important to appreciate that the department was required to make numerous changes to funding levels as a result of the refusal of the Commonwealth to meet its share of the cost of the award increases. I am surprised that the Opposition keeps raising this issue. If the Commonwealth had come to the party in an appropriate way, as we requested, rather than rely on the State Government to provide an assistance package—

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister has the call.

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: I know that the Commonwealth Government does not agree that it has some responsibility to provide funding for a wage increase to the lowest paid people in this country. The Opposition makes all sorts of claims pretending to represent working people in New South Wales. That is a lie because it did not represent the working people who provide services to the most vulnerable and financially disadvantaged people in the State. It did not want to represent them, and neither did the Commonwealth. Having said that, it is entirely appropriate in this context that the department now ensures the transparency and accuracy of payments to funded organisations. All the details will be held on the database. I assure honourable members that the delivery of home and community care services and other services delivered through funds provided by the department will not suffer.

I am advised by the department that it expects only minor levels of overpayments or underpayments to be identified through its work on ensuring the accuracy of its funding database. Where overpayments are identified, the department will deal with these on a case-by-case basis. The organisation affected will have the opportunity to present any issues to the department that it may believe are relevant to the situation before any final determination is made. For an organisation that provides more than $600 million in funding to non-government organisations, it is not unusual that from time to time overpayments or underpayments occur. That occurs in any organisation that has large grants programs. Nonetheless, I can assure honourable members that this process will not affect clients of services.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I direct my question to the Minister for Justice. Will the Minister advise the House what initiatives the Department of Corrective Services is providing for indigenous inmates to re-establish and strengthen their family ties?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: As I have said on a number of occasions, the Government is committed to solving the problem of over-representation of Aboriginal people in correctional facilities. In line with this priority, the Department of Corrective Services has implemented a range of strategies and programs and has committed significant funds to this very important issue. One such initiative the department has implemented is the Inmate Support Program. This program is aimed at assisting and supporting indigenous inmates who are part of the stolen generation to establish and strengthen their family links. One of the problems indigenous inmates face is the loss of identity and disconnection from their family. It is often common for many inmates to lose touch with their relatives and this program, where possible, aims to assist the location and reconnection of inmates to their family.

The Link-Up (NSW) Aboriginal Corporation, which is based in Lawson, has been provided with a start-up grant of $70,000 through this program, in line with Recommendation 52 of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Anecdotal evidence is that the program has been successful and well received by inmates. As a result of the positive reception, I am pleased to fund the program for a further two years. It is important to reiterate and acknowledge that the funding to Link-Up aims at helping indigenous inmates to re-establish and strengthen their family ties. I note that the organisation was the only one to offer the State's indigenous inmates with this form of vital family support.

Central to the success of Link-Up is the appointment of a caseworker who deals directly with indigenous inmates and the department's Indigenous Services Unit. The caseworker helps inmates obtain records, locate files and certificates and provides counselling. The service can even assist inmates to locate family members and assist in arranging reunions. One of the vital aspects of the Link-Up project is its potential to assist indigenous inmates upon their release. Part of this involves support and counselling for as long as it is required. Other scenarios encountered by inmates include the need for searches for family members interstate or internationally. Inmates may request that reunions be held off until their release. In those circumstances the role of the caseworker, depending on gender needs, is to be sensitive to cultural requirements around gender issues, which can at times cause difficulty.

Another likely occurrence, rejection, is also a difficulty faced by many Link-Up (NSW) clients. Rejection is a risk that inmates face. The caseworker's role, together with the department, is to provide on-going regular support where required. Any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander inmate who has been affected by removal or separation from family through past government policies can seek the assistance of Link-Up. This includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander inmates who may have been a State ward, fostered, adopted or institutionalised. Aboriginal staff who work in correctional centres are also eligible.

It is important to highlight the effect this program has had on reoffending by indigenous inmates. Inmates who are able to connect with their family and community, especially within the first three to six months after release, are less likely to re-offend. This program also complements the impressive results at Yetta Dhinnakkal. Of the 210 inmates who have been discharged since it opened, 48 have been living in the community for longer than two years with only 7 per cent reoffending, 122 have been living in the community for longer than one year with only 14 per cent reoffending, and 151 have been living in the community for longer than six months with only 10 per cent reoffending. Since its inception Link-Up has assisted 165 inmates. The Government congratulates Link-Up and the staff of the department's Indigenous Services Unit for this outstanding success. The additional funding the Government will provide should continue the good work that Link-Up has provided and ensure a smoother transition for inmates after their release.

In addition to this commitment, the Government has a number of programs throughout the State that are specifically designed for Aboriginal inmates. They include the Aboriginal Alcohol and Other Drugs programs; the Aboriginal Cultural Link program; the Aboriginal Inmate Mentor program; Aboriginal education and vocational training; the Aboriginal Cultural Centre at Girrawaa; the culture camps for inmates at Karraka; the Aboriginal Pre- and Post-Release program; the Elders Visitors program; and the Yulawirri Women's Post Release project.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I ask a supplementary question. Would the Minister elucidate his answer?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: These programs highlight the Government's commitment to the reduction of the indigenous reoffending rate and their over-representation in correctional facilities.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Transport Services. Will the Minister publicly release the Government's ports growth plan, which is referred to in the terms of reference of the State Development committee inquiry into port infrastructure? If so, when will the plan be released and will it be available online? If not, why not?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: As the honourable member should know, because I have been asked questions about this matter in the past, there will be an inquiry about significant components of the port plan. The community will have an opportunity to have input into that process.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question. Does the Government's ports growth plan actually exist? How can people make submissions to an inquiry about a plan that has not been made public?

The Hon. Michael Egan: Read the Premier's speech to the ALP conference.

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I have heard what the Treasurer said, and I was going to respond in similar terms. There is a ports growth strategy, and we have announced it publicly. The Opposition has criticised the strategy and indicated it does not support the port of Newcastle being the second major port in New South Wales. When the Leader of the Opposition was in Newcastle he said that he did not support the plan. The community of Newcastle has noted that the Opposition is confused about this matter.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Where is the plan, Michael? Or is it Mick Costa?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: The honourable member has referred to me as Mick Costa. During a speech she gave last night she quoted me in 1976 supporting a revolution against the capitalist class. She should have gone back to 1966 when I believed in the tooth fairy. I was 10 years old at the time. Today I do not believe in the tooth fairy, but she still does, I gather from the political position she holds. She may want to go back to 1956, the year I was born. I was saying things like "ga ga", which is an appropriate response to questions from the Greens. There is a ports plan, and it has been announced publicly. The Opposition is opposed to it, as are the Greens. Honourable members opposite must be opposed to something. If they are, it must exist.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I direct my question to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Will the Minister give an urgent undertaking to honour the Government's promises to the New South Wales sheep producers eligible for funds under the ovine Johne's disease [OJD] financial aid package that was frozen in late October? Why was that funding stopped without any warning and why has the Government left high and dry producers battling OJD?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have been making statements about this issue. Financial assistance for individual farmers to implement management strategies to control ovine Johne's disease [OJD] has been funded by the State's sheep industry through contributions raised under the Agricultural Livestock (Disease Control Funding) Act 1998. The assistance scheme is administered by the Rural Assistance Authority [RAA]. Currently 561 applications for funding have been approved by the authority with $4.9 million being paid to producers. However, the pool of industry funds collected has fallen well short of demand and a decision to put further payments on hold has been made pending further discussions with the State's sheep industry on mechanisms and options available to meet their OJD financial commitments. The New South Wales Government provided a $4.2 million loan earlier this year as a direct response to calls to provide financial assistance to affected producers in view of the hardship created by the worst drought in 100 years.

It is estimated that the State's sheep industry now has $6.8 million in liabilities under the OJD program, and payments for approved claims have therefore had to be put on hold until funding options have been identified. The RAA has been advised not to approve any further applications for financial assistance. I am seeking advice from Mr Michael Nicholls, Chairman of the OJD Industry Advisory Committee, and Mr Richard Bull, Chairman of the OJD Interim Steering Committee on mechanisms and options available to the State's sheep industry to meet OJD financial assistance commitments. I have asked Mr Nicholls and Mr Bull to provide me with that advice by 14 November.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I direct my question to the Minister for Ageing. What is the Government doing to expand the benefits available under the Seniors Card scheme?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: This important question relates to the support we provide to older people in the community through the Seniors Card scheme. The 2004 Senior Card Members Guide is now available. The scheme has overwhelming community support. At the end of June 2003 the Seniors Card scheme had 880,000 members and a continually growing number of business partners—now in their thousands. In fact, 80 per cent of all eligible people over the age of 60 years hold a Seniors Card and many of them use it every day. The uptake is gratifying for the Government because the New South Wales Seniors Card and the thousands of discounts and benefits that go with it are a major way for us to acknowledge the enormous contributions that seniors make in local communities. Seniors are the backbone of volunteer work, looking after younger members of families, sharing knowledge and experience, being carers and helping in their local communities. A study undertaken by the Centre for Ageing Studies at Flinders University found that the financial value of work done by elderly people living independently equals the cost of government-provided aged care services. That is a different spin on the debate about the cost impact of the ageing of our community.

The New South Wales Seniors Card scheme offers a range of discounts and includes statewide transport concessions. I am pleased to say that they are the most generous in any State in Australia. This year the Government is making it easier for seniors to find concessions in their local region by producing guides for five regions in New South Wales. There will be guides for the Sydney metropolitan area, the Central Coast and the Hunter, and northern, southern and western New South Wales featuring hundreds of discounts for Seniors Card holders in those regions. They will give residents ease of access to local services that offer benefits and discounts to Seniors Card holders. If seniors are visiting other regions in New South Wales the Seniors Card information service can provide them with a free copy of the guide so that they can enjoy discounts and concessions wherever they travel.

The members guide will provide updated information on government concessions such as entry into national parks, museums and zoos. The guide also provides information on discounts on holidays and travel, movies and other entertainment, motor vehicle insurance and personal and professional services. Copies of the 2004 members guide will be made available to Seniors Card holders by the end of November. The Seniors Card scheme demonstrates the influence that seniors have in the commercial world. New businesses are constantly signing up as partners because they realise the economic muscle of seniors and that the seniors market is the fastest growing market in Australia. Seniors should always ask for a Seniors Card discount whenever they shop because it lets businesses know that they will give them their custom if they become a partner in the scheme.

I am also pleased that this year, in conjunction with the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Seniors Card holders will not only receive the members guide but also a seniors discovery pack, which contains a New South Wales State map and a discovery directory. The Seniors Card scheme has opened up well-deserved opportunities and provides significant benefits to seniors throughout New South Wales, and I am confident that it will continue to do so.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport Services. Will the Minister advise the House whether it is a punishable offence to take a photograph on a New South Wales train? If it is, what is the penalty? If not, will the Minister call for a report on an incident that occurred at about 6.00 p.m. last Saturday, 8 November, on a train from Canterbury via Bankstown to Liverpool in which transit officers reportedly threatened a passenger with a fine of $400 when he attempted to photograph graffiti on the window of a carriage door? Can the Minister shed any light on how such an incident might have occurred?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: My understanding, and I will confirm it, is that it is not an offence to take a photograph on a train. However, in light of the current security environment, caution is exercised with regard to the photographing of all sorts of infrastructure.

[Interruption]

I remind members opposite of the Federal Government's anti-terrorism campaign. Everyone remembers the fridge magnets and postcards. That campaign encouraged us to be cautious about people taking photographs of infrastructure. Honourable members opposite should not lead with their chins on these issues. I am not aware of the specific incident, but I am happy to obtain advice in relation to it. In my discussions with groups about graffiti on trains I have been told that many people involved in vandalism take photographs of their so-called artwork, for want of a better description. It indicates a connection to the graffiti. I do not know the details of the incident referred to by the honourable member, but I will obtain advice.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: I direct my question to the Minister for Local Government. Will the Minister confirm that he has ruled out any future boundary changes to Sydney City Council before next year's release of the parliamentary inquiry report on local government amalgamations in New South Wales? Will he also provide a guarantee that the Government will not try once again to wipe out Sydney's inner city councils through forced amalgamations, as it tried to do in 2002?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I cannot prevent any council in the State making a boundary change proposal. That right is enshrined in the Local Government Act, which allows any council or any group of 250 residents to make a submission. If any such submission conforms to the provisions of the Local Government Act, I will refer it to the Boundaries Commission.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: I direct my question to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. With the semi-finals of the Rugby World Cup to be played this weekend, will the Treasurer advise the House what impact the event has already had?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Who's going to win?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I really do not know who is going to win. I hope it is Australia—

The Hon. John Ryan: It's not in your portfolio.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: It is not in my portfolio. I was a rugby league player rather than a rugby union player, but I am starting to appreciate the finer points of rugby union. It is a very good game, and I am delighted at the crowds it is attracting all around Australia. The Rugby World Cup has had a bumper impact in New South Wales. And in regional areas such as the Illawarra and the Central Coast, sell-out matches have boosted local economies. The Australian Rugby Union's ticket marketing manager, Shane Harman, reports that the World Cup will provide a total of $207 million in combined ticket sales. A total of 1.85 million people are expected to attend the 48 matches being played, with about two million tickets out of the total pool of 2.2 million being sold.

Under the International Rugby Board's official travel program, international visitors are expected to reach 40,000. It is estimated that the same number again will travel unofficially, to use tickets purchased on their behalf by friends or relatives. In other words, about 80,000 international visitors will come to Australia for the Rugby World Cup. About 150,000 interstate and intrastate trips are expected by Australian residents attending matches. One has only to go to Bondi Beach on a Sunday, as I did last Sunday, to be aware of the enormous number of tourists in town.

The Hon. Rick Colless: New Zealanders are always in Bondi.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: No, I am not talking about New Zealanders. Last Sunday there were an enormous number of young Irish people on Bondi Beach. In fact, I thought there were more Irish people on Bondi Beach than there are in Ireland.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What was the water temperature?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: Quite nice. It was warmer than the Irish Sea. The water was a little warmer than it was about three weeks before, when, I can assure you, it was freezing. In New South Wales, ticket sales for the Rugby World Cup are expected to total 860,000. The Australian Rugby Union says that the quarterfinals played last weekend sold 90,000 tickets in Brisbane, valued at $15 million, and 80,000 tickets in Melbourne, also valued at $15 million.
In Sydney, the upcoming semifinals, play-off and final have sold 320,000 tickets, fetching $95 million. Between 30,000 and 35,000 international visitors are expected to attend the final Sydney matches. In Sydney, Telstra Stadium has so far played host to three matches. For the opening game on 10 October, between Australia and Argentina, which I saw, 80,360 spectators crammed into the Homebush site. The Australian Rugby Union estimates that about 90 per cent of tickets have been sold across the World Cup tournament.

But the news gets better as the main Rugby World Cup focus is yet to arrive. The remaining four matches will be played at Telstra Stadium, at Sydney Olympic Park. Semifinal one, between Australia and New Zealand, will be played this Saturday, while semifinal two on Sunday will see the widely fancied French team take on England. Obviously, the Rugby World Cup has been a great success for Sydney, New South Wales and Australia. I certainly hope that the Wallabies are victorious this Saturday against the All Blacks, and that they go on to win the World Cup final against either France or England.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Community Services. I refer to the recent annual report of the Child Death Review Team, the fatal assault report and the groundbreaking suicide report, the latter report showing that 26 per cent of children and young people who killed themselves had had contact with the Department of Community Services. I note that children actually in the care of the department are not a detailed group for the purposes of the Child Death Review Team's work. Will the Minister make these children a reportable category, and will she refer to the Child Death Review Team for further inquiry and research the matter of children who die while in the care of the department?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans raises two very important reports, the Child Death Review Team's annual report and the review team's report into children who die from fatal assault and neglect, which I understand were released on 30 October. I think the honourable member has perhaps misunderstood some of the significant changes that occurred with regard to investigated child death reviews prior to the reports being released, and it may be worthwhile bringing the honourable member up to date with those changes.

The Ombudsman will now be responsible for undertaking reviews in relation to the deaths of children in a category known as vulnerable children. I believe that should satisfy the honourable member's inquiry about whether a category of children known to the Department of Community Services should be a specific category in itself. Obviously, children who are known to the department and subsequently die in circumstances that may well not be related to the circumstances under which they became known to the department should not be marked with that association.

Nonetheless, clearly the fact that a child has been reported to the department is an indication of vulnerability and risk. It is therefore an important signifier, but it should not be looked at in isolation because it may well be that the death of a child who had been reported to the department had nothing to do with the original reason for the child becoming known to the department. The child may have died as a result of a car accident, for example. Nonetheless, I can assure the honourable member that the Ombudsman will now be responsible for undertaking reviews of child deaths in respect of children who are in a range of categories of vulnerability, including those who have had siblings reported to the department.

Obviously, if a child death occurs and the child is known to the Department of Community Services, it is absolutely imperative that the department looks at its processes to ensure that if anything can be learnt from such a tragic incident it will do so. The department is closely looking at the way in which it reviews child deaths, and obviously it will do that in conjunction with the Ombudsman. Clearly, it does not make sense that the department should undertake a role of reviewing its actions in relation to a child death if the Ombudsman is also undertaking such a role. The Child Death Review Team will continue to have the broader responsibility of investigating all child deaths in New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for her elucidation that the Ombudsman will be responsible for child death reviews. Obviously, it is a category of child death that directly relates to the performance of the department. Will the department nevertheless create a category of children under its care within that statistical framework to enable a direct comparison of children under its care and a benchmark for the department?

The Hon. CARMEL TEBBUTT: It may assist the honourable member if I read the relevant section from the Community Services Legislation Act 2000. One of the most significant changes is that the Act creates a class of death known as reviewable deaths. The Ombudsman has new review responsibilities in relation to reviewable deaths. Reviewable deaths are those of a child arising in suspicious circumstances; who was in care or receiving a service to enable the child to live independently in the community; in relation to which a child protection report on the child or his or her sibling was made to the Department of Community Services within three years preceding the death; or who was in a detention centre or residential care facility.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Will the Minister advise whether the New South Wales Agricultural Advisory Council on Gene Technology undertook tests or reviewed the results of tests to determine whether escaped plants from site No. 36152 were genetically engineered? Did the two community representatives on the council express alarm at this contamination alert and did they oppose a new exemption order for the current trial? Did the Minister mislead the public by asserting in the media this week that the escaped plants were not genetically engineered when in fact no review has been made by the council to confirm this?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have not misled anyone on this incident. In relation to the Ashbridge property, earlier in the year the department in its normal monitoring program found some canola plants in the wheat crop around the research project. It was part of the research project. The entire situation was handled at the time. The advisory council made it clear to me that it did not believe that the volunteers in the wheat crop were genetically modified. I have received correspondence that tests carried out by Bayer of this material were negative for genetically modified [GM] canola. The council has reviewed the process and assessed what took place on site, and it came to the conclusion that there was very little chance of the plants being GM-based canola.

The incident has been dealt with effectively. The area was sprayed at the time and the site was repaired quickly. The advisory council has requested me to consider extending the exemption order so that the trial can be completed and research results can be obtained to determine, amongst other things, how the non-GM canola that surrounds the GM canola plants and the GM canola plants stood up under the terrible drought. On that basis, the advisory council suggested that I extend the research trial, and I have done so. I have enhanced the monitoring of the site from a regime of 35 days to 14 days for the regulatory authority, which is the department, and Bayer is to report to the regulatory authority in 14 days.

These actions have been taken to ensure that no GM canola can contaminate any other crops anywhere in the district. The matter has been dealt with effectively by the advisory council, the body that has been set up by this Parliament under the Act passed in May this year. The council has carried out an effective review. I remind honourable members opposite that the Australian Wheat Board, New South Wales Farmers and other grains organisations have members on this particular body, and I am sure they would require me to not issue further exemption orders if they felt there was any difficulty with the site.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I ask a supplementary question. In light of the Minister's answer, has the Minister seen the results of the tests that were conducted by Bayer and, if so, will he make the results available to the House? Will the Minister be calling for any independent testing, or will all the tests be conducted by Bayer?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: As I said, the tests were done by Bayer at the time and it has forwarded to me the statement it made to the advisory council, stating that the results of the tests it conducted on plants indicated that the plants were not GM-based. The advisory council also conducted an analysis. It inquired into the cause of the incident and provided a very cogent explanation for how it occurred—which in due course I could report to the House. I will not be taking the matter further at this stage. I believe the advisory council has conducted a thorough assessment of the matter. I reiterate the point that the very people that The Nationals claim to represent and support—the farming community and its organisations—have made it clear that I should extend exemption orders, and I have done so.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is addressed to the Minister for Local Government. What is the latest information on the State Government's local government reform program?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: All members will be aware that the local government reform program is now in full swing. We now have three regional reviews under way: one in the Australian Capital Territory region, one in the Peel Valley and another in the Clarence Valley. These reviews are held in areas in which there are a number of conflicting proposals for boundary changes or amalgamations. We have put in place three expert independent facilitators with experience in local government. After extensive talks with local community groups, councils and individuals, they will come back to me with the best ideas.

At the Local Government Association's annual conference on Monday I announced our intention to conduct a further two regional reviews, one in the Murray region and one in the Macquarie region in the Central West. Today I am able to announce that Chris Vardon, the former Eurobadalla Shire Mayor and former President of the New South Wales Shires Association, will conduct the review of the Macquarie region.

[Interruption]

I understand he stood for preselection for the Liberal Party. The review will examine councils including Bathurst, Evans, Oberon, Lithgow, Mudgee and Rylstone. Mr Vardon is currently completing the Peel review and will start on the Macquarie review shortly. The Government has invested an extra $2 million in these reviews to make sure that communities are consulted.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Couldn't you find anyone competent?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggesting Mr Vardon is not competent? I make it clear that these reviews will be conducted in addition to the community consultation that the Boundaries Commission has to undertake by law. We will not be taking any shortcuts when it comes to listening to the community. Regional reviews allow all the ideas to be put on the table so that we can get the very best for the community. I have asked the facilitators of regional reviews to develop a proposal for change to be referred to the Boundaries Commission for further consideration. That is another clear indication of our commitment to the local government reform program. I again put on record that the local government reform program will improve service delivery for residents and ratepayers. We want to make sure that all communities are fully consulted before any reform is undertaken. The Government is not interested in reform for the sake of reform. We value local government in New South Wales. It makes an important contribution to our community.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister is clearly misleading the House now.

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

The Hon. TONY KELLY: That is why we are working with councils and the community to make sure that local government survives. Changes to the Federal Governments Federal Assistance Grants are looming, and local government will end up with less money in real terms. Some councils in New South Wales rely on Federal assistance grants for up to 30 per cent of their income. We want to make sure that local government in New South Wales survives these changes, and that is why we are committed to reforming local government in New South Wales.

Mr IAN COHEN: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer. Has the National Parks and Wildlife Service put a request to Treasury for funds to prepare the State of the Environment Report for the Alpine Ski Resorts, as required by section 32F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and due in mid-2004? Has that request been approved and, if not why not, and will the Treasurer ensure that this oversight is rectified as soon as possible?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: The National Parks and Wildlife Service, of course, is well funded through the annual State budget. It has had very substantial funding increases since I have been Treasurer and, from time to time, I receive requests for supplementary funding from almost all government agencies, and they are always dealt with intelligently as well as prudently.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question is directed to the Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Did the report of the Walton inquiry into the Valuation of Land Act find that there was a concern by the Government to correct historically low land valuations? To what extent did this push by the Government to correct historically low land valuations result in the systematic increase in the amount of land tax paid by landowners in New South Wales, and thereby increase the Government's land tax revenue?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I do not know whether that is a good question, but it amazes me because the Hon. Greg Pearce has been in this Chamber for a number of years. He has managed to gather two supporters because he got two votes when he stood for the leadership of his party.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Who were they?

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: I do not know who those two were, but I suspect that he only managed to gather two supporters because the rest of his colleagues realised that he had learned nothing in the time he had been here, and that is indicated by the question he has asked today.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: The Treasurer was asked a very straightforward question about the Walton report on land tax and he has not uttered a word in response to it. I ask that you direct him to be relevant to the question.

The Hon. Michael Egan: To the point of order: It is a straightforward response. I am not the Minister responsible for the Valuer General.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind Ministers that answers must be relevant to the questions asked.

The Hon. MICHAEL EGAN: In view of the time, if honourable members have further questions, I suggest they place them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.

Bill received, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

Second reading ordered to stand as an order of the day.

[The President left the chair at 1.02 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [2.30 p.m.]: Before lunch I said the Opposition opposes the bill. We believe that the committee that is now operating in the lower House is appropriate. Previously I put my strong view about public accountability and openness, as against the principle of the right of each House to choose the form of committee that is appropriate to its needs. That was an important principle when this legislation was originally debated in 1994, but the difference between the situation in 1994 and today is that in 1994 the Legislative Council as a whole expressed the strong view that it did not want a form of committee imposed upon it by the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Council expressed a view that it would establish its own committee. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile moved an amendment that, rather than accept the form of committee proposed, the Legislative Council establish its own privileges and ethics committee. That amendment was accepted by the Government.

When the bill was returned to the other place, the Leader of the House there acknowledged the right of this House to choose the form of committee that was appropriate to this House, and the Legislative Assembly accepted the amendment proposed by the Legislative Council. I do not want to see that important principle undermined, nor do I believe that our opposition to this legislation undermines it. Last night my colleagues in the Legislative Assembly voted against this bill. They have a strong view about maintaining the current situation, which involves community representation. That was groundbreaking legislation when it was introduced in 1994, and my colleagues contend that it has served the Legislative Assembly well.

In saying that the Opposition opposes the bill, I am mindful that there is a difference of opinion within the Legislative Assembly. We do not intend by our opposition to impose our will upon the other place. But I strongly express the view that my colleagues in the Legislative Assembly do not want a change in its current ethics committee. For those reasons the Opposition opposes the legislation. I want to make it very clear that the principle that each House has the right to choose the form of committee that is appropriate to its needs is not undermined by our opposition to the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [2.35 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill introduces a range of new firearms and gun crime offences and tough new penalties. It also provides police with the tools they need to crack down on firearms crime. New South Wales has the toughest firearms laws in Australia, with penalties for serious gun offences in the Firearms Act and the Crimes Act of up to 20 years imprisonment, and a range of offences specifically targeted at illegal trafficking. According to the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, during the two years to 31 December last year assault "shoot with intent" incidents involving a handgun fell by 26 per cent and assaults with a handgun fell by 36 per cent, and the downward trend between 2001 and 2002 has continued in the first half of 2003.

However, as recent incidents have shown, there is never any room for complacency in illegal gun crime, and there is clearly more work to be done. That is why on 23 September a package of measures was released to improve the comprehensive, co-ordinated approach taken by New South Wales Police to illegal gun availability, detection, apprehension, and prosecution. The initiatives in the package provide for increased detection and enforcement, legislative changes, improved security industry controls, better safe storage, and the need for greater national controls. The Firearms and Crimes Legislation Amendment (Public Safety) Bill implements the legislative changes announced as part of the package. They include changes to the Crimes Act 1900, such as clarifying that a firearm which is inside a motor vehicle which is in a public place is considered to be in a public place for the purposes of the current Crimes Act offence of possessing a loaded firearm in a public place. Recently a court decided that a firearm inside a private vehicle in a public place is not necessarily itself within that public place. This is clearly nonsense, and proposed section 93F amends the Crimes Act to clarify that.

Proposed section 93GA creates a more specific offence in the Crimes Act of firing at a dwelling house or building with disregard for the safety of persons. The maximum penalty for this offence is to be 14 years. This will allow police to more accurately target persons who commit so-called drive-by shootings. It also represents an increase of the current 10-year penalty for the less specific offences of causing danger with a firearm or spear gun, and trespassing with or dangerous use of a firearm or spear gun, which are currently in sections 93G and 93H of the Crimes Act. The bill also amends the Crimes Act. Proposed section 93I introduces a new offence whereby an unlicensed person carrying an unregistered firearm in a public place is liable to a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, as well as a new aggravated carriage offence with a maximum penalty of 14 years. Proposed section 154D provides for the new offence of stealing a firearm, with a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

Schedule 2 amends the Firearms Act by inserting new sections 50AA and 51BA, which make it an offence to illegally purchase or sell a firearm part, with a maximum penalty of five years for non-prohibited firearm parts and 10 years for a pistol or prohibited firearm part. New section 51B increases the time period for establishing the current ongoing trafficking offence from three illegal firearm sales in 30 days to three illegal sales in 12 months. This recognises that the modus operandi of illegal firearm sales is very different from that of prohibited drugs, on which the three sales in 30 days time frame was originally modelled; and it introduces a new offence of ongoing supply for major parts of a firearm in new section 51BB. This section is modelled directly on the current offence of ongoing illegal sale of a whole firearm, with the addition of the extension of the offence period to three sales in 12 months.

Schedule 2 also amends the Firearm Act to clarify the offence regime for forging licences and using a forged licence. A new offence of using a forged firearm licence or permit in an effort to illegally obtain a firearm is introduced in new section 71A. This will attract a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. The bill also increases the penalty of forging a firearm licence or permit from $5,500 to a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, by deleting the current offence in section 71 (b) of the Firearms Act and making it clear via insertion of a note that the existing offence in section 300 (1) of the Crimes Act applies to forgery of a firearm licence. The penalty for such forgery is a maximum of 10 years.

Schedule 3 amends clause 14 of the Firearms (General) Regulation to provide that licence holders must notify police of the address where their firearm will be stored, and any subsequent change in that address, within seven days of the change. The amendments to section 87 of the Firearms Act and to clause 107 of the Firearms (General) Regulation will enable the Commissioner of Police to more generally delegate the power to sign a certificate of evidence to an authorised registry officer, rather than the current requirement that requires the regulation to be amended each time the commissioner wants to exercise a delegation.

This bill is part of the package of measures to improve the comprehensive, co-ordinated approach taken by NSW Police to illegal gun availability, detection, apprehension, and prosecution. It does not constitute the entire package. In the area of increased detection and enforcement a new 47-member mobile team of Operation Viking police began high-visibility, high-impact raids in the first week of October, targeting criminals and thugs carrying concealed handguns in hot spots. The unit has held operations in Campsie, Bankstown, Rosehill, Fairfield, Cabramatta, Burwood, and City Central local area commands. An additional 20 firearm detector dogs are also to be deployed from the 2004-05 financial year to support searches, high-profile street policing, crime scene investigations, and screening of public places and vehicles.

The Government is seeking stronger sentences for handgun crimes and, to address consistency in sentencing, it will ask the newly formed Sentencing Council to examine sentencing trends for serious firearms offences with a view to implementing standard minimum sentences. The Government is also considering making more serious firearm crimes strictly indictable, so that such crimes will be tried in the District or the Supreme Court and attract higher sentences. It is examining measures to ensure that more cases are dealt with on indictment, and it is ensuring that the Commissioner for Police instructs prosecutors to instigate immediate appeals if firearms criminals receive sentences that the community views as inappropriate.

In addition, a review of the use of firearms in the security industry is approaching finalisation. This review includes an examination of increased safe storage requirements, limiting the calibre and magazine capacity of firearms being purchased by the industry, limiting access to firearms to certain types of security work, and examining whether certain sectors of the industry need to be armed, the ratio of guns held by companies relative to the number of employees, and examining better enforcement of annual training requirements. The Operation Vulcan illegal firearms phone-in campaign has been reactivated, with callers eligible for increased rewards of up to $5,000 for information leading to a conviction. NSW Police is to have an additional five sworn positions provided to the State Crime Command's firearms and regulated industries crime squad to conduct proactive intelligence gathering on gun crime, develop better education for police on gun handling and licensing procedures, and lead co-ordinated force-wide efforts in training and in developing intelligence plans.

The Government is leading the way in the fight against illegal firearms. The Carr Government has provided NSW Police with more resources than ever before to fight gun crime. A total of $2.073 billion was allocated to meet the recurrent and capital expenses of NSW Police in 2003-04. This is the ninth consecutive record police budget. The Firearms and Crimes Legislation Amendment (Public Safety) Bill will provide police with the tools they need to investigate, apprehend, and prosecute illegal gun traffickers and criminals who use guns. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.45 p.m.]: The Greens do not support this bill, which is a fig leaf for the Government's inaction on crime. It is a rewrite of the Firearms Act. There is no evidence to suggest that tougher penalties prevent crime or that they help victims of crime. The Government's priority should be measures to reduce the number of victims. The Government works to con the public that get-tough legislation is a workable solution. Those who commit drive-by shootings are rarely caught. It is easy for this Government to add another zero to a gaol sentence, but its responsibility is to tackle the harder job of preventing handgun crime from claiming another victim. The people of New South Wales need well-researched and well-thought-out policies based on international research and strategies. This bill is policymaking on the run; it is political window dressing.

The bill primarily relates to the reckless use of a gun by an unauthorised person in a public place. We have been there before; it is already an offence under section 7 of the New South Wales Firearms Act 1996 to possess or own firearms without authorisation, and the penalty is a maximum of 14 years imprisonment. The Minister for Justice was not in this place in 1996, but a number of other honourable members were here when the legislation was passed. It is being dished up again with another name, a few more media releases, and different headlines. It is the same story with many of the supposedly new offences that the bill introduces. That is why the bill is simply a rewrite of the Act. There is no need to support the bill. If honourable members want tough penalties—many take that approach to justice—they should be aware that they are already in the legislation.

I urge non-government honourable members to vote against this legislation. If they do, we will go some way to exposing this Government's double standards in managing justice in New South Wales. The Greens are looking for a total handgun ban and a focus on preventing and policing crime. People who take part in drive-by shootings will not be deterred by tough sentences. They are likely to be destructive personalities who are not afraid of taking big risks. The issue is not penalties; it is the reluctance of people in the community to come forward with information or to appear as witnesses. That reluctance stems from complex factors such as mistrust of police, fear of intimidation or reprisals, or fear of repercussions in their community.

No policy work or research has been undertaken on drive-by shootings. A specialised team of skilled investigators should be established and there should be information sharing at a national level. More resources and training should be available for community policing initiatives. The police service should work on new and better practices for procuring information, handling informants, and protecting witnesses. Police policy on these issues must be transparent to secure the co-operation of members of the public. Zero tolerance operations and strategies usually make the community more frightened of the police and can exacerbate an already hostile situation.

But the debate about these proactive policies and sound strategies is drowned out by the continual theatrics from both major parties about law and order—and unfortunately the Premier leads it. If one reads the Daily Telegraph's crime reports one quickly comes to the conclusion that it is a war zone out there. But the battle is not taking place in Sydney's south-western suburbs, the real fight is out the back of the New South Wales Parliament, where in press conferences the Carr Government and the Opposition are waging a bitter war of words. The subject is crime, and both parties are vying to be the toughest cop on the block. Neither side has won; neither has lost. The real losers are the people of south-western Sydney, who are left standing on the sidelines.

Since the most recent series of killings, the battle has reached fever pitch. Premier Carr has called for "border controls"—I wonder where he got that from—to prevent an influx of handguns, and he has suggested that criminals should be deported. Meanwhile, shadow police Minister Peter Debnam has issued a fatwa against "urban terrorists". It might sound like hysteria, but it is very calculated hysteria. Border security, unwanted immigrants, terrorism! This is the linguistic and political territory of Prime Minister John Howard. Mr Howard's electoral success has politicians everywhere taking a leaf out of his book—and unfortunately Premier Carr is one of them. He knows the value of an inflammatory and racist remark. Making references to ethnicity and talking tough on crime are guaranteed to satisfy the talkback radio listeners, for whom both major parties appear to be competing.

These days, however, the Premier's attention seems more focused on pulling these linguistic triggers than on actually tackling the substantial issue of gun violence. A cheap but widely reported remark seems to have more resonance than a genuine attempt to tackle crime and stem the tide of guns in this State. Several months ago the Greens wrote to the Premier and Opposition Leader John Brogden calling for a gun summit along the lines of the highly successful drug, obesity, and alcohol summits. Unfortunately—but not surprisingly under the present Government—we have been ignored. Instead, we get more and more draconian legislation in Macquarie Street, and more and more police squads in Sydney's west.

Between 1999 and 2002 the Carr Government initiated and passed 77 pieces of law and order legislation—almost 20 a year. Most other States get by with about seven or eight new crime laws each year—and those States are no safer or more dangerous for that. Policing is important, but a police officer cannot be put on every corner. Adding another 40 police officers to an area such as south-western Sydney, which is home to more than two million people, is likely to do little more than give the Premier a favourable headline. It is the quality of policing, rather than the quantity, that is important.

It would be more forgivable if the Premier really believed that deportations, tough talk, and additional police were the solution to crime and violence. Sadly, the Premier shows glimpses of understanding what is actually required. After the State election the Premier went to the Parramatta Transitional Centre and said that the debate on crime should focus on giving criminals and potential criminals "vocational skills, living skills, help with family … [and with] the problems of drug dependency, gambling dependency". The Greens had said this all through the election campaign, but we never heard it from Premier Carr until the votes were safely in the ballot box. At Parramatta the Premier also said:

During the election [there was] as always a lot of focus on sentencing issues, on law and order, and politicians accused of beating the law-and-order drum.

There's more to the debate than a politician standing on a street corner and saying let's have longer sentences.

They were the words of our Premier, Bob Carr, to a certain audience. Now he is back in Parliament looking for a headline, and we have this disgraceful legislation before us.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: What's wrong with it?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is a rehash. You did not even have to do it. The Premier has done what he usually does: he sounds off, and all of a sudden his minions are scrambling to deliver a piece of legislation to justify his headlines for the day. We know how the Government works, and this is another example of it. At Parramatta the Premier showed that he knows what must be done. But for the rest of the time he offers nothing more than law and order rhetoric plus the occasional increase in penalties, and this is the case again today. We look forward to the day when Premier Carr's Parramatta rhetoric becomes reality. It is the only way to solve the crime problem in New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [2.55 p.m.]: The Government is clearly under pressure to solve gun crime, and the Firearms and Crimes Legislation Amendment (Public Safety) Bill will provide for new offences. I am deeply saddened by what is occurring in our State, and I believe it is time the Government addressed drive-by killings and gun crime. Since the Government was re-elected in March, 104 crimes have been committed with firearms. That is an average of 13 a month, or one every three days.

Our State has become used to what is known as law and order legislation. Ahmad Fahda, a 25-year-old convicted thief and stand-over man, was shot dead outside a Punchbowl petrol station on 30 October. He was part of an organised crime gang operating in the Bankstown, Lakemba and Liverpool areas. The saddest thing to emerge from the incident is that it gave rise to comments by the Premier about sending people home. Indeed, his remarks verged on racial vilification.

The community is traumatised and marginalised already, and Bob Carr's comments about sending them home only serve to demonise and ostracise them further out of reach and influence. The Premier is on the one hand creating new offences and, on the other, laying blame on people of ethnic origin for what he sees as an essentially negative impact on the community. He is using this sad reality of gun crime to divide the community. I expect a lot more from a leader. A leader is meant to unite his people and find solutions, to be inclusive, and to celebrate his multicultural community.

I understand that the background to this bill is that it is part of a package of initiatives announced to improve police capacity to respond to illegally obtained weapons, their detection, and the apprehension and prosecution of offenders. Clearly the Premier is aware that there are votes in cultivating fear of the "other", and he is reliant on the talkback radio jock to build up paranoia and cultivate fear so that he is then able to sweep in and introduce a raft of legislation that puts him at the top of the pile. He is seen to be answering the fear that he has created. Indeed, it is legislation by talkback radio.

I do not know whether creating new offences will ensure an end to these crimes. It is up to families and communities to educate their children about what it means to obey the law and about how none of us is above the law. It is up to the Government to show leadership, to provide funding to marginalised communities, to offer help for rehabilitation, and to provide education pathways and career opportunities. Tougher laws alone will not solve our State's crime problem.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

Bill received, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Motion by the Hon. Ian Macdonald agreed to:

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

Second reading ordered to stand as an order of the day.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) [3.00 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. The New South Wales Farmers Association has requested answers to a number of questions and I will refer to them in turn. The view has been expressed that the constitution of the advisory committee should be set out in the regulations. The arrangements in the bill provide for appropriate flexibility and I see no reason to amend them. However, it is appropriate for me to provide an assurance concerning the composition of the committee. Initially the membership of the advisory committee will comprise five members—an independent chairperson, who ideally has experience in professional regulation; a consumer representative, being a nominee of the New South Wales Farmers Association; an animal welfare representative from an animal welfare organisation; and two representatives of the veterinary profession, being nominees of the New South Wales division of the Australian Veterinary Association [AVA].

I acknowledge that the New South Wales division of the Australian Veterinary Association wishes to have a representative on the committee from a large animal practice. In relation to that matter, nominations will be at the discretion of the AVA. However, I note that large animal practice issues will also be addressed through the membership of a specialist reference panel, one member of which will have expertise in rural practice. The establishment of a specialist reference panel to assist the committee was suggested by the AVA and I have been happy to act on this suggestion. The panel will comprise five veterinarians with expertise in small animal practice, rural practice, equine practice, teaching, and research and industry. It will be a source of specialist technical advice to the advisory committee.

If the committee so requests, members of the panel will be able to attend its meetings in a non-voting capacity to advise on matters referred to them by the committee. The committee will compose a recommended list of the restricted acts of veterinary science in such manner as it sees fit. The New South Wales Farmers Association has sought assurances with regard to certain animal husbandry procedures that farmers consider are more appropriately performed by veterinary practitioners in the field rather than at licensed veterinary hospitals. In particular, procedures of concern were laparoscopic surgery on sheep and castration of horses. I certainly support not requiring these procedures to be performed at licensed hospitals. It is the intention of clause 64 (2) (b) to cover these procedures. However, I can assure the House that if this is not the case it will be clarified through a regulation under clause 63 (2).

A number of members in their contributions to this debate claimed that clause 14 (5) (a), which will create the exemption from the ownership restrictions for rural supplier companies, was inserted into the bill without consultation with the New South Wales division of the Australian Veterinary Association. I am advised by NSW Agriculture that it was in fact included in the draft bill, as viewed by representatives of the AVA on 15 and 16 October this year in meetings with departmental representatives. The representatives of the AVA included the current and past president. I make a further point that this provision was originally included based on the advice of the previous Minister for Agriculture and his concern to ensure that acceptable levels of veterinary services are available in regional New South Wales. NSW Agriculture recommends retention of this clause in the bill to allow New South Wales to comply with its obligations under the competition principles agreement.

A number of speakers have raised concerns in relation to the possible effects the bill may have on the number of veterinary practitioners in regional New South Wales. It is certainly not the intention of this Government to reduce the number of veterinary practitioners in regional areas. In fact, the opposite is the case, as I have previously mentioned in relation to the clause 14 (5) (a) exemption. I refer to the Victorian Veterinary Practices Act 1997, which deregulated veterinary practice ownership in that State from December 1998. I am advised that this change has certainly not introduced any adverse effects in terms of service provision. In fact, the annual report of the Victorian Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board shows that over the past 4½ years the overall number of registered veterinary practitioners in Victoria has increased from 1,477 to 1,584, despite deregulation. To further reinforce the point, I refer members to the findings of the recent Commonwealth Review of Rural Veterinary Practice, the so-called Frawley review. Statistics in that report showed that between 1991 and 2001, the last three years of which were deregulated, the number of veterinarians in rural areas of Victoria increased from 533 to 651, an increase of 22 per cent. I reiterate that point because the Hon. Duncan Gay made reference to it in his contribution. To further reinforce the point—that there has been an increase in veterinarians in Victoria under the operation of similar clauses over the past few years—I refer the honourable member to the findings of the recent—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is not quite right. I will answer that question in Committee.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: You may do that when you like. That was achieved by a bill with clauses the same as those we are proposing here today. There has actually been an increase of over 118 veterinarians in regional Victoria.Of the total number of veterinarians practising in that State the proportion practising in rural areas has remained stable at about 45 per cent of all veterinarians. In other words, there has been an equivalent increase over that period. The Victorian situation shows that the suggestion that this legislation will lead to fewer rural veterinarians is clearly wrong. It is clear evidence that the loosening of ownership restrictions has had a positive impact on the provision of veterinary services in rural areas in Victoria.

The preference for the Government to meet the costs of the advisory committee was raised by a number of members in their contributions to the debate. The proposal in the bill that these costs should be met by the veterinary profession is based on the same model as that which applies to the New South Wales Medical Practice Act 1992 and to veterinary legislation passed in Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. Therefore, the motivating factor behind this funding model has more to do with consistency with other New South Wales professional regulation and veterinary regulation in other States than the budgetary situation of NSW Agriculture.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: If it is not a budgetary problem why won't you do it?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Because industry should look after its own position. It is quite clear that that has been the case.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: But you are forcing them into this because of national competition programs.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: We are not forcing anyone to do anything. It must be realised, however, that national competition policy is real and it has been working in terms of a number of industries. The Federal Government is threatening a whole range of industries in New South Wales with incredible penalties under the tranche payment system. So let us be very straightforward about this. The medical profession and interstate veterinarians follow this practice. The costs of the committee are not anticipated to be a major impost. The task is reasonably discrete and will not involve major ongoing activities and costs. I do not believe that the source of funding will influence the committee's transparency and independence because the composition and role of the committee are otherwise determined. Furthermore, the activities of the board—a statutory authority—which will include the funding of the advisory committee, must be reported to Parliament in the board's annual report.

The Legislation Review Committee has raised two matters. In paragraph 32 of the report on the Veterinary Practice Bill 2002, contained in Legislation Review Digest No. 5 dated 10 October 2003, the committee asked why the proposed Act will not commence on assent and when it will commence. The reason for the delay is that further regulation is required with regard to a list of restricted acts of veterinary science to be devised by the advisory committee and then recommended to the Minister. In addition, it relates to a code of professional conduct that will apply to registered veterinary practitioners. The draft regulation will then need to undergo public consultation in accordance with the Subordinate Legislation Act. I anticipate that the regulation will be made in 6 to 12 months time and that the proposed Act will commence simultaneously with the regulation.

In paragraphs 37 and 38 of its digest the Legislation Review Committee asked whether the definition of "unsatisfactory professional conduct" unduly trespasses on personal rights. The concern relates to the definition of unsatisfactory professional conduct in that certain repeated or continued behaviour is likely to "damage the international reputation of Australia in relation to animal exports, animal welfare, animal produce or sporting events". Simply stated, the committee is concerned that the word "damage" in relation to Australia's reputation is too broad. Although it is acknowledged that this definition is broad, it is clear that any practices that are inappropriately undertaken will have an adverse impact on Australia's international reputation in the areas described.

Therefore, the bill places significant emphasis on ensuring the integrity of certain actions required to be undertaken by veterinary practitioners, such as issuing health certificates for export of animals and products, and appropriate dispensing of drugs. These matters are already included in the registration and annual statement requirements, the professional code of conduct and the disciplinary provisions of the Act. Although the objectives of the bill are centred on furthering public interest, it is not intended that the value of the veterinary profession in this State should be at all diminished. The Board of Veterinary Surgeons, the New South Wales Division of the Australian Veterinary Association and members of the private veterinary profession in New South Wales have a distinguished record of dedicated service to farmers and companion animal owners in this State. Their overwhelming interest is for the welfare of animals. Most people are extremely grateful when consulting a veterinary practitioner over concern for valuable livestock or a loved pet.

In addition to farm and companion animal work, the profession makes a vital contribution to valuable domestic and international trade in animals, and semen and ova export by way of certification of the disease status of animals. Also to be remembered is the large amount of pro bono emergency work done by private veterinary practitioners when wildlife and lost and abandoned domestic animals are brought into their practices. Their immediate duty lies with rendering emergency treatment to those animals rather than being concerned as to how the cost of the treatment will be met.

Private practitioners have also played an important part in disease control through notification of suspect cases to New South Wales Agriculture and through their contribution to disease control programs, particularly recent programs such as ovine and bovine Johne's diseases and Newcastle disease. Veterinary practitioners also play a vital part in sporting events such as greyhound and horse racing, and in industry events such as companion animal show judging and agricultural show judging. Government-employed veterinary practitioners and those employed in the State's 48 rural lands protection boards have tirelessly served the interests of animal welfare and farmers through the administration of legislation such as the Stock Diseases Act 1923 and the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Veterinary practitioners are also employed at universities and research organisations, as well as charitable organisations such as the RSPCA and the Animal Welfare League.

The bill has been the subject of consultation and debate within the veterinary profession, particularly with the president and registrar of the Veterinary Surgeons Board and the president and members of the New South Wales Division of the Australian Veterinary Association. I sincerely thank them for their contribution to the shaping of the bill, which will address the overarching public interest that this Parliament is charged with serving whilst catering for the maintenance of a high standard of veterinary care in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Because Unity amendments Nos 1 and 2, which relate to clause 2, are consequential, and because Unity amendment No. 2 is related to another circulated amendment, consideration of clause 2 will be postponed.

Consideration of clause 2 postponed.

Clauses 3 to 13 agreed to.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.23 p.m.]: I move The Nationals amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 10, clause 14 (5) (a), lines 27-31. Omit all words on those lines.

I thank the honourable Ian Cohen for deferring consideration of his amendment, which is similar to the amendment I have just moved. I suspect he is worried that he is being seen as getting too close to The Nationals.

Mr Ian Cohen: I think it is the other way around!

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Whatever the reason, we applaud him for his gesture. I concede that it is a matter of concern that the Greens and The Nationals have come up with the same idea. It means that we have either got it very right or got it very wrong. In this case I believe we have got it very right. Three amendments will be moved in Committee. As well as the amendment I have moved, the Hon. Dr Peter Wong will move to delay implementation of clause 45 for 12 months to allow an examination of its ramifications. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile will move an amendment to reduce pressure on veterinarians and, therefore, possible misconduct. The honourable member sells his amendment as one that will resolve the other problems cited by the Australian Veterinary Association [AVA]. I do not believe it will do that. Also, I do not believe that the amendment of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile will conflict with the amendment to be moved by the Hon. Dr Peter Wong. They are complementary amendments. Indeed, I am informed that both amendments have the support of the New South Wales Farmers Association.

On the other hand, The Nationals believe that, whatever goodwill exists, there is real concern that veterinarian services will be lost to regional New South Wales. The AVA, The Nationals, the Liberals and, I suspect, the Government and the New South Wales Farmers Association do not pretend that there is any definite information on these matters. Although we are dealing with an imprecise science, we are dealing with the real possibility of losing veterinary practitioners in regional New South Wales. If we do not get this legislation right, we will have no veterinarians. We are concerned enough to believe that this clause of the bill is unacceptable. Indeed, the AVA has indicated that large corporations will be able to create shopfronts, providing bread and butter services—such as immunisation, microchipping and worming—currently undertaken by veterinarians to subsidise larger, more costly procedures such as performing caesarean section procedures on cows and horses.

During a conversation with veterinarians in my office I used the analogy of lawyers in small country towns, because we are talking about a specific area of veterinarian practice. This bill will not affect city practices or, I suspect, most coastal practices, although some practices in the hinterland may be affected. Some years ago there was a plan to take conveyancing away from lawyers. Although a cheaper service would have been provided, and ultimately when it happened that did occur in part, the change removed the bread and butter of many legal practices. Quite a number of country communities lost the lawyers who did the pro bono work, acted on hospital boards, and assisted the frail and aged associations.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: You lost the hospital boards.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We lost the hospital boards first, of course. I remember that. We cannot blame just the Government for that. We took them away and put them back and then the Government removed them again. Once they are removed, a key part of the community is removed, and not long after that the community starts to lose the accountants, the doctors. The critical mass of the community starts to change, and if there is no lawyer, no doctor—

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: No council.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: No council—people start to leave. I am not making an extreme point. A viable veterinary practice is absolutely crucial to support rural industries. The Government said that in Victoria the reaction has been terrific and there is no real problem. Despite the Minister's rhetoric, the figures do not back him up. The 2002 annual report of the Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria shows that since the deregulation of veterinary services in Victoria in 1999-2000—the Minister can quote other figures but these are the relevant areas—the number of veterinarians in private practice, and this is the key area, as a percentage has decreased as follows: in 1999 it was 85 per cent; in 2000, 84 per cent; in 2001, 82 per cent, and in 2002-03, 79 per cent. There is a definite trend and it is not a trend we like—it is a downward trend. That is one of our concerns. As I indicated earlier, with an imprecise science we believe we should hesitate on the side of the positive.

The Opposition urges honourable members to support our amendment to remove paragraph (a) of clause 14 (5) from the bill. We believe that is the best way to go. We understand that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Hon. Dr Peter Wong have two amendments to move. We believe that, in the event that our amendment is not supported, their amendments are acceptable, though certainly not as good as the one we are moving. We will be looking for support from members of the Committee for what we believe is the best-case scenario for the protection of veterinary practices and vets in regional New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.33 p.m.]: I put on record my support for the amendment. As I said during the second reading debate, vets should be able to have a practice. Also, corporations should not be allowed to skim the cream off veterinary practices, with detrimental consequences, as happened in the medical and optometric professions.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [3.34 p.m.]: In principle the Opposition amendment is a valid one. However, I have been talking to different parties about the amendment and I am aware that there is a conflict of opinion between the New South Wales Government, the Opposition, the Greens, the Australian Veterinary Association [AVA], New South Wales Farmers and the Federal Government through its national competition policy. I share the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans's concerns, as a medical practitioner, that letting big business come into this area in metropolitan Sydney or regional New South Wales is highly undesirable. That will have a severe consequence. However, my office, through my capable research assistant, Frances Tan, has been negotiating with different parties, particularly the AVA and the New South Wales Farmers Association. As was mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, if this amendment fails they will both accept a 12-month moratorium. At this stage I think that is the only thing acceptable to all parties.

I also raise the concern mentioned by the Minister in his reply about the increasing number of rural veterinary practitioners in Victoria following the commencement of the new legislation. My information tells me no such statistic is available. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the number of private practitioners has dropped, and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has alerted me to the fact that the same document that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned shows that the pharmaceutical industry percentage has increased from 1 per cent to 2 per cent. Furthermore, research and development has increased from 2 per cent to 5 per cent. Perhaps that indicates somewhat that big business did move into regional Victoria and maybe the number is similar. However, our information is that no such statistic has been gathered by the Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria.

Mr IAN COHEN [3.37 p.m.]: The Greens support the amendment put forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is essentially the same as the amendment foreshadowed by the Greens. No doubt there will be other times when the Greens and The Nationals will draw together on certain issues such as these. I have no problem with that. There may be problems on the other side, but as a Green I am aware that it is something we have to look at. If I may digress for a short moment, I am a member of a committee that is looking into local government amalgamations. Something that comes up time and again is big government's lack of awareness of smaller communities. With this legislation small communities potentially will lose, and lose badly. We have heard comments that communities will lose facilities and that there will be no doctors. The political input by the Hon. Amanda Fazio was interesting, that there will be "no Nats". That aim may be one driver of the legislation. There may be another conjoining of the Greens and the Nats if and when the Nats become an endangered species. Nevertheless, we are seeing a downward trend in rural communities.

As the Chair of that local government inquiry, I see that pressure and it is a great pity. I come from the North Coast—not from a rural town as such, as it has been very much taken over by tourism—and I have taken native animals in a desperate state to the local vets. They have treated native animals free of charge and have been able to undertake that function. It has been extremely valuable to members of the community with their day-to-day work and to conservationists. They have been there to step into the breach and use their facilities and equipment at all times for the benefit of animals in distress. They undertake a very important community service.

Although there is room for debate on the figures provided by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, they clearly indicate that the establishment of shopfront veterinary practices, as proposed by the Government, will not necessarily be beneficial. I accept the concerns that have been raised by Unity. The Hon. Dr Peter Wong does not support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, yet he asks us to support his proposed amendment. He should support both amendments, unless there are other issues that I do not know about or that have not become apparent in the House. It would be logical to support both the amendment moved by The Nationals and the amendment moved by the Hon. Dr Peter Wong. I ask that he reconsider his support for this amendment. The downturn in expertise in regional areas is a worrying trend and some rural communities will not survive. Veterinary surgeons in every community, by the very nature of their work, undertake a great deal of pro bono work. I am told that the pro bono work is worth on average $17,000 per practice per year. The Minister pulls a face at that figure.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I did not pull a face. That is outrageous.

Mr IAN COHEN: The Minister might be surprised at that figure, but I ask him to take it into account. They are the sorts of activities those people perform. Their work goes far beyond earning a wage or having a profession. They perform their duties with great enthusiasm and a love for their work and the animals they care for. I ask members to support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.42 p.m.]: Previous speakers have referred to the amendment that I foreshadowed I will move, which hopefully will address the concerns about clause 14 (5) (a). That clause allows for a corporation or firm whose principal business is the supply of goods or materials used in connection with agriculture, to own a veterinary practice, so long as the provision of the veterinary services is at the same premises from which the goods or services are supplied. Reference has been made to figures about veterinary practitioners in Victoria, and a claim was made that this clause, if left in the bill, would have a negative effect, as it did in Victoria. I have figures about the total number of veterinary practitioners who seek to be registered to practise in Victoria annually. They show that in 1999 there were 1,758 veterinary practitioners and 2,006 in 2003. That is a dramatic increase.

Mr Ian Cohen: Is that country Victoria?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: That is just Victoria: the statistics of the number of veterinary practitioners who seek to register a practice in Victoria annually.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You are talking about cat doctors.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: As I said, there has been a dramatic increase. My proposed amendment to insert a new clause 15 in the bill will satisfy concerns that the ownership of veterinary practices by non-veterinarians, such as rural supply companies, could give rise to circumstances where the interests of the owner conflict with the professional ethics of the veterinarian. It is unfair for veterinarians to be put in a position where they could be pressured to act unprofessionally or unethically because of a threat of being sacked or losing their livelihood. Strong measures need to be put in place to protect them from this form of coercion and to ensure that the level of care administered by all veterinarians is of the highest professional standard. My foreshadowed amendment will address this issue. We will not support the deletion of clause 14 (5) (a), but we will seek to insert a new clause 15.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) [3.45 p.m.]: I have listened with great interest to the previous speakers. They have provided a profusion of figures and made supportive statements about them. I will deal with the figures accurately and carefully. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition presented statistics that show a decrease of about 6 per cent over the past two years in veterinarians in private practice in Victoria. The honourable member did not say that under the provisions of the legislation in Victoria, which are similar to the provisions in this bill, there are now more veterinarians in Victoria. The Frawley report, which dealt with rural veterinary practices in Victoria, showed that although there has been an increase of 300 veterinarians over the past three or four years in Victoria, the ratio between country and city veterinarians has stayed the same.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Do you have a document to back that up?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am referring to the Frawley report on rural veterinarians. The percentage in Victoria of rural veterinarians compared to city veterinarians has remained the same at 45 per cent. If my mathematics are correct, there has been an increase in country veterinarians of 45 per cent of the 300 extra veterinarians. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not point out when putting his statistics that there are more veterinarians in the country but that many of them now work for a corporation.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Isn't that the point? I bet they are not in the small country towns any more.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The point is how do we get more veterinarians into country towns? The Opposition has not addressed that issue at all. It presents statistics that are clearly false in an attempt to prove an outcome that has not happened.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Like you are doing.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am not. I am referring to the Frawley report, which relates to the situation in Victoria.

The Hon. Rick Colless: We do not want cat and hamster vets.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It has nothing to do with cat and dog veterinarians at all. The Opposition has said that this provision will not be beneficial for New South Wales, but it has not backed up its assertion with evidence. I am providing figures that support my assertion. For example, the annual report of the Victorian Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board shows that over the last 4½ years the overall number of registered veterinary practitioners in Victoria has increased 7 per cent. To further reinforce this point—and I have said this before but members were not listening—the Commonwealth review of rural veterinary practice, the so-called Frawley review, provided numerous statistics. The statistics in this report indicate that between 1991 and 2001—including the three years of the deregulated system—the number of veterinarians in rural Victoria increased from 533 to 651, or a 22 per cent increase.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What were they doing?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I cannot believe the honourable member's incompetence. If a rural supply company were to employ veterinarians, their work would not involve cats and dogs. They would be employed to deal with large animals.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Do you know that?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Of course I do. Rural supply companies would not employ veterinarians to work on cats and dogs; they would be working in rural-related industries dealing with cows and sheep. I will repeat it.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Will you table the document?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I will provide the document. The Frawley review pointed out that between 1991 and 2001—three years of deregulation—the number of veterinarians in rural areas in Victoria increased from 533 to 651.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You don't have to repeat it.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I want to repeat it because it is obviously not seeping into the heads of honourable members opposite who continue to interject. I have become more involved in this debate as honourable members opposite have interjected, and the more they do so the more I will speak. According to the Frawley report, over the past 10 years there has been an increase of 118 veterinarians in rural Victoria. The last three years reviewed were covered by the Act. That is an increase of 22 per cent. Of the total number of veterinarians practising in that State, the proportion practising in rural areas remained stable at around 45 per cent. However, because of the overall increase, it is 45 per cent of a higher figure. That indicates that under the Act, which contains this provision, there has been an increase in the number of veterinarians practising in rural Victoria.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: That is over 10 years.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is clear. Not one statistic on earth supports the ringing of the doomsday bell. The Government's position on this issue has been determined to some extent by discussions with the New South Wales Farmers Association. For the benefit of honourable members, I point out that the association has written to me this afternoon, under the hand of the President, Mr Mal Peters, stating that it agrees with the inclusion of clause 14 (5) (a) in the Veterinary Practice Bill, but also agrees to its implementation being deferred until further assessments are conducted. In effect, it agrees with the amendment moved by the Hon. Dr Peter Wong. The association has made it clear that it wants that clause in the legislation, but it also agrees with the Hon. Dr Peter Wong. In other words, we have a clear-cut course that I intend to follow today.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans: Delay it a bit!

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans would have to be the last person with the right to claim that someone is wasting time. I have listened to him rabbit on about a million bills over the past few years. He cannot make that sort of interjection. I am not wasting time. Claims have been made about the destruction of regional New South Wales. That will not happen as a result of the passage of this clause. The Government will oppose the amendment moved by the Hon. Duncan Gay and support the amendments moved by the Hon. Dr Peter Wong and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.56 p.m.]: In his usual manner, the Minister claims a lot of knowledge that one suspects he does not have. The figures that I quoted with regard to the percentage of veterinarians in private practice in Victoria are from the Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria Annual Report 2002-03 and are found on page 12. I will quote from that document and I am happy to make it available to any honourable member who wishes to peruse it. In 1998, 84 per cent of veterinarians were in private practice; in 1999, 85 per cent; in 2000, 84 per cent; in 2001, 82 per cent; and in 2002-03, 79 per cent. As I indicated earlier, that is a downward trend.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile indicated that there were 1,768 veterinarians in practice in 2002. Those figures are correct. However, he ignored those in private practice; that is, the veterinarians we are talking about. If honourable members were to look at the 2002-03 figures they would find that the percentage of veterinarians in large animal practice was 4 per cent. That interjection was made by an honourable member on this side of the Chamber. We are looking at the continuity of cattle veterinarians rather than cat veterinarians. It is an oversimplification and is probably an unintended slight on veterinarians.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: They are veterinarians who deal with domestic animals.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That is correct. No slight is intended. It is a differentiation between the roles veterinarians play and it highlights the Minister's oversimplification of the figures. He also indicated that the number of veterinarians in regional Victoria went from 533 to 651. I do not dispute that. In New South Wales over 10 years there has been a 90 per cent increase in the number of veterinarians practising in regional areas. However, a careful examination of those figures according to postcodes indicates that in the 20 years from 1981 to 2001 the number of veterinarians increased from 1,326 to 2,476, which is an increase of almost 90 per cent. However, 516 is the important figure. The weight of the increase was greater in the more closely settled areas than in areas with lower population densities. For example, in New South Wales the number of registered veterinarians in coastal areas increased by 45 per cent over the period 1991 to 2001, while the increase in areas beyond the ranges was only 13 per cent. When honourable members quote statistics, they must know what they are talking about, and in this case the Minister did not. He was talking about an increase in the number of veterinarians not only in rural areas but also in areas that have a large number of domestic animal veterinarians. The statistics put forward by the Government are simply not accurate.

To go one step further, the statistics we cite are invalid when considering the Opposition amendment to remove clause 14 (5) (a), because the Victorian legislation does not have a similar section. Therefore, no matter what rhetoric the Minister puts forward, it will be meaningless. The bottom line is: Do we want to keep the vets in regional New South Wales, or do we want to take the risk that they might be removed? As far as the Opposition is concerned, we do not want to take that risk; it is too big a risk to take.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [4.00 p.m.]: I suppose I should firstly reply to Mr Ian Cohen's question to me. As I said earlier, if as a medical practitioner I had my way I would support the Opposition amendment. However, I take into consideration the interests of the New South Wales Farmers Association.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Why?

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: Unfortunately, the Australian Veterinary Association and the New South Wales Farmers Association reached agreement that if there must be a compromise they will accept a moratorium. I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that, looking at the statistics overall, there has been an increase in the number of vets in rural areas of New South Wales and Victoria, but the percentage of vets in both States has decreased. In Victoria the percentage of vets decreased from 48 per cent in 1991 to 45 per cent in 2001, and in New South Wales the percentage of vets decreased from 44 per cent to 42 per cent over the same period.

The only comment I can make is that animals in rural areas are doing better than human beings there, and that New South Wales is losing a lot of country doctors; in fact, many country towns cannot get doctors. I received a copy of a letter from the Victorian division of the Australian Veterinary Association to Dr Bruce Cartmill, the President of the New South Wales division of the association, and I should like to read the letter onto the record. It reads:

Dear Bruce,

As you are aware, some time ago the Victorian Veterinary Practice was rewritten in a manner that effectively deregulated the veterinary profession in this state. Integral to the Government's amendments at the time, were to firstly remove any restrictions on who can own a veterinary practice, and secondly remove any so-called "acts" of veterinary science.

In Victoria, there has been limited investment into the purchase of veterinary practices by corporate entities or non-veterinarians since the above changes were made—and hence the restriction of ownership has had no detectable community benefit in terms of lower costs of veterinary services. It seems market forces and competition between veterinary practices had already resulted in a high degree of price equilibrium.

There has, however, been several examples where the restriction on ownership has encouraged an inappropriate advertising, prescription and use of prescription animal products. I believe, when non-veterinarians own practices, there is great potential for commercial incentives to influence decisions regarding drug use as opposed to high ethical and moral standards with which veterinarians are renowned. This has occurred in the dairy industry according to verbal and written accounts from farmers and vets received by my office. The corporate entity concerned has been protected from prosecution under the veterinary practice or other legislation that only regulates the behaviour of vets. The establishment of non-veterinarian owned practices results in a conflict between commercial pressures and veterinary ethical standards that I feel are very unfair to veterinarians and the animals concerned. At the very least, should deregulation occur in your state, it must be included with mechanisms to prosecute non-veterinarians who direct a vet to perform activities of a dubious professional standard.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: That's Fred's amendment.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: Yes, I know. The letter continues:

I do not feel the Victorian Government should have ever great legislation that created the potential for vets to come under commercial pressure of this nature. We as vets should never be put in a position where an employer is encouraging or directing us to prescribe drugs unnecessarily or perform unnecessary procedures on animals. All decisions a vet should make must consider the welfare of the animal and the intentions of the client has high priorities. We could only expect the same from human health professionals.

The second aspect of the act that had great consequences for animal welfare was the removal of so-called acts of veterinary science. This enabled members of the public to perform any procedures on animals providing they did not contravene the prevention of cruelty to animals act. Any procedures, regardless of their complexity or necessity, can be performed by someone regardless of their training and expertise providing it does not cause harm.

In response to the Minister, I will leave Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile to address his amendment. I simply wanted to place on record the concerns of the Victorian division of the Australian Veterinary Association.

Mr IAN COHEN [4.06 p.m.]: There has been much debate about statistics, and we all know the cynicism associated with statistics. The Minister referred to "figures that suggest that it can be backed up". Typically, that is vague, and I do not think it is appropriate that we simply rely on various interpretations of statistics. First, there is a human component here, and, second, I believe this is something the Government must be unaware of in terms of national competition policy pushing this along. It is important that we debate this matter external to those types of pressures. We are dealing with a profession that performs very important work in the community, and recognition of these professionals—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Appropriately.

Mr IAN COHEN: As the Hon. Amanda Fazio said, it is appropriate that we recognise that animal welfare and animal rights are very close to this profession. The Greens support the Opposition amendment.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) [4.08 p.m.]: I said that in relation to clause 14 (5) (a), the Victorian provisions go much further; indeed, that State has virtually no restrictions on ownership of veterinary practices, which is far more than the limited provision provided in the Opposition amendment. I understand that Queensland has a similar level of deregulation with regard to its veterinary practice legislation. This raises an interesting conundrum. With both adjoining States being so comprehensively deregulated, if we do not amend the bill in similar terms I believe we would face the situation, possibly next year, where this legislation will be subject to National Competition Council scrutiny, similar to other recent legislation, such as the Farm Debt Mediation Bill and the poultry meat industry bill.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That's because your submissions were substandard; you didn't do your job properly.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is not correct. They were excellent submissions. It is just that Mr Costello, the Federal Treasurer, is in a bind because he wants to fine New South Wales the $51 million in tranche payments, but he is trying to find another way around not having all the rural communities of New South Wales up in arms in the lead-up to an election. But I would bet my bottom dollar that if he is Treasurer after the next election these tranche payment penalties will be imposed on New South Wales. This change in the Act came about because of competition review, and as a consequence these amendments are designed not only to improve practice across the State but also to keep in mind the meaning of competition review and where that is heading with the possible penalties that New South Wales taxpayers might incur subsequent to the imposition of tranche payments.

Clause 14 (5) (a) will allow greater access to veterinary services to people in the bush. There are concerns in rural areas regarding the shortage of veterinary practitioners who seek to practice there, particularly in the more remote areas of the State. I have had lots of discussions with veterinarians and with educationalists about this issue. Clause 14 (5) (a) will allow a limited exemption from the controlling interest requirements of ownership of veterinary practices in hospitals. The standard requirement is that one or more registered veterinary practitioners hold the controlling interest in a veterinary hospital practice. The exemption allows for an agricultural supply business to employ a registered veterinary practitioner to operate a practice or hospital out of its shopfront. That is, this exemption will allow a veterinary practitioner to practice out of an established business that will fund the premises and the equipment in the shop and also provide a convenient place for farmers and rural residents to seek veterinary advice.

It is difficult to attract veterinary practitioners to some areas, but the certainty of an established clientele, premises and equipment, and a wage paid by an agricultural supply company may be sufficient attraction. Concern has been raised that this provision will be widely used to avoid the controlling interest requirements of the bill in areas where the need for veterinary services is well satisfied. The board is also concerned that the exemption will be difficult to enforce. The exemption will not allow a business to provide veterinary services that exceed the value of its principal agricultural supply business. Such a breach would carry a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units for a corporation. Because the exempted corporation can only provide the services as an adjunct to its principal business, it is unlikely to be an attractive business proposition in areas where veterinary services are already established. It is important also to appreciate that veterinary practitioners employed in such a practice must still be registered and will still be fully accountable for the veterinary services they provide through registration with the board.

So, I believe that although this clause has generated some heat, it will not lead to the sort of dire consequences that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggested. These practices would be a useful adjunct, particularly in areas to which it is difficult to attract veterinarians, and it would be another means of enticing veterinarians to country towns. I reiterate that the Government has had considerable discussion on this with all the associations involved and with the stakeholders. In the end, the Government has taken the position that New South Wales Farmers has urged us to take, which is, to quote again what the President of the New South Wales Farmers Association wrote to me today:

The New South Wales Farmers Association agrees with the inclusion of section 14 (5) (a) in the Veterinary Practice Bill but also agrees to its implementation being deferred until further assessments are conducted.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.13 p.m.]: The Opposition compliments the Minister on clause 14 (1) (2) et cetera, which he just read out. We think it is an exceptional measure that really does address real concerns, and we do not disagree with any of his comments on it. But I have to remind the Minister that clause 14 (5) says:

This section does not apply to the following:

(a) a corporation or firm that provides veterinary services …

So whilst it is terrific, it does not apply to what the Opposition is trying to get rid of.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Clarke Mr Cohen Ms Cusack Mrs Forsythe Mr Gallacher Mr Gay

Ms Hale Mr Jenkins Mr Lynn Mr Oldfield Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

Ms Rhiannon Mr Ryan Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Mr Breen Dr Burgmann Mr Burke Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Costa Mr Della Bosca Mr Egan

Ms Fazio Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Reverend Dr Moyes Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Ms Tebbutt

Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Miss Gardiner

Ms Robertson

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.23 p.m.]: I move the Christian Democratic Party amendment:

Page 10. Insert after line 38:

15 Prohibition against directing or inciting misconduct

(1) This section applies to the provision of veterinary services by a corporation or firm whose principal business is the supply of goods or materials used in connection with agriculture.

(2) A person (the employer) who employs a veterinary practitioner to assist in the provision of veterinary services to which this section applies must not direct or incite the veterinary practitioner to engage in conduct in the course of professional practice that would constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct.

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units in the case of an individual and 100 penalty units in the case of a corporation.

(3) For the purposes of this section, any actions of an agent or employee of the employer are taken to be actions of the employer unless the employer establishes:

(a) that the employer had no knowledge of those actions, and

(b) that the employer could not, by the exercise of due diligence, have prevented those actions.

(4) When a veterinary practitioner is employed by a corporation, each of the following persons is for the purposes of this section also considered to be the employer of the veterinary practitioner (in addition to the corporation):

(a) a person who is a director, secretary or executive officer (as defined in the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth) of the corporation or is concerned in the management of the corporation,

(b) any other employee of the corporation in accordance with whose directions the veterinary practitioner is required or expected to act.

I have already spoken to this amendment. New clause 15 provides for a prohibition against directing or inciting misconduct, and the necessary protection. Honourable members have said that the penalties should be higher, but I regard this as a good starting point. If the penalties need to be increased they can be dealt with by amending legislation.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.24 p.m.]: The Opposition would have preferred its amendment, but it nonetheless supports this amendment. The Hon. Dr Peter Wong put on record a letter from the President of the Victorian division of the Australian Veterinarian Association that highlights the need for these protections. Over many days I have had consultation with the Australian Veterinary Association and it has expressed genuine concern about the pressure applied to its members. Although Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile claims that his amendment will fix the economic problems, I do not believe that is the case. However, it goes a long way towards solving ethical issues and relieving the pressure placed on veterinary practitioners, so we support it.

Mr IAN COHEN [4.25 p.m.]: The Australian Veterinary Association has provided this response to the amendment:

Issue: The Christian Democratic Party (CDP) has proposed an amendment to be known as Clause 15 to the Veterinary Practice Bill 2003.

The CDP says that this addresses concerns the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA] has in relation to Clause 14(5)(a) of the Veterinary Practice Bill.

Response: The AVA has thoroughly read the proposed amendment, Clause 15, which makes it an offence for a large corporation to direct or incite a veterinary practitioner in its employ, to engage in conduct that would be in conflict with veterinary codes of practice.

The AVA is of the view that proposed Clause 15 does not address any of the issues it has raised. The AVA has strong concerns about the effects that the implementation of Clause 14(5)(a) will have on veterinary practices in regional and rural NSW. These are listed as follows:

• large corporations will be able to provide shopfronts providing the "bread and butter" services such as immunisation, microchipping and worming that veterinarians currently use to subsidise the much larger, more costly procedures such as performing a caesarean on a cow or a horse;

• large corporations will be able to create monopolies in regional and rural towns by undercutting the prices charged by existing veterinary practices, forcing them out of business and out of regional and rural areas;

• reduction of income for regional and rural veterinarians will mean that they will no longer be able to provide the $30 million worth of pro bono work they do each year in working with sick or injured native animals, running community education programs or offering free microchipping days;

• a decrease in the number of experienced veterinarians in regional and rural areas means a decrease in animal surveillance, which is important in detecting outbreaks of both exotic and emerging diseases.

For these reasons clause 15 does not solve the problems of clause 14(5)(a).

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) [4.27 p.m.]: The Government endorses the amendment. This type of clause is consistent with clauses in legislation in other States and provides a regulatory model to ensure that veterinarians are not in any way pressured to work beyond the limits of their profession.

New clause agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 106 agreed to.

Postponed consideration of clause 2 resumed.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [4.31 p.m.], by leave: I move Unity amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 2, clause 2, line 6. Omit "This". Insert instead "Subject to subsection (2), this".

No. 2 Page 2, clause 2. Insert after line 7:

(2) A day may not be appointed under subsection (1) that commences section 14 (5) (a) earlier than 12 months after the date of assent to this Act.

First, I thank the Government, the Opposition, the Greens, the Australian Veterinary Association, the New South Wales Farmers Association and everyone else who helped to draft these amendments, the aim of which is to enable proper investigation of substantial discrepancies between the concentration of veterinary practitioners in urban areas versus rural areas. The bill as it stands introduces a prerequisite for one or more registered practitioners to hold the controlling interest in firms and corporations represented as veterinary practices.

Clause 14 (5) (a) establishes an exemption for certain corporations and firms that are vendors of agricultural supplies to be allowed also to supply allied veterinary services. This exemption creates the potential for the type of veterinary services to be dictated by these firms. There is no guarantee that such an arrangement is capable of attracting rural practitioners. The decline of rural practice in New South Wales warrants proper investigation, and this has not been available given the abbreviated time frame involved. The Australian Veterinary Association and the New South Wales Farmers Association support a moratorium for this to proceed. Therefore, I seek support for these amendments.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [4.32 p.m.]: The Opposition supports these amendments. We believe they provide the second-best scenario. It is, however, a proper scenario because we will have 12 months within which to evaluate the ramifications. The Minister and I have exchanged statistics across the Chamber. I do not think there has been a win by either side; in many instances, this is an imprecise science. The New South Wales Farmers Association genuinely believes, but not overwhelmingly, that the exemption has the potential to provide more veterinarians in regional New South Wales. The Australian Veterinary Association [AVA]—and we support the AVA—genuinely believes that this section will lead to the demise of rural veterinarians.

I congratulate the Hon. Dr Peter Wong on these amendments. I hope I am not verballing the Minister, but I understand that there is joint support for the amendments. If that is the case, I applaud all members. During the next 12 months it is important that we are sure about the situation. Unless the Minister has a better idea I strongly suggest to the Minister that the Standing Committee on State Development examine the issues and evaluate the ramifications. The Minister cannot simply delay the matter for 12 months and hope that a potential problem will go away or be instantly resolved.

We need to ascertain the true position so that in 12 months time we can say that we have consulted all the parties, that they have come together and examined the issue and, on the best information available to us, there will not be a problem or there is a potential problem and we will not proceed or we will make some changes. I would be looking for a commitment from the Government along those lines so that the delay of 12 months does not simply delay the inevitable but ensures that we get it right.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [4.35 p.m.]: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and his staff for assisting me to prepare my speech and these documents. The honourable member has done an excellent job. I also thank the Government. Although these are my amendments, the information about rural practitioners in Victoria came from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, otherwise I would not have known about it.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: Is he the ventriloquist?

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: No. He is a very capable adviser. He gave me excellent objective advice.

The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I think the two of you should get your heads together and work out what happened, and put it on the record.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: For the record, I had a friendly discussion with the Minister's advisers last night. The Minister has also been supportive. Indeed, as I said, the amendments received the Government's support, otherwise I would have had great difficulty getting these amendments passed. I fully agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the moratorium would be less effective if the Government had done nothing with it. We lobbied for an inquiry by either General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 or the Standing Committee on State Development, but we were unable to get a consensus. Perhaps the Minister can indicate which path we will be taking.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.37 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the amendments moved by the Hon. Dr Peter Wong. The key amendment states:

A day may not be appointed under subsection (1) that commences section 14 (5) (a) earlier than 12 months after the date of assent to this Act.

I understand that by the time the Act goes through the regular processes there could be a two-year moratorium before clause 14 (5) (a) takes effect. Therefore there would be plenty of time for an inquiry and report by the State development committee or the general purpose standing committee.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) [4.38 p.m.]: The Government supports the amendments. The Hon. Dr Peter Wong has worked with the Government on this and other issues, and we are happy to support the amendments. We will be looking at the ramifications of this section over a period. At this stage I will not commit to a particular framework for that; we will be looking at that down the track.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [4.42 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to incorporate my speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Introduction

The proposed amendment to the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act 1998 is a further step towards achieving the Government's commitment to sustainable energy use and cutting greenhouse gases.

Hydro-electricity is a key part of the Government's green power programs. This program specifically recognises the ability to retrofit small hydro-electricity plants to existing dams inNew South Wales.

In 1997, the Sustainable Energy Development Authority-SEDA-undertook a study into this source of green power by surveying which dams are capable of fitting such plants. SEDA sees these smaller sources of electricity as important contributors to adopting what it terms "distributed energy solutions" and a move away from large-scale and centralised capital investment in electricity production.

On some water outlets on our dams, it is possible to install small hydro-electricity turbines. Because the pipes and other infrastructure are already in place, these installations can be cost effective. I understand that the types of turbines used are generally quite small—in fact around the size of a member's office here in Parliament House—but produce power at amounts that can usefully contribute to the electricity supply.

Proposed amendment

The Sydney Catchment Authority is proposing to generate hydro-electricity by building these small plants on its dams. Of course, this will only occur where such plants can demonstrate their commercial viability.

The bill I am putting before the House today will ensure that the SCA has all the necessary power in law to undertake these projects.

As it stands now, the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act recognises that the SCA is to conduct activities in such a manner as to comply with the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

However, the functions of the SCA, which are set out in section 14 of the Act, are ambiguous as to whether or not the SCA can build and operate the proposed plants. The amendment, therefore, does two things.

First, it amends subsection 16(1) to allow the SCA to undertake sustainable energy activities limited to the generation and supply of hydro-electricity, and any associated activities.

Secondly, it amends section 24B to provide for payment into the Sydney Catchment Management Fund of any income received from its sustainable energy activities.

SCA's sustainable energy program

Members of the House may be aware that Sydney's drinking water supply system already has two large hydro-electricity schemes: the plant on Warragamba Dam, which is owned and operated by Eraring Energy, and the Shoalhaven Scheme, which is jointly owned by the SCA and Eraring Energy.

In 1998, SEDA released its assessment of potential small hydro-electricity facilities on NSW dams.

The study identified the SCA's dams as having strong potential for mini hydro-electricity plants.

As part of its Energy Management Plan 2001-2006, the SCA commissioned a feasibility study for such plants on its dams. The study also examined optimal development and operating models. It found that the dams with greatest potential for technically viable plants are:

Warragamba;
Cataract;
Cordeaux;
Nepean;
Woronora; and
Tallowa, on the Shoalhaven River.

The study also found that such plants could be financially feasible investments.

Most importantly of all, the combined plants could potentially generate 33 Gigawatts of electricity. If all were built, the SCA would then become be a net green power generator—producing up to five times green electricity than the electricity it consumes.

Production of this green power will save a massive 31,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases. That is the equivalent to taking 7,000 cars off the road every year.

Conclusion

Following the passage of this Bill, the SCA will complete its analyses of preferred models for building, owning and operating mini hydro-electricity plants.
It will also thoroughly examine the commercial risks involved although I hasten to add that, as previously stated, plants will only be installed where they can demonstrate their commercial viability.

But this work will be fruitless unless we have certainty that such plants can actually be installed if the SCA chooses to do so.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [4.42 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose this bill, whose intention is to allow for a number of small hydroelectric plants to be retrofitted to a number of Sydney's dams. In 1998 the Sustainable Energy Development Authority identified Sydney Catchment Authority's dams as being good potential electricity generators—admittedly on a small scale. A feasibility study identified Warragamba, Cataract, Cordeaux, Nepean, Woronora and Tallowa dams as having the greatest potential. However, the Sydney Catchment Management Act, drafted in the wake of the cryptosporidium problems that this Government allowed to occur, does not specify whether the Sydney Catchment Authority has the authority to build and operate these facilities. The bill amends the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act to allow the Sydney Catchment Authority to generate and supply hydroelectricity. In key provisions, the bill provides that money raised from the sale of any electricity generated by these plants is to be paid into the Sydney Catchment Management Fund.

The proposed hydroelectric plants will generate green power from existing dams. The Government says it will only install these mini hydroelectric plants if they are commercially viable. They are not expected to affect the flow regimes of the dams. The electricity generated could be very expensive, and this may be an issue that mitigates against them proceeding. I am told the combined plants would have an installed capacity of just seven megawatts, compared with the total capacity of New South Wales of some 13,000 megawatts. Interestingly, whilst that information can be found in the summary of the bill, the statement of financial framework for 2003-04 of the Sydney Catchment Authority lists "mini hydro plants and dams" among its major projects with a total cost greater than $5 million. The statement of financial framework goes on to state that the project covers the construction of five hydro plants: one at Tallowa at a cost of $7.7 million, and one at Warragamba and three at metropolitan dams at a combined cost of $6.3 million. The plants will all be subject to business cases showing positive returns and will be subject to changes in the Sydney Catchment Authority Act to permit the undertaking of the activity. That is what this bill is all about. An initial expenditure of $380,000 has been budgeted for 2003-04.

As I indicated before, the Opposition does not oppose this infrastructure being added to dams. The objectives and the structure of the Sydney Catchment Authority are set out in the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act. The principal objectives include ensuring that catchment areas and catchment infrastructure works are managed and protected so as to promote water quality, the protection of public health and public safety and the protection of the environment, and to ensure that water supplied by it complies with appropriate standards of quality. The objects of the Act also provide that where activities of the authority affect the environment, it must conduct its operations in compliance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development contained in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act. Additionally, the authority is to manage its catchment infrastructure works efficiently and economically and in accordance with sound commercial principles. Taking into account those broad objectives and also the requirements of the main Act, particularly in relation to compliance with economically sustainable development and the other requirements, the Opposition does not oppose this bill.

Mr IAN COHEN [4.48 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I support the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment Bill and give the Government credit where it is due. It is an excellent initiative. I would like to see far more attention given to these types of alternative and greenhouse-efficient power generation initiatives, which are strongly supported by the Greens. The bill amends the Sydney Water Catchment Management Act to allow the Sydney Catchment Authority to build and operate mini hydroelectricity plants on its dams. As we are all no doubt aware, recently the Sustainable Energy Development Authority commissioned a report detailing the potential for grid-connected hydroelectric power generation in New South Wales. Six hundred dams, water treatment plants, pipes and weirs were investigated. Of these sites, 57 were identified as having sufficient generation potential of greater than 1,000 megawatt hours per year each, and 36 sites were selected as being suitable for the installation of small hydro plants. Small hydroelectricity facilities on the Warragamba, Cataract, Cordeaux, Nepean and Woronora dams and on Tallowa Dam on the Shoalhaven River are expected to produce 33 gigawatts of electricity and save 31,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases—the equivalent of taking 27,000 cars off the road every year.

The Greens support this bill, as the development of small hydro schemes would add to New South Wales stocks of green power and could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 350,000 tonnes per annum. At the same time these projects avoid the environmental impact associated with building new dams because they use existing infrastructure. In some water supply or sewerage schemes, for example, it may be possible to install a hydro turbine in place of a regulating valve, which wastes energy in normal operation. Because the water intake and penstock pipe work is already in place, these retrofit installations can be very cost effective. There are many environmental benefits to be gained from renewable energy development. Renewable energy is a key tool in a strategy for sustainable energy use and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. And do we need both of them!

Energy use in Australia continues to rise due to economic development, an increasing number of energy intensive industries, population growth and rising standards of living that increase demand for energy and for energy intensive products. About 94 per cent of our domestic energy use comes from fossil fuels, and this heavy reliance on fossil fuels for energy translates to high emissions of carbon dioxide—the main greenhouse gas contributing to global warming. The bulk of Australia's electricity generation is presently sourced from black and brown coal. Coal-fired power stations are the major contributors to the creation of greenhouse gases. In Australia fossil-fuelled power stations emit an estimated 55 per cent of our annual carbon dioxide emissions—well ahead of vehicles, which emit an estimated 17 per cent. The energy sector accounted for 369.0 million tonnes or 68 per cent of the total net national greenhouse gas emissions in 2001, an increase of 1.4 per cent, or 5.0 Mt, from 2000 and 28.9 per cent, or 82.7 Mt, from 1990.

Within the energy sector, electricity generation and transport are the biggest energy consumers. They contributed 47.8 per cent, or 259.5 Mt, and 14.2 per cent, or 77.2 Mt, respectively to the total net national greenhouse emissions in 2001—and the figures are still rising. In fact, electricity generation emissions increased by 2.1 per cent, or 5.4 Mt, from 2000 and 32.7 per cent, or 64.0 Mt, from 1990. We need, therefore, to increase renewable energy for electricity generation and transport if we are to constrain the growth in our greenhouse emissions. Luckily, Australia is well endowed with renewable energy and is an international leader in a number of technologies, such as research and development for photovoltaic modules and fuel cells, solar thermal and remote area power systems. Momentum for renewable energy development in Australia is also gaining rapidly due to the depletion of fossil and other non-renewable fuels and the urgent need to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions. As well as being perpetually available, renewable energy sources are low polluting and produce very little or no net greenhouse gas emissions when operating.

Large potential economic and social benefits are expected to flow from renewable energy development. Among the economic benefits, particularly to rural and remote areas, are cost-effective clean energy, renewable energy industry and market creation, research and development, and export potential. Renewable energy facilities can be built near customers to reduce energy losses in electricity transmission. I particularly emphasise the export potential of this type of development in South-East Asia where there are small villages and rapidly flowing streams with an abundance of water, unlike in Australia. With modification, the developments could be made very suitable for the South-East Asian market and become a valuable export for Australia. The operation of renewable energy facilities in Australia will also serve as a good promotion and advertisement of this clean, green energy production to overseas markets.

Recently in the House I read out a document about the development of an oil-fired power station in a tourist area in the north of Bali. It is a great shame that such a facility has been built in this area. It could be replaced by various strategies and create sufficient electricity production to service nearby communities. The availability of low-cost, clean and reliable energy, improved land, air and water quality and job creation also have positive impacts on people's health and wellbeing. While large-scale hydro is associated with significant negative environmental impacts, including detrimental effects on river flows and water supplies, the flooding of large areas of land often leads to the displacement of local residents and has negative impacts on local fauna and flora. With smaller hydro systems we do not experience these problems, or, if we do, to a much lesser extent.

Micro-hydro systems—less than 100 kilowatts, for example—do not affect seasonal river flow patterns downstream and do not involve any flooding of valleys upstream. These systems operate by diverting part of the river flow through a penstock, or pipe, and a turbine, which drives a generator to produce electricity. The water then flows back into the river. Micro-hydro systems also provide an attractive alternative or supplement to diesel systems in rural and remote areas. The construction of a very cost-effective mini-hydro generator on the 11,000 megalitre Toonumbar Dam, near Lismore in the north of New South Wales, is a case in point. Toonumbar is an irrigation dam, and the generator runs only when water is released or when the dam is overflowing. It has a capacity to produce 400 megawatt hours of hydro-electricity per year. The proximity to regional and rural electricity loads is a great advantage and transmission losses are minimised when power does not need to be transported over long distances.

The hydro constructed on the Pindari Dam near Ashford, Inverell, in northern New South Wales, is another example. The dam is primarily used for irrigation purposes and has a storage capacity of 312,000 megalitres. The irrigation releases provide the means of generating electricity. The project is a small hydro, defined as having a size of 1 megawatt to 10 megawatts, and is constructed using two horizontal Francis turbines rated at 2.8 megawatts each. The plant's long-term average energy output is estimated at about 16,300 megawatt hours per annum, enough to supply approximately 4,000 households. The power is exported to the national grid via an eight-kilometre 66-kilovolt transmission line and the project is expected to save 14,600 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year during its 80-year lifetime.

While renewable energy presently only supplies 10.7 per cent of Australian electricity generation capacity, the use of renewable-generated electricity is set to increase by about 2 per cent, or 9,500 gigawatt hours of electricity annually, in increments to about 12.7 per cent of total generation capacity by 2010, with the introduction of Federal Government legislation. One of the primary reasons for the introduction of the mandatory 2 per cent increase was an expected substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, which would result from electricity being generated by "clean and green" renewable technologies compared to emission intensive coal-fired power stations. That is exactly what has happened. An average home that has subscribed to 100 per cent green power, including off-peak, is estimated to save eight tonnes of carbon dioxide annually—the equivalent to taking just over two cars off the road.

The national green power audit by the Sustainable Energy Development Authority shows that green energy sales are on the rise. Over the four-year life of the Green Power Program, demand for genuine renewable energy has increased tenfold from 40 gigawatt hours in 1997. Total green energy sales increased by 50 per cent from the previous year to reach 455 gigawatt hours in 2000-01. However, much more can and should be done. At present the bulk of renewable energy in electricity generation comes from large-scale hydro schemes located in the Snowy Mountains in southern New South Wales and Tasmania. Only small contributions to electricity generation come from other renewable energy sources, such as mini-hydro, biomass, wind and solar energy systems. Large-scale hydro electricity generating systems produce 87.97 per cent biomass at 5.33 per cent and mini-hydro systems at 3.85 per cent. It is imperative, therefore, that we do everything we can to maximise the amount of energy that can be produced by mini-hydro systems. The Greens support the Sydney Water Catchment Management Amendment Bill and congratulate the Government on its work on this bill.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Rural Affairs, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Minister for Natural Resources (Lands)) [5.00 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate and for their support. I particularly thank the Hon. Ian Cohen and the Hon. Greg Pearce. This bill will enable the Sydney Catchment Authority [SCA] to generate hydro-electricity by building small hydro plants on its dams. That will occur only if such plants can demonstrate their commercial viability. As part of its Energy Management Plan, the SCA commissioned a feasibility study, which found that the dams with greatest potential for technically viable plants are Warragamba, Cataract, Cordeaux, Nepean, Woronora and Tallowa on the Shoalhaven River. The study found that such plants could be financially feasible investments. I stress that they will be retrofitted to existing dams; no new dams will be built purely for hydro-electricity purposes.

As the Hon. Ian Cohen mentioned, the plants could produce 33 gigawatts of electricity. If all were built, the SCA would then become a net green power generator producing up to five times more green electricity than the electricity it consumes. Production of this green power will save a massive 31,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases. That is equivalent to 7,000 cars being taken off the road each year. It has also been pointed out that small Eraring Energy hydro plants are already operating on two of the SCA's dams. Although it is true that they were installed on dams that are now controlled by the SCA, that occurred long before the authority was created; that is, they were installed with the agreement of Sydney Water or its organisational predecessors. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [5.02 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in the debate on the Firearms and Crimes Legislation Amendment (Public Safety) Bill. The overview of the legislation states that the object of the bill is to create new offences under the Crimes Act 1900 and the Firearms Act 1996 for the purpose of improving public safety. The new offences under the Crimes Act are firing a firearm at a dwelling house or other building with reckless disregard for the safety of any person, with a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment; stealing a firearm, 14 years imprisonment; possession by an unauthorised person of an unregistered firearm in a public place, 10 years imprisonment, with 14 years imprisonment in aggravated circumstances, that is, if the offence involves more than one unregistered firearm, an unregistered prohibited firearm or an unregistered pistol.

The new offences under the Firearms Act 1996 are selling a firearm part to an unauthorised person, five years imprisonment; selling a firearm part that relates to any kind of prohibited firearm or pistol, 10 years imprisonment; selling firearm parts illegally or on an ongoing basis, 20 years imprisonment; and using a false document such as a document that purports to be a firearm licence or permit in order to obtain a firearm, 10 years imprisonment. The bill also makes other miscellaneous amendments, including consequential amendments to the Crimes Act 1900, the Firearms Act 1996, the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and the Firearms General Regulation 1997.

The Opposition will support the changes proposed by the bill, but will move amendments to improve its effectiveness by giving it more teeth in the form of increased minimum and maximum penalties. The reason for the bill is clear: gun crimes in New South Wales are out of control. They are rampant and are occurring in epidemic proportions. The people of New South Wales are not safe on the streets, in their businesses, in their places of employment or in their own homes. Every day the media carries new horror stores about gun crime and crimes of violence. I recall reading into Hansard only a few weeks ago a partial list of gun crimes for a period covering only a couple weeks at the beginning of this year. It was a small part of a horrendous panorama for that period.

October was a typical month for gun crimes in this State. I am indebted to the shadow Minister for Police, Peter Debnam, for compiling the following list of crimes for that month: On 1 October, armed robbery at Blacktown; 2 October, robbery with shots fired at Toongabbie; 5 October, armed robbery at Woollahra; 6 October, armed robbery at Alexandria; 6 October, armed robbery at Guildford West; 7 October, armed robbery at Alexandria; 8 October, armed robbery at Casula; 8 October, shooting at Liverpool; 12 October, shooting at Wetherill Park; 12 October, shooting at Fairfield; 13 October, replica gun produced at Miller; 30 October, robbery with shots fired at Campsie; 13 October, robbery with shots fired at Vineyard; 14 October, drive-by murders at Greenacre; 16 October, drive-by shooting at Sadleir; 17 October, boy shot at Macquarie Fields; 17 October, armed home invasion at Wiley Park; 18 October, armed robbery at Oberon; and, 18 October, man shot at Narellan Vale.

On 19 October, armed robbery at Carramar; 19 October, man pistol whipped at St Marys; 19 October, revolver stolen at Drummoyne; 19 October, armed robbery at Birkenhead Point; 19 October, 15 handguns stolen at Greenacre and Castle Hill—two incidents; 20 October, two revolvers stolen at Liverpool; 21 October, drive-by shooting at Mays Hill; 22 October, replica handgun used at Moorebank; 22 October, carjacker opened fire at Edmondson Park; 25 October, attempted robbery and shots fired at St Peters; 26 October, robbery with shots fired at Rouse Hill; 26 October, armed robbery at La Perouse; 27 October, armed robbery at Newtown; 27 October, armed robbery at Rooty Hill; 27 October, revolver stolen at Surry Hills; 27 October, armed robbery at Auburn.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What has the Minister for Police been doing?

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: That is a good question, and the people of New South Wales would like an answer. The list continues: 28 October, gunshot murder at Annandale; 29 October, attack with rifle at Byron Bay; 30 October, gunshot murder at Punchbowl; and 31 October, armed robbery at Hoxton Park. November is shaping up as another typical month of gun violence and another bad month for the people of New South Wales. On 2 November, there was a home invasion at Kingswood; 2 November, shooting murder at Yamba; 4 November, motorist shot at Ryde; 4 November, man shot at Smithfield; 4 November, armed robbery at Toongabbie; 6 November, shooting at Liverpool; 6 November, armed robbery at Leichhardt; 6 November, firearm stolen at Marulan; 6 November, armed robbery at Lurnea; 10 November, armed robbery at Rozelle; and, 10 November, armed robbery at Beecroft.

The Hon. Rick Colless: The Minister must be pleased that there have been no gun crimes in the past two days.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE: It must be a record. The Opposition has been sounding an alarm on this issue for a long time. The shadow Minister for Police has highlighted the enormity of the problem in a series of press releases. They have been very specific and based on nothing but fact. However, the facts are more bizarre and frightening than fiction could ever be. For example, on 27 May this year the Opposition shadow police Minister issued a press release headed "Stop-start Police Investigation of Shooting". This referred to a police investigation into a shooting in the Haymarket area. The investigation had been stopped because of a lack of resources. At first the Government denied that there was a lack of resources, and that the police investigation had stopped. As a result of media scrutiny, however, the Government eventually came clean with an admission that there was a lack of resources and that there had been a suspension of the investigation.

We are told by the Minister for Police, Mr Watkins, that there is a wide-ranging strategy to bring this "out of control" gun crime situation under control. But it is not being brought under control. The Minister tells us one thing but the eyes, ears of the New South Wales public, who have been suffering for a long time, tell them something else. The public does not believe that the problem is under control. The public does not believe that the position is improving. The public does not believe that the hype dished out by the Minister for Police is factual at all.

Premier Bob Carr was quoted as saying, "We're taking guns and the criminals who carry them off the streets." Try telling the people of south-western Sydney that that is what is happening. Tell them that drive-by shootings, and the gang-related warfare and the other explosions of violence in that area are being stopped. And what is happening when some of these gang members, thugs and criminals are caught? What is happening when the police, despite their woeful lack of resources, get these antisocial misfits and criminals before the courts? Very often they are treated with kid gloves. The public is crying out for the laws to be enforced. It wants the punishments that should be imposed to actually be imposed. What is the reply of some of those who should be handing out punishments that fit the crimes? Their reply is to say, in effect, "Drop dead." That is what some members of the judiciary are as saying to the people of New South Wales.

The shadow Minister for Police, Peter Debnam, in his speech on this bill in the other place gave an example that is all too typical. On 10 October this year a bikie with a criminal record who was found with more illegal weapons than you could poke a stick at was fined an absurdly minuscule $500 for each of six charges—a total of $3,000. It sounds like a fine for a few speed infringements. It was established that at the time of the offence the offender was on parole for other matters. Did the Parole Board revoke that parole? No, it did not. Did this criminal go to gaol? No, he did not. He would have been laughing all the way home. What a great celebration he would have had that night! But for the people of New South Wales there was nothing to celebrate—another day, another criminal treated with kid gloves, business as usual.

As I said, the Opposition will support the bill, meagre as it is. It is one giant step for rhetoric and one tiny step for the effective control of gun-related crime. However, to give some real teeth to the bill, the Opposition will move an amendment in Committee that will seek to increase the maximum penalty for drive-by shootings to 25 years, and introduce a minimum sentence of 10 years imprisonment for that offence. We hope that the Government and crossbench members will join us in adding teeth to the bill.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [5.13 p.m.]: In speaking to the Firearms and Crimes Legislation Amendment (Public Safety) Bill, I imagine that any member who listened to the catalogue of crimes which the Hon. David Clarke just outlined would have no doubt—if it is possible to have any doubt these days—about just how bad illegal gun crime is in the streets of Sydney. While most people would approve of the stated intention of the bill, it has to be said that its chances of really reducing crime with the illegal guns are really very slight—which is not to say that it should not be supported. It is a fact of life that only law-abiding citizens abide by laws, and the sort of criminals who now seem to have the run of Sydney streets have no regard for law, human life or property, or even basic decency.

It can be argued that no matter how tough we make the penalties, these people will not be deterred by the prospect of long prison sentences. This is particularly so, when we look at the sort of pale, slap-on-the-wrist penalties which courts are handing out to people convicted of very serious breaches of the existing firearms laws—including possession of such unexpected weapons as hand grenades and rocket launchers. And for once I have to agree with the Hon. Lee Rhiannon when she describes this as being more about politics than about crime.

We seem to be seeing two battles: the battle to try to curb random shootings by throwing armies of specifically trained police into the streets—a commendable enough idea in itself—and the battle between Government and Opposition to outdo each other in the get-tough area. The Government proposes tougher penalties; the Opposition ups the ante. But that is all typical of politics, and is neither unexpected nor particularly worrisome. What is worrisome is that the latter is the wrong battle in the wrong place, and it may well distract attention from the real battlefield—which is in some of the suburbs of Sydney, including, lately, the electorate of the police Minister himself.

Having said all that, the bill does at least try to find ways to curb illegal firearm violence. I make the point that I am talking about violence with illegal firearms. It is important to stress that these crimes are being committed by people who do not bother with firearms licences, or with registering their firearms. On the contrary, it is crucial to them not to have a licence which could identify them as a firearms owner. Certainly they do not register the firearms they use in their crimes, because the last thing they want is for those firearms to be traceable to them.

But we need to face up to the unprecedented violence in our streets. Tougher laws may be necessary, but they are only one facet of the battle we have to fight. We need to do much more to cut the availability of these guns to the criminals, who buy them through the black market knowing they could never obtain them legally. There is clear anecdotal evidence—from the sheer numbers of illegal handguns which appear to be available—that they are being brought into this country by a fairly well-organised smuggling operation. I am advised that the sort of pistol being used in the current criminal warfare is nearly always a gun of modern technology, such as the Glock.

If having a handgun is a necessary status symbol for the members of the drug gangs who are closely related to these street crimes, then having a "top" gun—a high-magazine capacity, semiautomatic pistol—is the ultimate symbol. As one illegal gun seller remarked some time ago on the Channel Seven program Today Tonight: "We have all new Glocks, still in boxes—no second-hand rubbish here." I am concerned by a recent shooting in a Sydney suburb in which reports were that more than 100 shots had been fired at a house in a matter of a few seconds. Newspaper pictures and television footage showed the street littered with expended cartridge cases which, we were told, were predominantly of 9 millimetre and .45 calibre size. With something of a cold chill, I wondered what we were seeing here. One hundred or so rounds, fired in a few seconds? As a pistol shooter of 25 years experience, I know that even with two or three semiautomatic pistols, even with 15-round magazines, a person could not fire that many shots in such a short time.

I wondered if we were seeing an outbreak of a new and even more deadly type of gun crime, involving the use not of semiautomatic pistols but of fully automatic guns—that is, submachine guns. Anyone who has watched with alarm as the criminal use of illegal guns proliferates on our streets, and who has studied the criminal gangs that use them, would have wondered for some time how long it would be before these thugs graduated from the semiautomatic to the fully automatic gun. Fully automatic guns have never been able to be legally owned in this State. But again, as the competition between the drug gangs accelerates, surely there must be the risk of this being the next stage in the gun wars. In that regard, the bill needs to be more proactive, and less reactive, and should acknowledge this possibility. I foreshadow an amendment to add a new clause to the bill to provide an ever longer gaol sentence for possession anywhere of a fully automatic firearm.

I acknowledge that the so-called "Prohibited Firearms" list proscribes the ownership of fully automatic firearms such as submachine guns, but when did that sort of ban inhibit a determined, ruthless criminal? I believe it also needs to be included in this bill, to send a clear message to the hoons that this is just not on. While also acknowledging that the Government is making a serious attempt to provide a deterrent to illegal gun crime with this bill, I believe it has a number of anomalies which could produce the unintended consequence of adversely affecting licensed shooters carrying out perfectly legal actions. I also believe that in at least one place the bill is not as strong as some existing sections of the Crimes Act—sections it seeks to replace.

Let me deal with some anomalies. Proposed section 93F (2) states that a person who is in a vehicle or vessel in a public place is taken to be in that place. While I understand the need to extinguish any doubt which could lead to a criminal firearm charge being defeated on a technicality, I also foresee the danger of intended consequences arising from this. It could lead to unnecessary prosecution of hunters, professional shooters and primary producers, who travel on public roads in transit between properties or parts of properties with loaded but safe firearms in the normal course of their business or interests.

Schedule 1 [2] seems to be, to quote another person, a bit of a waste of time. The stated intention is to stop drive-by shootings, but it seems to me that section 93H of the Crimes Act already covers such offences with a penalty of 10 years imprisonment, and it is broader in scope than proposed section 93I. For example, section 93H makes the saving provision that a person who fires a gun or spear gun into premises commits an offence, is liable and faces a penalty of 10 years imprisonment, unless he is the owner, or does so with lawful excuse, or has the permission of the owner, et cetera.

A drive-by shooting would hardly be done by the owner of the property, or by someone else with the owner's permission. It would certainly not be done with reasonable excuse or lawful purpose. Section 93H even puts the onus of proof on the defendant. Given the likely character of such a shooting into a house, why is the condition of "reckless disregard for the safety of any person" even necessary? It should be obvious that any blind shooting into a house would have no regard for the safety of any person, and yet this proposed section adds another four years to the penalty already provided in section 93H of the Crimes Act. Why not simply beef up the penalty in section 93H?

Then in proposed section 51BA (2), there is confusion in relation to restrictions on the sale of firearm parts. The proposed section states that a person must not sell a firearm part, being a firearm part that relates to any kind of prohibited firearm or pistol. The problem lies in the words "relates to". There are many parts of a pistol or firearm, including trigger-groups, magazines and the like, which could be used either in a prohibited or in a legal firearm. The parts are the same, but the firearms they are fitted into are different. Therefore, I foreshadow an amendment to add one word to proposed section 51BA (2). That word is "solely". I believe the proposed section should be amended by adding the word "solely" before the word "relates" so that the section would read:

A person must not sell . . . a firearm part that solely relates to any kind of prohibited firearm or pistol.

This would avoid the possibility of an entirely legal and innocent sale of a legitimate part being caught by the provision, because the particular part could also be said to relate to a prohibited firearm or pistol. Proposed section 51BA (3) (a), relating to a person taking part in the sale of a firearm part, provides that a person takes part in the sale if "the person takes, or participates in, any step, or causes any step to be taken". This could mean that in a sale of such type an innocent third party not directly involved in the sale could become liable. Allegorically, the cash register operator who runs a credit card through a machine to complete the sale, or the person who unknowingly delivers the part, could become liable. The Minister's office has assured me that such people in fact would not be caught, and I accept those assurances, but for the record I would appreciate the Minister stating that publicly in his reply to this debate so there is neither confusion nor uncertainty about that provision.

All that said, I support the bill, albeit with the reservations I have stated and the amendments I will move in Committee to try to clear up some anomalies. The bill is not perfect but what is happening in the streets of Sydney is far from perfect too. While this is not by any means the whole answer, it is a necessary part of the whole answer. I would repeat in a cautionary way that we should be careful about letting the proliferation of street crime lead us into a whole series of purely reactionary laws aimed at specifically snuffing out individual crimes. That way we would be heading into a labyrinth of legislation, which could become confusing, even contradictory, and impossible to enforce. Above all, we have to find a way to gently persuade courts to impose sentences that are not only appropriate to the severity of the crime, but are clearly seen to be appropriate and sufficient. Unless that happens, this whole debate has been a massive waste of time.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.23 p.m.]: The Democrats take a strong position against the carrying of firearms in society. As such, we do not have a problem with the bill. However, it seems that whenever the media pay attention to firearms another bill appears. It is a crime to discharge a firearm to cause danger to or kill people, and firearms are fundamentally designed for that purpose. We should not have to respond to each and every situation in which a firearm is used slightly differently or when the media reaction is that the penalties are not sufficient.

The Crimes Act prohibits the discharging of a firearm in a public place. Obviously the severity of that crime relates to a range of exacerbating and mitigating circumstances. Firing willy-nilly into houses, with a high probability of killing people, would be a serious offence. On the other hand, firing on a shooting range without a permit, or committing some other technical breach, would be a less severe offence. Surely such decisions ought to be matters for a court's discretion. However, whenever the courts make a ruling, or the media publishes a report, the penalties are increased. We have to be far more flexible about this issue. We must determine whether the offence is serious and make sure that the magistrates or judges increase the penalty in accordance with the severity of the offence. Exacerbating factors should be considered because we do not want mandatory sentencing to blight lives.

A woman who was sending a text message on her mobile telephone killed a cyclist. The cyclist's family were not distressed that the woman was given a two-year suspended sentence rather than being put in gaol for a lengthy term, had the court been determined to "send a message", as is constantly said in this Chamber. The Crimes Act and our sentencing policies must be used to punish where punishment is needed, but the main object of these regulatory mechanisms is to prevent crime and maximise social benefit. We produce more and more legislation and put people in gaol longer and longer on the assumption that doing so will fix our society. I think we are confusing revenge with prevention.

I do not oppose the bill, but every time this issue arises the Government jumps up and brings in a new bill. That makes a lot of work for this Parliament. Perhaps the Government would do better by producing less legislation but of a higher quality, rather than responding to each situation by introducing a new bill and increasing the penalties. Those steps seem to be the two responses of the Government to virtually everything that occurs. The Government's response to every unusual happening is to introduce legislative change, but that approach can affect the discretion of the courts. Mandatory sentencing requires the courts to think about sentencing rather than the overall crime prevention strategy that society needs.

Rather than reacting with legislation, we should be thinking far more broadly about what we are doing. Obviously, drive-by shooting is undesirable, irresponsible and intimidatory. Those who do it must be the worst type of hoon who cannot be reformed. However, many people can be reformed, and if that is possible they should be. The risk to society must be balanced against the cost of putting offenders in gaol for a long time. We must consider those factors far more often than we usually do in this House.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.29 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Firearms and Crimes Legislation Amendment (Public Safety) Bill, which creates a number of new offences. The first is firing a firearm at a dwelling house or other building with reckless disregard for the safety of any person, for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 14 years. Everyone has been shocked by the increase in drive-by shootings. Indeed, recently two people were murdered by a person firing indiscriminately into a building. The offender did not know who the occupants were, other than that some of them were the enemy and he was prepared to shoot them. Another proposed offence is stealing a firearm, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

Sadly, there has been an increase in the number of firearm thefts. I am particularly concerned about the number of robberies committed on premises owned by security companies. A large number of firearms are stored in those premises for use by security officers, sometimes as many as 15 to 20. On 19 October the premises of a security company were broken into and 15 pistols were stolen. I suggest that a new offence should be created for companies whose security of their own premises is found to be lax, particularly those with a large number of weapons stored on the premises. Indeed, I ask the Government to consider investigating whether some owners are so irresponsible that their licences should be cancelled.

Over recent years there have been rumours that criminals have infiltrated the security industry in an endeavour to find possible targets. I accept that the Government has tightened regulations with respect to security companies but I do not believe that this practice can be completely eliminated. Criminals may set up a security company and be registered as security officers even though they may not be visible.

The bill creates a further new offence of an unlicensed person carrying an unregistered firearm in a public place, which has a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, and an offence of aggravated circumstances, which relates to a person having more than one unregistered firearm, an unregistered prohibited firearm, or an unregistered pistol and carries a maximum penalty of 14 years. The bill makes a number of new offences under the Firearms Act that deal with selling firearm parts to unauthorised persons. The Christian Democratic Party supports the increased penalty of five years imprisonment because parts can be reassembled to make a new firearm. The penalty for selling firearm parts illegally on an ongoing basis has been increased to 20 years imprisonment.

It is the normal practice for bills to provide maximum penalties, although magistrates and judges rarely impose them. Those who commit serious offences often receive nowhere near the maximum penalty. Along with the community, I believe we have reached the point where consideration should be given to whether minimum sentences should be stipulated as a form of mandatory sentence to force judges to impose harsher penalties.

This year there appears to have been a change of culture concerning the use of handguns. Previously, weapons were not part of our Australian culture, but their use is now far more widespread. Indeed, the Hon. David Clarke read out a litany of instances of armed robbery to highlight the seriousness of the problem. Almost on a daily basis armed robberies are being committed on shops, garages and homes, sometimes on numerous occasions at the same premises, and this has forced some owners to sell. Their businesses have almost become a target for violent criminals.

Armed robberies also appear to be committed in certain parts of Sydney, although these cannot be labelled crime areas. Offences do occur in country towns and other parts of the city, but armed robberies seem to be prevalent in the Western Suburbs. During October armed robberies were committed in Blacktown, Toongabbie, Alexandria, Guildford, Casula, Liverpool, Wiley Park, Drummoyne, St Peters, Rouse Hill, La Perouse, Newtown, Rooty Hill, Auburn and Hoxton Park. Shootings took place in Toongabbie, Liverpool, Wetherill Park, Fairfield, Campsie, Greenacre, where there was a murder, Sadleir, Macquarie Fields, Narellan Vale, Mays Hill, St Peters, Annandale and Punchbowl. It appears that certain people regard the use of weapons as acceptable; as part of their culture they are prepared to carry and use weapons to commit armed robberies. That change of culture is very disturbing and it appears to be more prevalent in New South Wales than in the other States.

I believe that some sections of the community have now changed their attitude towards the police. There have been clear signs of a lack of respect and co-operation. People are prepared to insult police and display other anti-police behaviour. Indeed, at present the Government, the Minister for Police, and the Commissioner of Police are facing a wall of silence. In the past, police have been highly regarded and citizens have done their best to co-operate with them and to give evidence if they witnessed an attack or a robbery. Nowadays, people living in one street, and sometimes in an entire suburb, no longer will co-operate with the police. That culture of silence and adverse behaviour towards police is making it very difficult, if not impossible, for police in a democratic society to apprehend offenders. That is very serious.

The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill but suggests that education programs should be put in place to help change community attitudes towards police, who should be wholeheartedly supported in their duties. Anyone can become the victim of an armed robbery or shooting, and we want the police to be able to carry out their duties effectively and efficiently. We support the bill but urge further action to change this worrying culture of using weapons and anti-police behaviour.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [5.39 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their comments on this bill. As I have noted, the amendments in this bill will provide operational police with the tools they need to better target illegal guns and gun crime. The amendments are part of a package of initiatives that also provide for increased detection and enforcement, improved security industry controls, better safe storage, and the need for greater national control. The bill will provide police with the tools they need to investigate, apprehend, and prosecute illegal gun traffickers and criminals who use guns.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [5.42 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 93GA (1), line 20. Omit "14 years". Insert instead "25 years".

No. 2 Page 3, schedule 1 [2], proposed section 93GA. Insert after line 30:

(4) A court is to impose a sentence of at least 10 years imprisonment on a person who is found guilty of an offence under this section.

(5) Subsection (4) applies to a person who is convicted of an offence under this section only if the person was of or above the age of 18 years at the time the offence was committed.

(6) If subsection (4) requires a person to be sentenced to a minimum of 10 years imprisonment, nothing in section 21 (or any other provision) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 or in any other Act or law authorises a court to impose a lesser or alternative sentence.

(7) Nothing in this section affects the prerogative of mercy.

The effect of these amendments is clear and simple. Basically, they will increase the maximum penalty for drive-by shootings from the 14 years proposed in the bill to 25 years imprisonment. They will also put in place a minimum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. If we are serious about dealing with gun crime we need to give the legislation some teeth. We need to show criminals that we are serious, and we will accomplish that by increasing the maximum penalty from 14 years to 25 years. Also, it is important that there is a minimum penalty. It is no good having a maximum penalty if we do not have a minimum penalty. It is like pouring water into a glass that has no bottom. It can simply be juggled and evaded.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [5.43 p.m.]: I support these amendments. The most significant thing about them from my point of view, apart from their attempt to introduce a more realistic sentence—that is, a tougher sentence—is that they introduce the notion of a minimum sentence, as well as a maximum sentence of 25 years. That is Opposition amendment No. 1. One weakness in our justice system is that when a judge says to someone, "You are going to gaol for 10 years," he is really saying, "You are going to gaol for up to 10 years." As we know, people are often released after a much shorter term.

By imposing a minimum sentence of 10 years for a serious matter like a gun crime, the court is saying to a convicted person, "You are going to gaol for at least 10 years." In other words, the offender is going to gaol for 10 years and no less, and he should understand that there is no getting out, no letting off, no remission. That might be inappropriate and draconian for some crimes but not for gun crimes. The court is dealing with people who have no regard for human life, people who are driven simply by the power that an illegally owned gun gives them. They have to be dealt with—I think the expression is "eyeballed"—by the judicial system in a way that makes them understand just how seriously we consider their offences to be. These are very good amendments and I am happy to support them.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [5.45 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendments. As part of the illegal handgun package released by the Government on 23 September the Sentencing Council has been asked to examine all serious firearms offences with a view to implementing standard minimum sentences. The Sentencing Council will consider consistent minimum sentences for all serious firearms offences in addition to drive-by shootings. The new drive-by shooting offence will allow police to specifically target and prosecute criminals who use guns to intimidate and threaten others by shooting into buildings. The act of shooting at a building is sufficient to establish the offence. It does not require that any person be injured as a result of the shooting, or that there even be an intent to injure a person. The police retain the option of charging the offender with attempted murder or murder, which raises the maximum penalties to 25 years and life.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [5.46 p.m.]: I am not surprised by the Hon. Henry Tsang's response, because I knew what it would be. Unfortunately, I think it shows that the Government lacks the political will to get serious about this kind of offence and introduce groundbreaking laws that would show these characters we are fair dinkum. It is a great pity.

Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Clarke Mrs Forsythe Miss Gardiner Mr Jenkins Mr Lynn Reverend Dr Moyes

Reverend Nile Mr Oldfield Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce Mr Ryan

Mr Tingle Tellers, Mr Colless Ms Cusack

Mr Breen Mr Burke Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Costa

Mr Della Bosca Mr Egan Ms Griffin Ms Hale Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald

Ms Rhiannon Ms Tebbutt Mr Tsang Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Mr Gallacher	Dr Burgmann
Mr Gay	Mr Obeid
Mr Harwin	Ms Robertson

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [5.55 p.m.], by leave: I move my amendments Nos 1 and 3 in globo:

No. 1 Page 5, schedule 2. Insert after line 2:

[1] Section 7A

Insert after section 7:

7A Offence of unauthorised possession or use of fully automatic firearms

A person must not possess or use a firearm referred to in item 1 of schedule 1 unless the person is authorised to do so by a licence or permit.

Maximum penalty: imprisonment for 25 years.

No. 3 Page 9, schedule 2. Insert after line 19:

[8] Section 84 (3)

Insert "7A," after "section".

The purpose of these amendments is to proactively recognise what I and many other people, including some senior police officers, believe: that we are now moving into an age where criminals will use fully automatic firearms and semiautomatic firearms. If we pass this bill in its present form, with no reference to the likely use of fully automatic firearms, we will leave a gap that will make the Act very much less effective. Then, when we become aware that fully automatic firearms are being used, we will have to introduce another bill to bring the law up to date. I am one who believes that the law should not have to be updated but that when certain things become fairly apparent the law should be equipped to deal with them.

That might sound like a convoluted explanation, but it simply means that we should include in the bill a provision that a person who possesses or uses a fully automatic firearm as outlined in the prohibited weapons section of the Act should be subject to the maximum penalty the law can provide. Because of the rate of firepower and the magazine capacity of this type of firearm, this person is an added danger to society. Therefore, before the use of automatic weapons becomes a common event we should be prepared to say: If you are caught in possession of a fully automatic firearm—a submachine gun, if you like—you will face a maximum gaol sentence of 25 years. I know 25 years seems a long time, but firearms that can discharge 50 rounds of ammunition in one or two seconds are more dangerous than any other weapon. We should be prepared for their advent by warning people in advance that if they use them they will be in deep trouble.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [5.58 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the amendments.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [5.58 p.m.]: The Government does not accept these amendments, which propose penalties that are out of step with the other penalties in the Firearms Act.

Amendments negatived.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [5.59 p.m.]: I move Shooters Party amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 6, schedule 2 [3], line 16. Insert "solely" before "relates".

As I foreshadowed in my contribution to the second reading debate, this amendment is necessary to avoid the possibility of innocent people being caught by a well-intended part of this bill that is designed to make it difficult and punishable for people to take part in the sale or supply of a part 4A prohibited firearm. Proposed section 51BA (2), as it currently stands, states:

A person (the seller) must not sell, or knowingly take part in the sale of, a firearm part to another person (the purchaser), being a firearm part that relates to any kind of prohibited firearm or pistol …

I am concerned about the words "relates to" because while the firearm part may relate to a prohibited firearm or pistol, if it were a standard mechanism of a firearm such as a trigger series or a magazine, it could also be legitimately sold to be fitted to a legal firearm or pistol. Therefore, a person buying one of these firearm parts legally could be caught by this provision because it is believed that he might be buying it for a prohibited firearm. An innocent, legal and proper transaction could end up in a person facing the penalties provided in this proposed section. Therefore, I have moved my amendment to insert the word "solely" before the word "relates", so that the proposed section will read:

A person (the seller) must not sell, or knowingly take part in the sale of, a firearm part to another person (the purchaser), being a firearm part that solely relates to any kind of prohibited firearm or pistol …

The amendment solves the problem because the provision now clearly identifies that only a firearm part for a prohibited pistol is caught by the Act. I commend the amendment.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [6.01 p.m.]: The Opposition supports this amendment.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [6.01 p.m.]: The honourable member has made such a convincing case that the Government accepts his amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amendment and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [6.05 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The main purpose of this bill is to transfer responsibility for privacy protection to the Ombudsman. Since the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act was introduced in 1998 the former Privacy Commissioner and his office, Privacy NSW, have been responsible for implementing the new legislation. Privacy NSW has overseen the development of privacy management plans for public sector agencies and provided advice to agencies on compliance with the Act. It has also monitored the conduct of internal reviews by agencies and investigated complaints about alleged breaches of privacy. The Government believes that conferring the functions of the Privacy Commissioner on the Ombudsman will further enhance privacy protection in New South Wales.

Privacy protection, complaints handling, and accountability within public sector agencies will be improved for a number of reasons. First, the Ombudsman has the capacity to further improve privacy outcomes by drawing on his high public profile and expertise in public administration. The Ombudsman's recommendations are afforded considerable respect by agencies and the public generally. The Ombudsman's expertise in handling complaints and improving standards of administration is well recognised. Second, the Ombudsman has extensive experience in considering issues relating to information management, including privacy management. The Ombudsman, through his role in monitoring agencies' compliance with freedom of information laws, has developed substantial knowledge about the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by agencies.
The Ombudsman already has responsibility for promoting the protection of privacy in some areas. Under the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act, the Ombudsman has a role in ensuring that service providers uphold the legal and human rights of persons who receive community services, including their need for privacy and confidentiality. Under the Telecommunications (Interception) (New South Wales) Act, the Ombudsman is responsible for ensuring that law enforcement agencies comply with accountability procedures when documenting intercepted telephone conversations. The Ombudsman has also been instrumental in ensuring the development of proper procedures for the protection of privacy. For example, the Ombudsman has had significant input into the development of guidelines for monitoring improper access by police officers to the police computer system.

The third reason why privacy protection will be improved by this bill is the Ombudsman's dual role in relation to privacy and freedom of information will promote an integrated and coherent approach to information handling. This will foster a proper balance between the right to privacy and other important rights and interests. The right to privacy, as honourable members know, is not an absolute right. No-one would suggest that reliance on the right to privacy should unduly compromise other important rights and interests, such as public safety or government accountability. The right to privacy must be balanced with the need for a safe and open society. Integrated oversight of information handling is being increasingly adopted by countries with the Westminster system of government. The United Kingdom and the Northern Territory are two recent examples where responsibility for freedom of information and privacy is invested in a single independent regulator. Many Canadian provinces have also adopted this model. The Governments of Western Australia and Tasmania are currently considering the adoption of a single regulator to oversee freedom of information and privacy.

A recent survey by Privacy NSW has confirmed that agencies adopt an integrated approach to information handling. More than 60 per cent of privacy contact officers are also freedom of information officers, and the overwhelming majority favour joint freedom of information and privacy meetings. Moving privacy protection to the Ombudsman will reduce duplication, complexity, and confusion for the public and agencies. The bill does not diminish the protection of privacy. No amendments are made to information protection principles. The bill will see privacy protection moved to the pre-eminent public sector administration watchdog and given a more central role in Government accountability. The resources of Privacy NSW will be transferred to the Ombudsman to ensure that he is adequately resourced to perform the new role.

I turn now to the key provisions of the bill. The bill transfers the functions of the Privacy Commissioner under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, the Health Records and Information Privacy Act and other legislation to the Ombudsman, subject to some minor modifications. The minor modifications are as follows. The bill transfers the function of the Privacy Commissioner to issue written directions under section 41 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act and section 62 of the Health Records and Information Privacy Act to the Minister, rather than the Ombudsman. Likewise, the function of the Privacy Commissioner to determine a relevant privacy law under section 19 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act for the purpose of authorising disclosure of personal information to persons outside New South Wales is transferred to the Minister, rather than the Ombudsman.

These modifications are consistent with the role of the Ombudsman to recommend, rather than direct, a course of action. The Minister will have a statutory responsibility to exercise each of these functions in consultation with the Ombudsman. The function of the Privacy Commissioner to issue guidelines under the current Health Records and Information Privacy Act must be exercised with the approval of the Minister. The direct transfer of this function to the Ombudsman with the requirement for Ministerial approval is not appropriate in light of the independence of the Ombudsman from the Government. To address this concern, the bill distinguishes between the two types of guidelines issued under the Health Records and Information Privacy Act. Under the bill the Ombudsman will assume the power to issue guidelines under section 58 of the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002, without ministerial approval. These are best practice guidelines relating to the protection of health privacy and other privacy matters. Although the approval of the Minister to issue these guidelines will no longer be required, consultation will occur.

Guidelines that determine the scope and applicability of exemptions to health privacy principles under the Health Records and Information Privacy Act are distinguished from best practice guidelines by the bill. These guidelines will be made by the Minister. The Minister will be required to consult with the Ombudsman and seek public comment on the draft guidelines before they are made. The Minister is best placed to determine the scope of such exemptions, following consultation. The statutory review of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act is required by the current Act to commence on 30 November 2003. The bill extends the time frame for the conduct of the statutory review by 12 months. This is to ensure that the Ombudsman has sufficient time to consider the operation of the legislation, and provide informed input into the review.

Decisions by the Ombudsman in individual cases will be excluded from the scope of the review. This is to preserve the independence of the Ombudsman and is consistent with the powers of review exercised by the parliamentary committee on the Ombudsman. The Privacy Advisory Committee is abolished by the bill as oversight of the exercise of privacy functions will be provided by the parliamentary committee on the Ombudsman. I take this opportunity to thank current and former members of the Privacy Advisory Committee for their valuable contribution to privacy protection. The transfer of privacy functions to the Ombudsman will enhance privacy protection, complaints handling, and accountability of public sector agencies. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [6.06 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I have the pleasure of introducing the Podiatrists Bill, which will protect the health and safety of the public of New South Wales by providing for effective regulation that ensures podiatrists are fit to practise. The bill proposes the repeal of the Podiatrists Act 1989 and its replacement with new legislation for the registration of podiatrists, which is appropriately updated to strengthen and improve regulation in a similar fashion to improvements that have been made to the regulatory system for other health professionals, such as medical practitioners. The bill is the result of an extensive review process that has taken place over the past few years, consistent with the requirements of competition policy. The review has involved detailed conversation with all relevant stakeholders and, in particular, the podiatry profession. The bill having been introduced, honourable members should note the opportunity for detailed consideration over the coming parliamentary recess, as the bill is permitted to lie on the table. The podiatry profession will also enjoy the opportunity for further detailed consideration over the coming months as the bill lies on the table.

The bill proposes revision of the composition of the Podiatrists Registration Board. It is proposed that the board now comprise seven members, those being two podiatrists nominated by the Minister from a panel of podiatrists nominated by the Australian Podiatry Association (NSW) and other relevant professional organisations; one podiatrist nominated directly by the Minister; one podiatrist involved in education; an officer of the Department of Health or the public health system; a community representative and a legal practitioner. Honourable members will recall that health professional legislation introduced and passed in recent times has included cognate amendments to the Public Health Act 1991 in respect of any restrictions on health care practices necessary in the interests of public health and safety. Their placement in the Public Health Act underpins the public health and safety rationale of any restrictions. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

This bill takes a similar approach in relation to certain foot care practices. It is proposed that these practices be restricted to medical practitioners, podiatrists and registered nurses employed by the public health system, a licensed private hospital, a licensed day procedure centre or a licensed nursing home. The practices proposed to be restricted in this manner are, first, the undertaking of invasive procedures performed on the feet and toenails under anaesthesia. This practice would be restricted to medical practitioners and podiatrists. Second is the undertaking of debridement of hypertrophic and necrotic tissues of the foot, and the undertaking of treatment of the feet of immuno-compromised or vascular-compromised individuals and individuals suffering from peripheral neuropathy. These practices would be restricted to medical practitioners, podiatrists and registered nurses employed by a public health organisation, a nursing home, a private hospital or a day procedure centre. However, they are in no way intended to prevent other health professionals such as chiropractors, osteopaths and physiotherapists from undertaking their normal professional practice in respect of immuno-compromised or vascular-compromised individuals and individuals suffering from peripheral neuropathy.

I turn now to the specific provisions of the bill. To ensure that the welfare of patients is the paramount consideration in administering the Act, clause 3 of the bill states that the objective of the legislation is to protect the health and safety of the public by providing mechanisms to ensure that podiatrists are fit to practise. The bill will achieve this objective through a number of initiatives. The first of these initiatives is to provide that the board may refuse to register a person, or register him or her subject to conditions, where it is not satisfied that he or she is competent to practise. For the first time it will be an express requirement that applicants for registration must be competent to practise. As part of the requirement for competence, clause 14 of the bill provides that the Podiatrists Registration Board would have the power to conduct an inquiry into a person's competence. If, following an inquiry, the board is not satisfied as to the applicant's competence it will be able to grant registration subject to conditions or refuse to register the applicant. This power to conduct an inquiry will also apply when a person applies to have his or her registration restored.

The second initiative within the bill, to ensure that podiatrists maintain their competence, is the introduction of a more robust annual renewal process. This process will require practitioners to submit annual declarations to the board on renewal of registration. Clause 20 of the bill provides that these declarations will cover criminal convictions and findings, ongoing good character, the refusal by another jurisdiction to register the person, the details of any suspension or cancellation of registration or the imposition of conditions in another jurisdiction or by another health registration board in New South Wales, whether the practitioner is registered with another health registration board in New South Wales, significant physical or mental illness that is likely to affect a podiatrist's ability to practise, and continuing professional education activities.

In addition to practitioners being required to provide the board with an annual declaration detailing any criminal findings, clauses 21 and 22 of the bill also provide for the board to be notified about practitioners who are the subject of criminal findings. Under these provisions courts will be required to notify the board of practitioners who have been convicted of an offence or made the subject of a criminal finding in respect of a "sex or violence offence". Essentially, a criminal finding is one where an offence has been proven but a conviction has not been recorded. A "sex or violence offence" is an offence involving sexual activity, acts of indecency, child pornography, physical violence or the threat of physical violence. Practitioners will be required to notify the board within seven days if they have been convicted of an offence of a type that courts are required to report, or if they have sustained a criminal finding in relation to a "sex or violence offence", or if they are facing criminal proceedings for a "sex or violence offence" where the allegations relate to conduct occurring in the course of practice or involving minors.

The third significant initiative is part 4 of the bill. Part 4 introduces a new disciplinary system, similar to the model applying to a number of other health professions. Clauses 24 and 25 provide for a two-tier definition of misconduct based on the definitions in the Nurses Act. The adoption of the two-tier definition, which includes both unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct, will allow the board to deal with both serious and less serious complaints in the most appropriate manner. Clause 26 of the bill provides the grounds for a complaint about a practitioner. The grounds for complaint have been drafted to be consistent with the grounds for complaint in the Health Care Complaints Act, the changes in the grounds for refusing a person registration, the introduction of the two-tier definition of misconduct and the introduction of an impaired practitioners system.

The bill proposes a Podiatrists Tribunal, which would deal with complaints when practitioners are charged with professional misconduct. The tribunal would be chaired by a legal practitioner with at least seven years experience, and include two podiatrists and a consumer selected by the board. The tribunal would hear the more serious complaints about practitioners, and the board would, where appropriate, conduct inquiries into complaints that are less serious. The bill also proposes the establishment of a Podiatry Standards Advisory Committee. The committee would be used by the board as an expeditious and expert mechanism to inquire into complaints about podiatry services that the Health Care Complaints Commission does not propose to investigate. Those complaints will generally be at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness. It is proposed that the committee chair be a podiatrist nominated by the board. In addition there would be two other podiatrists selected by the Minister from a panel of practitioners put forward by the board. There would also be a consumer representative on the committee.

Due to the importance of complying with the rules of natural justice, board members would not be eligible to be appointed to the committee. Precluding board members from sitting on the committee will ensure that complaints are not considered by the same individuals in different capacities. The bill provides that members of the committee be appointed for a fixed term of four years. The committee will investigate complaints and make recommendations to the board for its resolution. Included as part of the committee's investigatory powers will be the power to require a practitioner who is the subject of a complaint to undergo skills testing. Skills testing will assist the board in dealing with complaints about professional standards and in ensuring that practitioners maintain appropriate professional standards.

It is not proposed that the committee have the power to determine complaints, but it would be able to facilitate the patient and the practitioner reaching an appropriate agreement. Should the committee, during its investigations, reach the view that a complaint raises an issue of unsatisfactory conduct which requires referral for a disciplinary inquiry, the board will be obliged to follow this recommendation. In such cases the board would either conduct an inquiry into the complaint or, for the most serious matters, refer the complaint to the tribunal for a hearing.

Honourable members will be aware of the valuable role that the Health Care Complaints Commission performs in investigating complaints about health service providers and in appropriate cases instituting disciplinary action against practitioners. I emphasise that, under the new disciplinary provisions, the Health Care Complaints Commission will continue to play an important role in the investigation and prosecution of complaints. As part of the board's powers to protect the public it will be able to impose conditions on a practitioner's registration or suspend that registration, where it is necessary to do so to protect the life or the physical or mental health of any person.

This leads me to part 5 of the bill, which proposes a system for the board to manage impaired practitioners. The provisions of part 5 of the bill are modelled on provisions in the Medical Practice Act, which have operated successfully for a number of years. The rationale for such a system is that practitioners whose ability to practise is impaired by factors such as physical or mental illness, or drug and alcohol abuse, can be managed and assisted before those problems develop to such an extent that patients are placed at risk. Following the impairment process, the board will be able to place conditions on a practitioner's registration or suspend that registration where it is satisfied that the practitioner has agreed. Where the practitioner does not agree to the recommendations of an impaired registrants panel, the board will have the option of lodging a complaint about the practitioner and having that complaint dealt with by the tribunal or at a board inquiry.

The bill includes comprehensive appeal mechanisms to ensure that there are appropriate checks and balances in the disciplinary system. Where a complaint is heard by the board there is a right to appeal to the tribunal, and for that appeal to be by way of a fresh hearing. There is also an avenue for a practitioner to appeal to the tribunal on a point of law. Where a complaint is heard by the tribunal there is a right to appeal to the Supreme Court. However, such an appeal may only be made on a point of law or in respect of the sanction that is imposed by the tribunal. In the interests of administrative effectiveness and efficiency the board will have the power to delegate certain of its functions and to establish committees. The establishment of committees will allow the board to co-opt outside expertise from both the podiatry profession and other professions for specific matters, such as education.

The provisions of this bill are aimed at ensuring that the public can continue to have confidence in podiatrists and to expect the highest standards of competence and conduct from the profession. I am therefore pleased to introduce the Podiatrists Bill 2003 and allow the bill to lie on the table of this House over the forthcoming parliamentary recess. This will provide the opportunity for interested parties generally, and the podiatry profession in particular, to consider detail of the bill. In the course of the legislation review the Department of Health conducted extensive consultation with the podiatry profession. Consultation with the profession will continue while the bill lies on the table. I welcome comment on the bill and, in particular, comment on the proposed restrictions on certain foot care practices. I welcome any suggested amendments to the bill which improve its effectiveness in the public interest. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [6.08 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Podiatrists Bill, the object of which is to protect the health and safety of members of the public by providing mechanisms that ensure that podiatrists are fit to practise. The Opposition will not oppose the bill. All health Acts, as honourable members well know, are being reviewed in accordance with the National Competition Policy Agreement and principles. The current Podiatrists Act allegedly restricts the provision of services by whole of practice. Since 1999 the legal branch of New South Wales Health and officers of the Minister for Health have consulted with podiatrists about altering the Act. The aim of this bill is to ensure greater public safety as well as the removal of anti-competitive clauses from the Act. The bill is similar to other health bills that have come before the House in the past few months.

It is a shame that the consultation process suffered a major setback a few weeks ago when legislation was introduced in another place with a series of amendments about which the Australian Podiatry Association had very little warning. I applaud the efforts of my colleague the honourable member for Hornsby, Judy Hopwood, who managed to ensure that the Government delayed the passage of the bill and took the time to consult properly with key stakeholders before it passed through its remaining stages in that House. Judy Hopwood has a vast understanding of the podiatry profession. She worked for several years as the executive officer of the Australian Podiatry Association, during which time she initiated a number of processes to assist in ensuring greater communication between allied health professionals. In particular, she was instrumental in establishing a podiatry outreach program for rural and remote communities. This bill does not address the lack of podiatrists in rural and remote areas. I encourage the Government to examine that issue and to encourage people to become podiatrists. I am pleased that the Government has listened to the passionate calls of the honourable member for Hornsby for greater communication and consultation.

Honourable members may well ask what is so important about podiatry. Podiatry is typical of many health care procedures the relevance of which we do not understand until we or someone close to us need treatment. Podiatry services are important and those who perform them are highly trained. Therefore, it is important that we as legislators pay attention to the detail and ensure that the legislation is appropriate for all concerned. This bill repeals the Podiatrists Act 1989 and re-enacts provisions relating to the regulation of podiatrists with the following modifications: additional mechanisms will be available for the accreditation and recognition of qualifications entitling a person to register as a podiatrist; there will be a requirement for competence to be registered; and the Podiatrists Registration Board will be given the power to inquire about competence.

The bill provides a mechanism for establishing a code of professional conduct and clarifies the operation of that code. Registered podiatrists will be required to submit an annual return to the board detailing matters that establish their continuing competence and good character. I am pleased to note that this bill requires podiatrists to maintain competence through the introduction of a more comprehensive annual renewal process. We must ensure that we include those requirements in all legislation covering health professionals. Podiatrists must maintain their standards, training and knowledge. Given the increasing amount of information available and increased scientific research it is important that that requirement be included in every piece of legislation relating to health care professionals.

Registered podiatrists will also be required to notify the board of convictions and criminal findings of guilt that do not proceed to a conviction for various offences, and the courts will be required to notify the board of certain convictions and criminal findings against registered podiatrists. The bill introduces definitions of unsatisfactory professional conduct and misconduct. It provides that a complaint against a podiatrist may be made and dealt with even if the podiatrist has ceased to be registered. The board will be required to notify podiatrists of complaints made against them. The Podiatry Standards Advisory Committee will be established to inquire into less serious complaints about podiatrists and to make recommendations to the board in respect of the determination of those complaints. The advisory committee will be able to conduct skills testing of a registered podiatrist against whom a complaint has been made.

The bill provides mechanisms to enable the board to monitor and manage podiatrists who are impaired in their ability to practise. That process will replace the determination of complaints by professional standards committees with a determination by a hearing of the board. The board will also be authorised to make orders relating to fees charged for podiatry services when determining a complaint. The board will have seven members, including four podiatrists, an officer of the Department of Health, a legal practitioner and a community representative. Each member will be limited to serving three consecutive four-year terms. That is long enough for membership of any board. It means that people will not serve on the board for a lifetime. The board will be given powers to delegate its functions.

The bill will also modify the operation of the Criminal Records Act 1991 to facilitate the reporting and consideration of criminal findings affecting applicants for registration as podiatrists. The board will be required to notify other podiatry registration authorities of disciplinary action taken against a podiatrist. The bill provides that proceedings for an offence under the legislation can be taken within 12 months of the commission of an offence, and any conditions on a podiatrist's registration will be recorded in the register. Like legislation relating to other health professionals, this bill includes the restrictive practice provisions of the Public Health Act 1991. It will amend the Act to restrict the provision of invasive foot-care treatment to registered podiatrists and medical practitioners. It will restrict the performance of certain foot-care treatments to registered podiatrists, medical practitioners and registered nurses. Amendments to legislation relating to other health care professionals have caused concern and resulted in the need for consultation to work out who should be able to perform podiatry services.

The Opposition agrees that nurses should be able to perform some podiatry procedures, but podiatrists have some reservations about that. As a result, consultation was required to ensure that when no podiatrist was available another health care professional could step in. However, whenever a podiatrist is available he or she should conduct podiatry procedures. The two-day foot-care course, which is conducted by a podiatrist at the New South Wales Nurses Association and undertaken by nurses, is designed to enable them to perform basic foot-care procedures. It involves a completely different range and level of skills. The course is designed to teach only basic foot care, not complex procedures. Many services, such as the treatment of hypertrophic tissue, cannot be performed by nurses. I have had to find out what that condition involves and honourable members who are interested can speak to me about it later.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Does it hurt?

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: A lot; it is unpleasant. The people providing that treatment must know what they are doing. Only those suffering can understand how painful and limiting the condition can be. Podiatry treatment is essential for the elderly, and people with disabilities often have problems with their feet. I will not go into the gory details because some honourable members may have weak stomachs.

The Hon. Rick Colless: And it is dinner time.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: The Podiatrists Association therefore proposed that the bill be amended to prevent registered nurses, irrespective of the practice setting, from undertaking the debridement of hypertrophic tissue of the foot. The New South Wales Nurses Association expressed concern that the bill as originally drafted would prevent registered nurses from undertaking their normal nursing duties, including services for persons with certain medical conditions, persons in aged care facilities that are not licensed under the Nursing Homes Act, persons in residential facilities for people with developmental disabilities, and where the nurses are self-employed. It is important that appropriate public health and safety concerns be addressed with regard to nurses taking on those responsibilities.

The motto of the Australian Podiatry Association is "skill with integrity", and this is exemplified by the education and training afforded students of podiatry today and as maintained by the administration of the current Act. It may surprise some honourable members that podiatry students are taught at the University of Western Sydney and enter registered practice following a four-year course, many having completed an honours year. In 2001 a second university degree course commenced at the Albury-Wodonga campus of Charles Sturt University. The second course was the result of an increase in Federal funding to meet the work force and health needs of rural New South Wales.

Podiatrists are trained in the diagnosis and treatment of both common and more rare skin and nail pathologies of the feet. They play an important role in maintaining the mobility of many elderly and disabled people, and others. This is achieved through the monitoring of foot health, in particular of those with vascular problems such as diabetes. Podiatrists are recognised as important members of the health care team in preventing and managing lower limb complications for those living with diabetes.

The Australian Podiatry Association (NSW), representing approximately 90 per cent of podiatrists in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, supports any legislation that seeks to ensure the protection of all members of the community. The association considers that, for the most part, the current provisions of the Podiatrists Act adequately serve the community in the delivery of podiatry services, and allow for substantial levels of competition while ensuring appropriateness of care. The removal of anticompetitive content merely for the sake of it would be detrimental to public safety, and there would be unacceptable costs to the community in terms of public risk should this deregulation be allowed.

If other persons were able to practise podiatry, even if they were prevented from calling themselves podiatrists, the public would be unable to determine standards of care that could be reasonably expected from such service provision. The bill proposes the establishment of a Podiatrists Tribunal, which would deal with complaints when practitioners are charged with professional misconduct. The tribunal would be chaired by a legal practitioner with at least seven years experience, and it would comprise two podiatrists and a consumer selected by the board. The tribunal would hear the more serious complaints about practitioners, and the board would, where appropriate, conduct inquiries into complaints that are less serious.

Honourable members will be aware of the valuable role that the Health Care Complaints Commission performs in investigating complaints about health service providers and, in appropriate cases, instituting disciplinary action against practitioners. I emphasise that under the new disciplinary provisions the Health Care Complaints Commission will continue to play an important role in the investigation and prosecution of complaints. As part of the board's powers to protect the public, it will be able to impose conditions on a practitioner's registration, or suspend that registration where it is necessary to do so to protect the life or physical or mental health of any person.

The provisions of the bill are aimed at ensuring that the public can continue to have confidence in podiatrists, and to expect the highest standards of competence and conduct from the profession. The New South Wales Nurses Association and the Australian Podiatry Association support the bill as amended. I congratulate the Australian Podiatry Association on its efforts to improve the bill, to ensure that all its provisions meet the association's needs. The association is an organisation of the highest standards, and the podiatrists I have met always conduct themselves in an extremely professional manner. I am sure other honourable members have had similar dealings with the Australian Podiatry Association.

The proposed guidelines relating to nurses would be carried out in consultation with nurses and podiatrists. That big step forward has overcome one of the main hurdles relating to this debate. However, the Opposition remains concerned that there are no podiatrists in many areas of New South Wales. It is our hope that the Government will promote podiatry as a career. There are significant workplace issues surrounding podiatry, and podiatrists' conditions of employment in the public sector require attention. The Government must think outside the square to solve the problem of attracting podiatrists and other allied health professionals to rural and remote areas. Indeed, it is an issue we all need to address. In supporting this legislation the Opposition calls on the Government to put full effort into addressing those issues.

The Australian Podiatry Association is strongly of the view that where podiatrists are practising in public health facilities those practitioners should perform podiatry procedures. I note that there is a need to ensure that this measure will not be used as a work force solution to the problem of employing podiatrists in areas around New South Wales to which it is difficult to attract practitioners. I strongly urge honourable members to maintain their pressure on the Government to continue to value podiatry, and the highly skilled and professional manner in which podiatrists provide their services.

I congratulate everyone who has been involved in drafting the legislation. I particularly applaud the efforts of the honourable member for Hornsby, Judith Hopwood, and the shadow health Minister, Barry O'Farrell, in supporting the podiatrists of New South Wales. The Opposition does not oppose the bill as amended, and I commend it to the House.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Tony Burke) left the chair at 6.29 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Tony Burke): Order! I acknowledge the distinguished presence of His Grace Bishop Daniel, Bishop of the Diocese of Sydney and Affiliated Regions of the Coptic Orthodox Church, and members of the church accompanying him. I welcome Your Grace and the delegation as guests of the Premier.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [8.02 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.

The Coptic Orthodox Trust (NSW) Property Trust Amendment Bill 2003 proposes to amend the Coptic Orthodox Church (NSW) Property Trust Act to reflect the new Constitution of the Coptic Orthodox Churches in the Diocese of Sydney and Affiliated Regions, in response to a request from the Coptic Orthodox Church.
The Coptic Orthodox Church (NSW) Property Trust Act (the 'Act') was assented to in November 1990 and commenced on 21 December 1990. The aim of the Act was to constitute the Coptic Orthodox Church (NSW) Property Trust (the 'Trust') and to specify its functions, and to provide for the vesting of certain property in the Trust.

The Act was amended in 1993 to change the definition of 'Board' to reflect the then Constitution of the Church. Under the Act, the trustees of the Trust are the members of the New South Wales State Board of the Church.

On 8 October 2002 a new Constitution for the Diocese of Sydney and Affiliated Regions was approved by His Holiness Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St. Mark. This replaced the previous Constitution approved on 3 March 1989. Following the approval of the new Constitution, the Solicitors for the Church contacted the Government and indicated that the Act required amending in order to reflect changes in the new Constitution.

The principal change of relevance to the operation of the Act is that under the new Constitution it is the Bishop of the Diocese of Sydney and Affiliated Regions who is now the sole and exclusive authority in relation to financial matters in churches and in the diocese. Previously the managing body of the Church in all financial matters was the New South Wales State Board of the Church.

The Act is consistent with the previous Constitution but requires amendment to be consistent with the new Constitution. Specifically, the Bishop is to become the sole trustee of the Coptic Orthodox Church (NSW) Property Trust, replacing the members of the Board. A number of consequential changes are also required.

Solicitors for the Church have indicated that both the Board (who under the previous Constitution were the trustees for the Property Trust) and Church parishioners support the request by the Church to the NSW Government to amend the Act so that it will be consistent with the new Constitution approved on 8 October 2002 by His Holiness Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St. Mark.

The Bill continues the longstanding Government policy to assist churches to organise their financial and property affairs by sponsoring legislation in relation to corporate property trusts.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [8.03 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Coptic Orthodox Church (NSW) Property Trust Amendment Bill and it is a special honour to be called upon to do so. It is a very great honour for me to acknowledge and welcome here tonight in the gallery a number of distinguished members of the Coptic Orthodox Church for the Diocese of Sydney: His Grace Bishop Daniel, Bishop of the Diocese; Father Tadros Simon, General Vicar of the Sydney Diocese; Father Antonios Kaldas, who is in charge of Coptic schools in the Diocese; Father Gabriel Yassa, who is director of media relations; Dr Medhat Guirgis, a very good friend of mine who is the secretary of the General Board of the Diocese, and his wife Dr Sarah Guirgis; Mr Faiez Hanania, who is a senior adviser to the Diocese, and Mrs Hanania; Dr Adel Solimon, who is secretary of the Board of Education, and Mrs Solimon; and Miss Lisa Agaiby, who represents the Youth and Women's Committee of the Diocese. We welcome them here this evening.

The Coptic community in Australia, and especially here in New South Wales, is one that I have had, and continue to have, a close relationship with. I have many friends who are Copts and it is a community for which I have developed the highest regard. As many are aware, "Coptic" translates to mean "ancient Egyptian". That is because the Copts are indeed the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians. The Pharaohs of ancient Egypt are their lineal ancestors. The ancestors of the present-day Coptic people were the builders of the great pyramids of Egypt, the Temples of Luxor and the other treasured monuments and buildings of that civilisation of antiquity. History records for all time the achievements that they passed on to mankind in mathematics, geometry, astronomy, medicine and science. Their great library at Alexandria and its unsurpassed collection of documents, scrolls and other treasures is known to all students of history.

But, above all, the Coptic people have my admiration and I pay honour to them for another achievement. I honour them for their preservation and devotion to the Christian faith through nearly 2,000 years, a faith that has continued unabated despite constant adversity and hardship; a faith that has persevered since Christianity was brought to them by St Mark the Evangelist in those very earliest days of the Christian faith. The present-day teaching authority of the bishops of the Coptic Church and their authority to administer the sacraments is derived directly from Christ himself, having been bestowed upon the Apostles and thence from bishop to bishop down through 20 centuries to the present time in a line that is unabated and unbroken. The Coptic Church is recognised for its rich tradition of monasticism, which itself is steeped in and founded upon the Scriptures. As Luke 18:22 records:

Sell all that you have and distribute and come and follow me.

This is amplified in Corinthians 9:27:

I discipline my body and bring it into subjection lest when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.

And so from Egypt came a monastic tradition that spread throughout the Christian world, a tradition exemplified by St Anthony, St Bachom, St Makary the Great, St Amoun, St Herum, and many, many others. Over the generations the Copts have held steadfastly to the Christian faith despite great adversity and despite overt and covert discrimination and persecution. History attests to the great multitude of the Coptic faithful who have suffered martyrdom for the Christian faith. Their martyrdom over the ages has produced Coptic saints in great numbers. Their martyrdom and their sainthood has been sanctified through their persecution.

Tonight the Coptic community of New South Wales asks this House to support the Coptic Orthodox Church (NSW) Property Trust Amendment Bill and the Opposition is pleased to be able to join in doing so. We heartily support the bill. It is supported and encouraged by His Holiness Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St Mark. It is supported by the Bishop in New South Wales of the Coptic Orthodox Church. It is supported by the religious and by the laity. An overview of the bill defines its object to be:

… to amend the Coptic Orthodox Church (NSW) Property Trust Act 1990 to reflect the new Constitution of the Coptic Orthodox Churches in the Diocese of Sydney and Affiliated Regions.

At present the Coptic Orthodox Church (NSW) Property Trust Act 1990 constitutes a trust to deal with certain property. The trustees of the Trust are the members of the New South Wales State Board of the Coptic Orthodox Church, New South Wales.

On 8 October 2002 a new Constitution of the Diocese of Sydney and Affiliated Regions was approved by His Holiness Pope Shenouda. Under the new Constitution it is the Bishop of the Diocese of Sydney and Affiliated Regions who is the sole and exclusive authority in relation to financial matters in churches and in the Diocese. This bill amends the Coptic Orthodox Church (NSW) Property Trust Act 1990 to reflect that change. In effect, the Bishop of the Sydney Diocese will become the trustee of the Coptic Orthodox Church (NSW) Property Trust, thereby replacing the board that previously exercised that function.

I take pride in recording here tonight that the Coptic Orthodox Church has a very enviable and active record of service not only to the Coptic community but to the people of New South Wales generally. For example, it has fine achievements in charitable works. It is a growing community with some 70,000 members in New South Wales. The number of parish churches of the Coptic Orthodox community is spreading. They operate a seminary and a number of schools. Some months ago I was greatly privileged to be invited to attend a Coptic function in honour of His Holiness Pope Shenouda on the occasion of his visit to Sydney. What a religious leader of holiness and piety he is! He is a man of vision, leadership and wisdom. He follows in the tradition of monasticism for which the Coptic Church is so well known. He is held in high esteem by the other major Christian denominations and, indeed, by other faith traditions.

Bishop Daniel, who by virtue of the bill will become the trustee of the church's property trust, is sustained and beloved by the church membership as a man of learning and compassion. I can tell the House that he is a very popular local bishop. The Coptic people are, by nature, a peaceful and gentle people, even though they have suffered provocation and persecution, which overseas has been considerable and still exists. Revenge and fanaticism have never been part of their make-up. When they have been confronted with such behaviour from others, they have turned the other cheek. I believe their living of Christian virtues, their religious tolerance of others and their respect for the traditions and core values of our nation are some of the reasons they have so easily and successfully blended into Australian life. This is why they are so welcomed and so liked by the Australian community. They are admired in this country for their fine record of law-abiding conduct.

The Copts are a community that appear to have no problem with their youth, who are law respecting in their conduct and attitude. They are achievers in life. The State of New South Wales need not worry about juvenile delinquency, crime or other antisocial behaviour where the Coptic community is concerned. Such behaviour just does not exist. What a noble record for others to heed and follow. Maybe some others in our community could well learn from their example. I conclude by confirming the Opposition's support for the bill. We extend to the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Coptic community generally our deep respect, our good wishes and our heartfelt regards for the future.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.24 p.m.]: It is a great honour to support this important bill, the Coptic Orthodox Church (NSW) Property Trust Amendment Bill. I, too, welcome Bishop Daniel, the priests and leaders of the Coptic Orthodox Church who are present in the Chamber tonight. The object of the bill is to amend the Coptic Orthodox Church (NSW) Property Trust Act 1990 to reflect the new constitution of the Coptic Orthodox Church in the Diocese of Sydney and Affiliated Regions. On 8 October 2002 a new constitution of the Diocese of Sydney and Affiliated Regions was approved by His Holiness Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St Mark. Under the new constitution the Bishop of the Diocese of Sydney and Affiliated Regions is the sole and exclusive authority in relation to financial matters in the churches and in the diocese. The bill amends the Coptic Orthodox Church (NSW) Property Trust Act 1990 to reflect that change.

It is a great honour to speak in support of the bill because, for many years, I have had a close association with the Coptic Church, priests, members of the Coptic churches in Sydney and other places. I regard it as a privilege to have been invited to speak at many of the churches at Bexley, Arncliffe, Macquarie Fields and other places, and to be able to help in the formation of Coptic schools here in Sydney. I also had the privilege of visiting Egypt in 2000 AD and was invited to the Coptic Cathedral in Cairo when Pope Shenouda III conducted the Bible study. The cathedral was packed to overflowing—there were probably 7,000 enthusiastic Christians listening to the Pope give a Bible study in the same way that Our Lord Jesus Christ did when he was on Earth.

I was also privileged to be present when Pope Shenouda visited Sydney on a number of occasions. He has made five papal visits to Sydney. The visits of His Holiness stood out as a significant landmark in the life of the Coptic community in Australia. His visits were filled with immense blessing and were a great honour to the entire Coptic community. The presence of the leader of the Copts in Australia was, among other things, a rallying force for renewed spiritual life. It was undoubtedly an opportunity for spiritual revival rarely seen under other circumstances.

The other highlight in recent times was the appointment of Bishop Daniel as the Bishop of Sydney and Affiliated Regions. Bishop Daniel was appointed directly by Pope Shenouda III and was consecrated in the Coptic Orthodox Church in Bexley. Indeed, I was honoured to be one of the guests at the service when Bishop Daniel was enthroned as the Bishop in Sydney on 12 October 2002. That was a tragic day because it was the day of the Bali attack. It was the day on which there was great sadness in Bali but great joy here in Sydney for the Coptic Christians.

I was a guest at the anniversary dinner of Bishop Daniel's enthronement, which was celebrated 12 months later, on 12 October this year. The Coptic Orthodox Church is one of the oldest apostolic churches in the world. The Copts are the native Christians of Egypt and the direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians, a people with perhaps the longest recorded history. The term "Copt" is derived from the Greek word Agyptos, meaning Egyptian. The Egyptian basis of the Coptic Church cannot be stronger than the one that is established by its relationship with Our Lord Jesus Christ, who spent his early childhood in Egypt. He travelled from Sinai in the east to the valley of Nitria in the west and southwards to Assyut, the heart of Egypt. That is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew 2:15.

St Mark the evangelist and apostle, an African in origin, established the Coptic Orthodox Church in AD 42 in Alexandria, Egypt, and became her first patriarch. Before his martyrdom in Alexandria in AD 68 St Mark had ordained a Bishop by the name of Anianus, several priests and deacons. By the end of the second century Christianity had spread throughout Egypt. The Copts have suffered the fiercest persecutions in the entire Christian world, the worst being experienced during the reign of Emperor Diocletian. His aim was to destroy the church, but he failed, and we know that from the blood of the martyrs the church grows stronger. That happened with the Copts in Egypt.

The Coptic Orthodox Church is not self-centred but has spent a great deal of time in spreading the Christian message. Over the centuries it has sent missionaries to various parts of the world, to pagan tribes in those early years—to Libya, Ethiopia, Sudan, Sinai, Arabia and other places. Christianity was first introduced through these commercial and maritime relations. They even established a church in Belgium in those early years, so the church has a remarkable missionary outreach.

Today the Coptic Orthodox Church is the largest church in the Middle East with about 10 million faithful members in Egypt. The Holy Synod of the Coptic church comprises 86 metropolitans and bishops, headed by his Holiness Pope Shenouda III. Of the hundreds of monasteries that flourished in the deserts of Egypt, there are now 18 monasteries and eight convents. When I visited Egypt in 2000 I visited a number of monasteries. Some had been forced by persecution to build very high walls to protect the monks from attacks by various groups of people. Those monasteries survived but sadly, from hundreds, there are now 18 monasteries and eight convents. But they did survive despite those constant attacks.

An increasing number of well-educated young people are consecrating their lives to the ministry as parish priests, monks, nuns, deacons and deaconesses. Also, the Coptic church has opened many theological colleges throughout the world and is continuing the theological work of the school of Alexandria. As head of the oldest church in Africa, Pope Shenouda has been keen to extend the apostolic mission of St Mark across all of Africa. In June 1976 he ordained a number of bishops and others to commence missionary work among African tribes in Kenya. Today there are 33 Coptic churches, two monasteries and a vocational centre across seven countries, such as Kenya, Zambia, Namibia and South Africa.

Outside Egypt there are 80 churches in the United States of America, two theological colleges and St Anthony's Monastery in California, while in Canada there are 18 churches, a cultural centre in Ontario and two primary schools in Montreal and Ontario. Pope Shenouda III ordained a Bishop Paul for Mission in June 1995. In Europe there are more than 60 churches across 16 countries, including St Anthony's Monastery in Frankfurt, St Shenouda's Monastery in Milan, retreat centres in Birmingham and Hamburg and a cultural centre in France.

The coming of the Egyptian Christians—the Copts—to the Australian continent represents the coming of the most ancient culture from European settlement to one of the youngest countries in the world. So they have continued in an unbroken succession for thousands of years. The Copts bring with them not simply financial riches but riches in culture and the benefit of good education and training in many professions. They bring also the ability to retain their own culture while becoming loyal citizens of their new homeland. More importantly, these people have brought to this modern country the richness of Alexandrian theology and spirituality.

The Egyptians from ages past were very much tied to their land and church. All through their long history they were known to be non-migrating people. For them to migrate meant to be cut off from their roots, to wither and die. However, as a result of a complexity of factors—a significant one being the population explosion in Egypt—a mild wave of immigration to Australia began in the mid-1960s. Being separated from their land, families and church, the first Egyptian settlers, who were few in number, found it difficult to survive in Australia.

Consequently, they started voicing to their church in Egypt their earnest desire for a priest to cater for their spiritual and pastoral needs. At the same time the church in Egypt became concerned about the welfare of its migrating flocks. As a result, a priest was ordained to serve the Egyptian Orthodox community in Australia, Father Nematalla. He arrived in Australia on 21 January 1969 and prayed the first service on Australian soil in Melbourne. Thus the transplanting of one of the most ancient cultures began in the new world. The 1970s, 1980s and 1990s saw a growing influx of Egyptian Orthodox migrants to Australia.

As I speak from my heart, the main benefit is the spiritual message that the Coptic Christians have brought to our land. Their church occupies the heart of the holy Bible, for she is the object of the redemption which the Bible proclaims and which God purchased at the cost of Christ's blood. Thus the Coptic church and other churches represent the communion of believers, the household of faith and salvation. The Alexandria fathers postulated the church as one holy universal and apostolic Church, as stated in the Nicene creed.

The Coptic church particularly believes that the church is one because it is one body with one head, Jesus Christ. It is holy because the Holy Spirit dwells in God's people in as much as they respond to his call to salvation and the gift of eternal life. The church is universal because it is whole, complete and lacking in nothing both universally and in every local parish. It is apostolic because it continues in the Apostles' teaching and experience. So we thank God that from the seed that was sown in those early days such a strong church now exists in Australia.

In November 1999 Pope Shenouda established Australia's first Coptic diocese of Melbourne, embracing Canberra, Adelaide, Perth and New Zealand, and appointed Bishop Suriel as Australia's first Coptic Bishop. The diocese of Melbourne consists of 16 churches: seven in Melbourne, two in Perth, one in the Australian Capital Territory, one in Adelaide and three in New Zealand; two schools; St Anthony's Monastery; nursing homes; and a theological college. There are 18 priests.

As I said, in Sydney in 2002 Pope Shenouda ordained His Grace Bishop Daniel for the diocese of Sydney, which includes New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory. This large diocese consists of 14 churches in Sydney, one on the Gold Coast and one in Brisbane; a theological college; three schools; St Shenouda Monastery; a Coptic youth centre; and a conference centre. It is served by 25 priests. Today there are 27 vibrant churches in Australia served by 38 priests: 14 in Sydney, 7 in Melbourne, 2 in Queensland, 1 in Adelaide and 2 in Perth and Canberra. A unique feature of all Orthodox churches in Australia is the presence of relics of saints and martyrs that they have brought with them from Egypt.

In conclusion, the church is involved in many other activities. From my observation, even though the people of Egypt, the Copts, were looking for a new place, I believe God led them to Australia. I believe God led these strong spiritual Coptic Christians to Australia as reinforcements to strengthen the Christian culture, conventions and faith of our nation. They do not detract in any way but they add strength to our nation and help fulfil that early title given to it: The Great South Land of the Holy Spirit.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [8.27 p.m.]: I support the Coptic Orthodox Church (NSW) Property Trust Amendment Bill. In June 2002, as a result of expansion of the church in Australia and Asia over the past 15 years, His Holiness Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St Mark, officially ordained and appointed His Grace Bishop Daniel to be the first bishop with jurisdiction for the Australian States of New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory, as well as South-East Asia and North-East Asia. Bishop Daniel has responsibility for the pastoral services and activities of the Coptic Orthodox Church in these regions. It is this appointment and the subsequent introduction of a new constitution that calls us to amend the Coptic Orthodox Church (NSW) Property Trust Act.

His Grace Bishop Daniel, who under these proposed amendments is to be the sole trustee of the Coptic Orthodox Church (New South Wales) Property Trust, has had a long and distinguished career both academically and within the Coptic Orthodox Church. His academic credentials in particular serve to re-emphasise the importance that the Coptic Orthodox Church places on the role of education. Having graduated with a high distinction average from Alexandria University in 1982 with a bachelor degree in civil engineering, Bishop Daniel then completed a certificate in computer studies. The following year, in 1984, he was ordained as a monk with the name Father Mettaous El-Antony in St Anthony's Monastery, Red Sea, Egypt. The years 1986 and 1987 saw His Grace ordained as a priest and then as a hegomen.

Bishop Daniel served as a priest for many years in Khartoum in Sudan, becoming the general vicar of the diocese of Khartoum and affiliated regions in 1997. Following this, he served in the United Kingdom and Ireland, being the general vicar for the diocese of Ireland, Scotland and the United Kingdom from 2000 until his ordination as Bishop for Sydney and Affiliated Regions. Between 1995 and 2000, leading up to his appointment in Australia, he completed and then organised courses in church management, completed a course in gender awareness, translated various courses into Arabic, was a member of the executive committee of the Sudanese Council of Churches and became a permanent member of the Sudanese Engineering Council. Finally, and notwithstanding all of these qualifications, His Grace is also fluent in English, Arabic and Coptic, and has a good command of Nubian. It is a great honour for the Coptic Orthodox Church to have people of the eminent ability of His Grace Bishop Daniel appointed as Bishop of Sydney and Affiliated Regions.

On a personal note, on Thursday 10 July this year I had the great honour of representing the Premier at a State reception in honour of the distinguished participants of the Orientale Lumen II: Australasia and Oceania. This was an international ecumenical conference held in Sydney between 8 and 11 July, the theme of which was "An Exchange of Gifts: Western and Eastern Churches Face Their Post-Modern Context". At this reception I was fortunate to meet many leaders of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Christian churches, including leaders of the Coptic Orthodox Church, and in particular His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy, General Secretary of the Coptic Orthodox Church. I was also fortunate to be able to call upon young Damian Kassabagi, a member of the Coptic Orthodox faith who works for the Premier, for advice during the reception.

I commend the bill to the House on my own behalf and on behalf of the Hon. Tony Burke, who is unable to participate in this debate because he is now presiding over the House. I wish the representatives of the Coptic Orthodox Church who are present in the gallery tonight, and all the members of the Coptic Orthodox Church in New South Wales, every success in the future.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [8.31 p.m.]: During World War II I was a child in Box Hill in Victoria. My neighbours were Mr and Mrs Magdy Massoud, formerly of Egypt. It was the first time in my life I heard the word "Copt". Later, in 1980, I became good friends with Dr Samuel Habib in Cairo, and I am glad to see that Bishop Daniel remembers that great, beloved friend. He helped me greatly in my understanding of the Coptic Orthodox Church.

The bill will amend the Coptic Orthodox Church (NSW) Property Trust Act to reflect the new constitution that has come into place as a result of the appointment of Bishop Daniel. The Act was amended in 1993 to change the definition of the board to reflect the then constitution of the church. Under the Act, trustees are members of the New South Wales State board of the church. In October 2002 the new constitution for the diocese of Sydney and Affiliated Regions was approved by His Holiness Pope Shenouda III. We congratulate the church on its ministry in Australia and its growth over the years. Although it is generally recognised that the church has been in existence in Australia since the 1960s with the movement and migration from Egypt and other parts, from my own experience I know there were Copts in this country 20 years earlier. The original families that came out in the 1960s have now grown to thousands of people.

Anyone in this particular disciplined field who has spent a lifetime studying theology and the history of the Christian church knows the contribution made by the Coptic Church over 2,000 years. There will always be some who want to dispute the exact date of St Mark but no-one disputes that St Mark went to Egypt. No-one disputes that the church dates back to the first century. It is one of the few groups of Christian organisations or denominations in the world that can claim to be truly apostolic in the sense of being established by the Apostles and to have a continuous line of history inspired by some of the most incredible eras of persecution during that time.

For the best part of 600 years the Coptic Church was the major Christian body, unquestioned by other religions, in Egypt. Since the Arab invasion of Egypt in 1632 the Coptic Church has suffered constant pressure, not to say persecution. The Coptic Orthodox Church is one of the oldest apostolic churches in the world and, as has been mentioned by my distinguished predecessors in this debate, we are referring to the ancient people of Egypt who contributed so much to the history of the world. St Mark was one who established the main theological seminary in Alexandria, and I probably do not need to mention that the great library of Alexandria was one of the seven wonders of the world. Possibly the greatest act of vandalism in the history of the world was the destruction of all the learned knowledge said to be held in the manuscripts in the library at Alexandria. Out of that came spiritual renewal, because it was then the theological centre, established by St Mark and used over the years.

The Coptic Church has been a missionary church in spite of its ties to the land of Egypt and to the River Nile. It has taken the message of Christianity not only throughout the North Africa—I remind honourable members that by the fifth century the whole of North Africa was Christian—but also up the Nile to Sudan. I was very interested earlier to hear something I did not know: that Bishop Daniel is an expert in the language of the Nuba people. The Nuba people are one of the great races. Many people do not understand that they had pyramids in Nuba, pyramids even larger than those in Egypt. To this day, the Nuba people are a persecuted Christian minority. In Sudan the persecution at this moment is horrendous, and in the past few years literally thousands of people, including Coptic Christians, have been put to death in Sudan. The persecution that occurs in Egypt right to this moment, and in southern Egypt particularly, is very, very serious.

The missionary endeavours of Coptic Christians took the gospel of Jesus Christ to places like Switzerland—the great Coptic evangelist St Maurice is commemorated in the name St Moritz in Switzerland—Belgium and France. Many people do not understand that Copts were among the first missionaries to go to Ireland and that they made a significant contribution to Christianity there. From the time of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 the church has always had strong theology.

Many denominations, of which mine, the Uniting Church in Australia, is one, believe in the theology of the weather vane and move depending on which way the wind blows. They could well take a lesson from the orthodox churches in general, and the Coptic Orthodox Church in particular, which do not change with every wind of fashion or the latest paperback theology. They have held onto the central crux of the Christian faith. If one has had the privilege, as I have, of meeting with leading theologians around the world in world conferences, one will always notice that contributions coming out of the Coptic Orthodox Church are the most theological of all the contributions. They are always based around the centrality of the person of Jesus Christ, the authority of the Bible as the scriptures of God and centred on the incarnation, the logos, of Jesus Christ. They were the great strings played on the violin of Methodism, if I can make one little pitch for the Methodist Church.

The Hon. John Ryan: The first Coptic Orthodox Church in Sydney was a Methodist Church before it started.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: Thank you. My church was established 192 years ago in Sydney, but 192 years is but a minnow by comparison with the history of the Coptic Orthodox Church. John Wesley made it very clear in the words of one of the great hymns written by his brother, Charles: "Our God contracted to a span incomprehensively made man." That is the heart of orthodox faith—the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ, who took upon himself our sins, who died upon the cross and was raised from the dead. As my learned leader of the Christian Democratic Party—I have been waiting to say that for years—said, the Coptic Orthodox Church is the largest church in the Middle East.

Over the years the Coptic Orthodox Church has provided leadership in the councils of churches around the world. The Coptic Orthodox Church is closely tied to the mother church in Egypt, as can be seen from the appointment of bishops. There will come a time when this tie will be threatened because second, third and fourth generation Coptic young people will want to have a greater say. I predict that in 20 or 30 years, when most of us will not be here, with the exception of the young members on the benches behind me, we will have to face the broadening and greater democratisation of boards. The authority of the bishops on issues such as property is essential in keeping the church true to its theology. The hierarchy and authority of the church has been important since the day of St Mark in Egypt.

If I might speak as a Protestant minister, I am warmed by the emphasis of the Coptic Orthodox Church on what we claim to be Protestant doctrines. The Protestant doctrines were actually the development of the great orthodox and, in some cases, Catholic doctrines. So we go back in tradition to the great doctrines of the faith: the Bible being God's word, which is infallible and inspired and the written record of the living word, Jesus. We have the living word and we have the written word, which bears witness to the living word. From that have come the great sacraments. But what warms my heart about the sacraments as a practising minister is, first of all, baptism of believers by immersion.

Throughout my life I have only baptised by immersion because that is the biblical tradition. Baptism is extremely important in the same way that communion within the Coptic tradition is celebrated with unleavened bread, which is the traditional form of the celebration of sacrament. Throughout my 40 years as a priest celebrating the communion I have always used unleavened bread for the same reason I have practised baptism by immersion and the use of healing oil. In our sacrament of marriage our church believes, as does the Coptic church, that marriage is of a man and a woman. It is not a same-sex union. The holy orders of priests, the order of the episcopate, the oversight of the church, the priesthood of ministries, and the priesthood of all believers, as we would say in the Protestant tradition, together with deacons, are doctrines we share with our Coptic friends.

Over the years the Copts in Australia, despite their small number, have always been very active in inter-church relationships. They have taken a leading role within ecumenical councils, such as the Australian Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches, and the New South Wales Council of Churches. They have rooted themselves in Australian society. They hold their heads high among the denominations of this country. I believe that they are helping those of us whose denominations are wandering away from the great foundations of the scriptures and the sacraments.

The Islamic persecution that has been faced by Copts in Egypt, the Sudan, and other places in Egypt is virulent to this day. I receive the Ecumenical Press Service via e-mail, and almost every day I read of deaths in the Middle East as a result of fundamentalist Islamic persecution of these Christians. Remarkably, when I have spoken with Coptic priests and monks I have never heard one word of vendetta, hatred, or opposition to the people of Islam. That is extraordinary, because there are other people who are persecuted around the world who would like to see the end of persecution. But the Copts are interested in putting down their roots, turning the other cheek, practising forgiveness, and taking it upon themselves to suffer vicariously because they believe that through their suffering they are sharing the suffering of Christ. I commend this bill and I praise, without reservation, the people of the Coptic Orthodox Church.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [8.45 p.m.]: It is a pleasure for me to participate in tonight's debate, particularly in the presence of Bishop Daniel and other members of the Coptic Orthodox Church. The bill we are debating is a dry piece of administrative machinery, but it gives us the opportunity to pay tribute to a very valuable community within Sydney and Australia. It is my pleasure to do so. Most members would know of my church background, that I am actively involved in the Anglican Church and the Diocese of Sydney. My church tradition is a little lower, perhaps, than that of others who have just delivered magnificent speeches. Nevertheless, I assure members of the Coptic Orthodox Church that I share with them a devotion to our Lord and an understanding of how a living Christian faith adds to one's life.

The Coptic church tradition was established by the apostle Mark, the writer of the Gospel of St Mark, and St Barnabus, after the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. It is one of the most ancient Christian churches in that it is able to trace its establishment back to Alexandria in about 50 AD. Copts take great pride in the fact that the celebration of the Lord's Supper probably took place in the house belonging to its founder, St Mark. Sadly, the Coptic church in Egypt has had to endure a significant level of persecution and hardship. Its members do not have the freedom that we have in Australia to practise their faith. Various means have been employed from time to time to either persecute or discriminate against them, largely by fundamentalist Muslims. The forms of persecution have ranged from outright physical torture and violence to discriminately charging them crippling levels of taxation.

One of my friends in the Liberal Party, Mr Sam Escarios, who attends the church at Macquarie Fields and, I am sure honourable members will be proud to know, was recently elected my branch president, recently visited family members in Egypt. On his return he told me a story of how a police officer, even just last week, disrupted a celebration of the mass. When the priest refused to stop the celebration of the mass, the police officer grabbed the chalice, which contained the elements of the Lord's Supper, and threw it to the ground. No doubt one of the things the Coptic community appreciates most about Australia is the wonderful freedom we are able to offer them to practise their faith.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes would be interested to know that the Coptic church in Australia was established when a number of people of the Coptic tradition purchased an old Methodist church at Railway Road, Sydenham. The church, which was given the name of St Mary and St Mina, was the first Coptic church in Australia and one of the first to be owned by Coptic migrants outside of Egypt. Australia plays a very important role in the development and expansion throughout the world of the Coptic church.

The first liturgy in the newly purchased church was celebrated on 29 March 1970. The church was relocated to Bexley in February 2001, after being located at the Sydenham site for 31 years. Since moving, the church has expanded, and so have its services. The church is now able to offer a greater range of services to cater for the different needs of its congregation, including a private school. The church has also been responsible for establishing many other churches throughout Sydney and now there is an extensive network of Coptic churches not only in Sydney but throughout Australia. Those churches are located in Western Sydney at Blacktown, Mount Druitt, Punchbowl, Miranda, Rhodes and Kirrawee. A church with which I am very familiar at Macquarie Fields is named after the current Pope of the Coptic Church, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III.

The Coptic Church in New South Wales is also making a significant contribution to the wider community. As the shadow Minister for Community Services, I obviously take a great interest in the services it provides for the aged, youth, the disadvantaged and new migrants. The Coptic community is extremely proud of the services it provides for young people. It focuses not only on their material needs but also on their spiritual growth and their development of leadership skills. Many of the church's youth activities are sponsored and promoted by the Coptic Orthodox Youth Association, which is led primarily by young Coptic people. It coordinates a variety of youth programs, including outings, sporting programs, social and musical events, and, of course, activities that promote an interest in religious life and devotion.

Five Coptic soccer teams participate in the New South Wales churches soccer competition: two teams from St Mary's and St Mina Church, one from St Mark's, one from St George, and one from St Bakhomis. There is also a distinguished representative soccer team called the Pharaohs, which recently travelled to Victoria and gave its Melbourne namesake a soccer lesson. The Coptic Church has three scouting troupes: one at St Mark's, one at St Mary's, and one at St Abanoub. The church also sponsors three schools: St Mark's Coptic Orthodox College at Wattle Grove, St Bishoy Coptic Orthodox College at Mt Druitt, and St Mary's and St Mina Coptic Orthodox College. The church has demonstrated great vision by purchasing about five acres of land at Berkshire Park in Western Sydney for a high school.

The church has a 10-acre site at Macquarie Fields on which it has developed a campsite to support youth and wider church activities. It is equipped with a swimming pool, cabins, and playing fields for all kinds of recreational activities. The church has also organised summer camps and holiday activities for young people during school holidays. Many of these youth activities owe their impetus to three imaginative and innovative young priests: Father Arsanious Barsoun from St Abanoud's at Blacktown, Father Sharobeem Sharobeem from St Mary's and St Bakhomio's at Kirawee, and Father Gabriel Yassa from St Michael's at Mount Druitt.

In addition to youth activities, the church is also working with newly settled migrants. It has collaborated with the Migrant Resource Centre at Blacktown to provide information to families, including parent effectiveness courses and seminars on resolving conflict between parents and teenagers—a course that I might find useful. I believe the church has also been brave enough to arrange and implement some personal development and sex education courses for families with pre-teenage children. Father Shenouda Mansour from St Antoniou's and St Paul's at Guildford has established a soup kitchen program and street services using volunteers from the church and is making a valuable contribution to addressing the growing problem of homelessness in the nearby Parramatta CBD. From the nearby church at Rhodes, Ms Yvonne Tannous has been providing an effective service to newly arrived migrants, helping them to settle into our community.

At the other end of life, the church is also providing services for the elderly. As yet, it has not been able to raise sufficient capital to provide the more traditional forms of aged accommodation. It has had to rely on innovative strategies to provide a series of in-house programs for the elderly. It has assisted them by organising youth volunteers to undertake home maintenance and home care. Those programs not only provide invaluable assistance to the elderly and allow them to stay in their own homes but also build the character of the young volunteers. However, the church has a larger vision. Primarily as a result of the leadership of Bishop Daniel, a committee has been formed to investigate the possibility of providing an aged care facility on land the church owns at Mt Druitt, Macquarie Field or Castle Hill.

As I have consulted with many members of the Sydney Coptic Orthodox Church one person has been mentioned over and again as the driver of and the inspiration for much of this activity. That person—Bishop Daniel—is with us this evening. In the short time that he has been in office he has provided a valuable, energetic and dynamic level of leadership. Much of the activity I have mentioned this evening has been initiated by him in one way or another. One of his congregation said to me, "He is driving us nuts with his energy." We value having someone of that calibre in our community.

Bishop Daniel was born in the Sudan. He has engineering degrees and impressive academic qualifications in theology, including a doctorate. He was ordained a priest on Palm Sunday as Father Mettaous El-Antony in the Cathedral of St Mary in Khartoum by the hand of His Late Eminence Metropolitan Daniel. He was responsible for preaching in the Nubian Orthodox Church in the Nubian Mountains. After that he served with Bishop Antony, Bishop of Ireland, Scotland and England in the Church of St George, and with Pope Athanasious in Newcastle. On 23 June 2002 he was ordained the Bishop of Sydney and its Affiliated Regions by the hand of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, Pope and Patriarch of the See of St Mark, with the new name of Bishop Daniel. We pay enormous tribute to him and wish Bishop Daniel well in the many endeavours he intends to pursue while he leads the Coptic Orthodox Church of Sydney. He provides inspiration as one of the two Coptic bishops in Australia.

As I said, this may be a piece of dry, administrative legislation, but it gives honourable members a valuable opportunity to wish members of the Coptic Orthodox Church well and to thank them for the contribution they make to ensuring that Sydney is enjoyable and that Australia is a wonderfully rich and diverse country in which to live.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [8.56 p.m.]: It is encouraging to us all to bear witness to how faith can strengthen and guide Christians through adversity and terror such as that experienced by the Coptic community. I enthusiastically add my support to the words of the Hon. David Clarke and other honourable members and add my welcome to His Grace Bishop Daniel and members of the Coptic Orthodox Church community who have joined us this evening. I look forward to the further success of the Coptic Orthodox Church in New South Wales. May its numbers grow well beyond the 70,000 Copts in this State who already share the Coptic faith and values.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Minister for Justice, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Citizenship) [9.57 p.m.], in reply: The Government thanks honourable members for their contributions to this debate and joins in acknowledging the work done by the Coptic Orthodox Church in Sydney and its Affiliated Regions under the guidance and leadership of His Grace Bishop Daniel, whom I was pleased to meet for the first time on the occasion of the recent celebration of the anniversary of his enthronement. I have nothing to say in response to the remarks made by honourable members, except to correct the Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, who advised us, quite wrongly, that Orthodox Christians use unleavened bread, as does he.

Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes: I said "the Coptic Orthodox Church".

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: They do not; they use leaven bread. All Orthodox Churches use leaven bread. The honourable member might change his practice.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [9.01 p.m.]: This is yet another bill that the Government introduced with grand assurances about how it had undertaken consultation and had the support of all the relevant groups. And yet again, fundamental flaws were identified after the bill reached Parliament, and the legislation has been held up as the affected groups have lobbied. Nonetheless, it now seems that finally an agreeable arrangement for all parties has been reached. We have a new version of the Podiatrists Bill to consider, after only a few hours notice, and give a meaningful response. There is no doubt that podiatry is an essential service with far-reaching effects on the lives of many New South Wales residents. Although often taken for granted, there are few things more essential to one's mobility and quality of life than one's feet. Damaged or painful feet can effectively disable an otherwise healthy person, and can affect every aspect of life, from employment to family to social status.

With an increasingly ageing population, care of the feet assumes ever-increasing importance. For older people, one of the best ways of keeping fit is by walking. The American Podiatric Medical Association undertook a study of men over the age of 60 and found that even very moderate amounts of walking "lowered the risk of death from cancer and cardiovascular disease and—in general—prolonged life". This essential form of exercise—which is even more vital for the elderly, whose other exercise options may be limited—relies entirely on healthy feet. Feet are not only one of the hardest parts of our bodies—

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: They're very sensuous.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Indeed, they are. They also contain a quarter of all our bones. As the years go on, decades of wear and tear can start to take their toll, and problems with feet often create postural or back problems, and can even lead to circulatory and general health breakdown. Problems with the foot disproportionately affect disadvantaged groups within the community, who may have a long history of being unable to afford suitable footwear or who are subject to poor diet.

Everyone knows that prevention is better than cure—although the Government may try to forget it when budget time comes around and our health and community services ask for funding. Nonetheless, in podiatry, early intervention, often of the simplest kind, such as regular changing of dressings, can make a profound difference. Timely professional treatment can save the need for radical surgery, including amputation, prevent disability, and save individuals and society the enormous cost of people's loss of mobility and damage to their quality of life.

It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that this service is available as part of our public health system. Yet the Government has a problem with podiatry. As with many areas of the public health system under pressure from decades of underfunding and neglect by successive governments, we have an acute shortage of public hospital podiatrists. Only 600 registered podiatrists service the whole population of New South Wales. As we have grown accustomed to hearing, this shortage is particularly acute in rural areas. What is more, with such a shortage the difficulty of attracting qualified and experienced people to the public system is greatly increased by the higher income available in private practice.

In putting forward this legislation, the Government sought to create a shortcut, potentially allowing underqualified people to deliver podiatric services. The Greens have the greatest respect for registered nurses, and it is unfair to put these hardworking and overburdened people under an additional strain by requiring them to provide a professional service for which they may not be appropriately trained. Nurses are not a cheap source of extra labour for the Government. The fact that they are so scurrilously underpaid is one of the ongoing scandals of our health system, and forcing nurses to take up extra responsibilities because the Government has not been able to assure a sufficient number of specialists is not acceptable.

The Greens would welcome a scheme that ensured comprehensive training and an appropriate additional allowance to enable registered nurses to take up podiatric responsibilities. However, should this change be made, the Government would be faced with many of the same difficulties it currently encounters, as it would have to wait for the training to be completed before the shortage was addressed. I understand that a number of podiatrists currently in training will come into the system over the next two years to offer some relief for the current shortage. However, I remain concerned that until the underfunding and systematic undermining of our public hospital system is addressed, podiatrists will join other medical specialists and nurses in voting with their feet and leaving the public system.

The overall scheme put forward in this legislation is similar in many ways to the industry registration schemes we have already seen pass through this House. The Greens are cautious about schemes that put industries in charge of moderating and disciplining themselves. Therefore I welcome the retention of the Health Care Complaints Commission as the first line of complaint and the route for resolving more significant problems. The Podiatry Standards Advisory Committee, as a body entirely appointed by the Minister, may not be an ideal mechanism to deal with serious complaints. I welcome the limitation of its jurisdiction to fairly minor matters.

Finally, the opportunity for the board to create committees with members from outside the board is both an opportunity and a risk. I welcome the opportunity for members of the profession and interested members of the public to add their expertise and energy to the deliberations of the board. However, it is also important that this mechanism is not used to exercise undue influence over the board, including influence by the Government. With these cautions, the Greens support the legislation.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [9.08 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate. The Podiatrists Bill was introduced to the other place on 2 July and was allowed to lie on the table for consultation. Since that time there has been much consultation with the professions. Podiatrists perform an important function in our community and are recognised for their pre-eminent role in delivering safe foot care to New South Wales residents. The Australian Podiatry Association has played a significant and constructive role in improving the bill, which ensures that the public of New South Wales can receive safe and appropriate foot care. I urge honourable members to support the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [9.10 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.

The Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 was passed during the Budget session of Parliament 2002.

The Act amended the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 to exclude all liability arising from a terrorist act involving a motor vehicle, from the Compulsory Third Party (CTP) motor accidents insurance scheme for the period 1 January 2002 until 1 January 2003.

In the spring session last year the Motor Accidents Compensation Further Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 was enacted, extending the temporary terrorism exclusion for a further 12 months, until 1 January 2004.

The motor accidents scheme terrorist exclusion was introduced in response to changes in the international reinsurance market.

After the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, international reinsurers withdrew unlimited liability cover for terrorist related losses.

In introducing the amendments last year the Government indicated that the action of reinsurers had serious potential to impact on the viability of the NSW Green Slip scheme as it left CTP insurers exposed to a potential liability that could not be covered by reinsurance.

The Government also indicated that should no viable alternatives emerge then it would be necessary to extend the terrorism exclusion further into the future.

The NSW Motor Accidents Authority (MAA) has been closely monitoring the reinsurance position and assessing the requirements for further action.

Arising from discussions with re-insurers and information available from international sources, the MAA is of the view that terrorism cover for CTP reinsurance will continue to remain unavailable for the immediate future.

The reinsurance market conditions which necessitated the introduction in 2002 of the terrorism exclusion for the motor accidents scheme remain unchanged.

In November 2002 the Commonwealth Treasurer wrote to the States and Territories offering to consider coverage for State/Territory statutory insurance schemes under a proposed national scheme for replacement terrorism insurance.

NSW responded to the Commonwealth indicating its interest in commencing discussions with a view to extending the Commonwealth scheme to cover the NSW CTP scheme.

To date the Commonwealth has established a reinsurance replacement scheme for commercial property and associated public liability and business interruption insurance.

However, there has been limited Commonwealth progress on the issue of the possible inclusion of State and Territory statutory schemes.

Whilst NSW will continue to pursue discussions with the Commonwealth to assess the feasibility of including the CTP scheme in a national approach for terrorism cover, those discussions will not be finalised before the expiry of the terrorism exclusion currently in place until 1 January 2004.

It is therefore necessary to further extend the Motor Accident Scheme terrorism exclusion.

The Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2003 proposes that the motor accidents scheme terrorism exclusion continue to operate until a date appointed by proclamation.

I reiterate the Government’s commitment to continue to pursue discussions with the Commonwealth, to determine whether an affordable alternative arrangement can be put in place.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [9.11 p.m.]: I so enjoyed the second reading speech of the Parliamentary Secretary that I thought I should speak on the bill on behalf of the Opposition. The Opposition does not oppose the Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Terrorism) Bill, which arises from the unfortunate insurance position that occurred after the very tragic and disgraceful events of 11 September 2001. As a result of those events and other international issues it became almost impossible for insurers to obtain reinsurance—a fundamental part of the international insurance market. That had an impact not just on the international insurance market but also on the New South Wales insurance market and, in particular, on the motor accidents compensation market where a number of compulsory third party [CTP] insurers were exposed to potential liabilities in order to comply with the requirements to provide CTP insurance under our present scheme and the fact that they may not have been able to obtain reinsurance in the international marketplace.

The Opposition continues to have some concerns about the motor accidents scheme as it has been amended and implemented by this Government. In particular, we continue to have concerns about the fact that the premiums have not been decreased to the level that one would have expected, given the fairly harsh changes to compensation available to victims who had to make claims under this scheme. Of course, the scheme is subject to review by the Standing Committee on Law and Justice Committee of this House, and one of the issues that will continue to be of concern is the level of insurer premiums and how that factor impacts on premiums. However, the bill is merely a continuation of the temporary exclusion on cover that was implemented following the 2001 terrorist attacks. The bill also removes expiry dates for sunset provisions, which were initially included, and continues them indefinitely until a date appointed by proclamation. The Opposition will continue to monitor the issue of insurance premiums and insurer profits to ensure that the scheme does not run forever as it is now structured. However, given present circumstances, the Opposition does not oppose this bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.15 p.m.]: The Greens have some concerns about this bill. On 9 April last year my colleague Mr Ian Cohen addressed the House on the original bill, which exempted the consequences of an act of terrorism from third party insurance and excluded from liability claims made in respect of uninsured or unidentified motor vehicles against the nominal defendant. It is worth noting that in April last year when the Greens expressed concern about the short-term nature of that bill we were ignored. Now the Government is forced to find another bandaid. Certainly this policy issue must be addressed. Time and again in this House Ministers have said that by enacting legislation or changing the law, we should not leave a great void in other areas. Yet that is exactly the situation that this bill perpetuates.

By removing the liability of insurance companies in circumstances in which a vehicle is involved in an act of terrorism that causes injury, loss of life or damage to property, the Act does nothing but assist and cater to the insurance industry. Nothing at all is being done for the victims of an act of terrorism. The insurers are being protected, not the actual victims. Again the Government backs the insurers. The bill extends the exclusion from the Compulsory Third Party [CTP] Scheme of all liability arising from a terrorist act involving a motor vehicle. A green slip does not insure the owner or driver of a motor vehicle against a liability that is attributable to an act that can be characterised as an act of terrorism. In other words, a person may be innocently caught up in an act of terrorism while driving his or her car and not be covered by the CTP scheme.

If the Government is to leave individuals involved in such situations uninsured, there should be some other mechanism to cover individuals who are innocently caught up in acts of terrorism and injured. The Government should compensate these individuals to the same level as it compensates people who suffer a similar injury or who die from circumstances not caused by terrorism. The Greens believe the Government should come up with a scheme to cover the uninsured before it goes ahead with legislation such as this—legislation that facilitates comfort for the insurance industry, which is, and always has been, extremely well off. It is a sad indictment of the Government that it is protecting the insurance industry instead of making moves legislatively to protect individuals who, simply by reason of bad luck, may find themselves involved in such a situation. Once again, ordinary people are not being looked after by this Government.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [9.18 p.m.], in reply: Since the problem of insurance for acts of terrorism emerged post-September 11 2001 the Government has pressed the Commonwealth to develop a national response to address the withdrawal of terrorism cover. The Premier first wrote to the Prime Minister in November 2001 calling for a national summit on the issue. In October 2002 the Commonwealth announced its intention to establish a national scheme for replacement terrorism insurance. The Commonwealth announcement specifically noted that the proposed national scheme may extend to State and Territory schemes. The Commonwealth subsequently wrote to the States and Territories offering to consider coverage for State and Territory statutory insurance schemes under the proposed national scheme for replacement terrorism insurance.

New South Wales immediately responded to the Commonwealth and indicated interest in commencing discussions with a view to extending the Commonwealth scheme to cover the New South Wales Compulsory Third Party [CTP] Scheme. On 1 July 2003 a national reinsurance replacement scheme for commercial property and associated public liability and business interruption insurance commenced. However, to date there has been only limited Commonwealth progress on the possible inclusion of State and Territory statutory schemes, such as CTP.

As has already been stated in this debate, the world reinsurance market circumstances, which necessitated the introduction of the terrorist exclusion, have not changed. Reinsurance is simply not available to CTP insurers for terrorism-related losses. On the information available to the New South Wales Motor Accidents Authority, it is not considered likely that the reinsurance position will improve in the short term. As I said, the Government has been pressing the Commonwealth since November 2001 to address this market failure in the insurance sector, which cuts across all insurance products.

The problem of terrorism insurance cover raises issues of national concern and must be addressed at a national level. The State Government has stated its commitment to continue to pursue discussions with the Commonwealth to determine whether an affordable alternative arrangement can be put in place. However, the fact remains that reinsurance for terrorism-related losses for CTP insurers is not available in the marketplace and no alternative national arrangements are in place. The extension of the terrorism exclusion approved by Parliament last year will be in place until 1 January 2004. The ongoing viability of the competitive green slip scheme in New South Wales is dependent on insurers continuing to write CTP business. Therefore, it is essential to amend the motor accidents legislation to ensure that the terrorism exclusion continues to operate beyond 1 January next year. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [9.24 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.

This bill provides for miscellaneous amendments to legislation affecting the operation of the courts of New South Wales. Schedule 1 amends section 68 of the Crimes (Local Court Appeal and Review) Act 2001 to clarify that a District Court judge has the power to take into account any suspension, driving or non-driving period, when setting a commencement date for a person's driving licence suspension after an unsuccessful appeal from a Local Court conviction. If the appeal to the District Court is unsuccessful, and the disqualification period imposed by the Local Court is confirmed, District Court judges are unclear as to their power to vary the commencement date to take into account any suspension imposed when the offence was committed, or any driving or non-driving period between the Local Court hearing and the District Court appeal. The amendment clarifies that District Court judges have adiscretion to vary the commencement date for a person's licence suspension after an unsuccessful appeal.

The Justices Legislation Repeal and Amendment Act 2001 repealed the Justices Act 1902. The change clarified the duties undertaken by "justices" working in court registries and substituted the term "registrar", which more correctly describes the administrative and quasi-judicial nature of the work. In section 284 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 the term "justice" was replaced with "judge". The Criminal Procedure Act 1986 previously provided that, if it appears to a "justice" that a person who is able to give material information about an indictable offence is dangerously ill and the person's evidence will probably be lost if not immediately taken, the justice may take the deposition in the same way as if a prosecution were then pending before the court. The effect of the changed wording has been to limit the range of persons empowered to take the depositions of dangerously ill persons. This poses difficulties when magistrates are not available on an urgent basis, particularly in rural circuit court areas where the same magistrate sits in several geographically remote courts. Important evidence may be lost if a person dies before it is possible to take a deposition.

Schedule 2 amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to restore the power to take depositions from dangerously ill adults to court staff who were previously able to perform the task. Schedule 3 amends the District Court Act 1973 by extending the number of locations where the District Court may sit. At present the District Court may only sit at "proclaimed places," which are locations that have been gazetted in the New South Wales Government Gazette. The amendment allows the court to conduct sittings at venues that are closer to where parties and witnesses live, and where the cause of action arose. It allows the court to arrange special sittings in rural or remote locations, where there are sufficient cases, most likely utilising a Local Court.

Schedule 4 amends sections 153 and 164 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to enable a single judge rather than the full bench—usually made up of three judges—to make an order to commence contempt proceedings pursuant to rule 237 of the Industrial Relations Commission Rules 1996. No change is proposed to the requirements that a full bench hears the actual proceedings for contempt. The amendments to the statute allow a single judge to order the commencement of contempt proceedings. This is consistent with the manner in which the Supreme Court may commence contempt proceedings.

Schedule 4 also makes two amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1996 regarding the Industrial Relations Commission's power to make orders prohibiting the publication of the names of persons—and any other details that may identify such persons—involved in proceedings before the commission. Such orders are called non-publication orders. It amends the Industrial Relations Act 1996 to confirm that the Industrial Relations Commission has the power to make non-publication orders at any time, where it is necessary for the proper administration of justice. The need for non-publication orders is especially important in Child Protection (Prohibited Employment) Act 1998 cases to protect the identity of individuals alleged to have been convicted of a "serious sex offence", the employer, such as a school, and/or other associates, such as a teacher's former students.

Schedule 5 amends the Jury Act 1977 to make it clear that a court may make an order for the separation of the jury after it retires even if it is not present when the order is made. By "separate" I am referring to the jury finishing for the day and leaving the court or jury room. This amendment prevents the delays and inconvenience caused by moving the jury backwards and forwards from the courtroom to the jury room. Schedule 5 also amends the Jury Act by increasing the penalty for disclosing the identity or address of a juror or any information likely to lead to the identification of a juror or former juror in a trial or inquest. The current maximum penalty is a fine of 50 penalty units for a corporation and 20 penalty units for a person. This is grossly inadequate as a sufficient disincentive to discourage publication and protect the identity of jurors. A penalty unit is currently set at $110.

The amendment increases the penalty for a breach of section 68 (1) in line with comparable provisions in other Australian jurisdictions. It is proposed to increase the penalty provisions in section 68(1) of the Jury Act 1977 by providing a fine of $250,000 in the case of a corporation and two years imprisonment or an equivalent fine—approximately 50 penalty units or $6,500—in the case of an individual. It is an integral and essential principle of the criminal justice system that the anonymity of jurors be preserved. Women and men who are called upon to perform this important task should be able to do so without fear, interference or harassment. It is imperative that jurors have confidence in the ability of the justice system to protect them. Increasing the penalty for disclosing information about jurors will strengthen the protection afforded to them by recognising the serious nature of the offence and providing appropriate punishment and deterrent.

Schedule 6 amends the Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970 to increase the jurisdictional limit of the general division of the Local Court from $40,000 to $60,000. There has been no increase in the jurisdictional limit of the Local Court since it was last adjusted in 1991. The jurisdiction of the District Court has twice increased during this time: to $250,000 in 1995 and to $750,000 in 1998. The District Court has also assumed unlimited jurisdiction in respect of motor accident claims. Taking into account consumer price index increases and the rise of average weekly earnings, the limit of the Local Court has significantly diminished in real terms over the past 12 years. The Local Court sits in 156 locations throughout the State, making it accessible to urban dwellers as well as people living in the most remote areas of the State. The Local Court provides a cheaper, quicker, simpler and more accessible forum for resolving civil disputes.

A series of practice notes introduced 12 months ago by the former Chief Magistrate has seen more matters being dealt with more quickly in the court's general division. The gradually diminishing limit of the jurisdiction has forced rural litigants to travel further to access District Court registries and sittings, and forced those with limited means to pay the higher fees that are applicable in the District Court for a relatively small dispute—one that in 1992 would have been capable of being dealt with in the Local Court. This adjustment will restore the value of the jurisdiction to what was intended in 1991, enhancing the services provided by the Local Court, particularly for rural litigants.

Schedule 6 also amends the Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970 to correct the reference to the Property Stock and Business Agents Act 2002. The Auctioneers and Agents Act 1941, referred to in section 59A (1) (a) of the Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970, has been replaced by the Property Stock and Business Agents Act 2002. This proposal updates the name of the legislation in the current Act. Schedule 7 amends the Oaths Act 1900 to provide barristers with the same authority that solicitors have under section 27 (1) to witness statutory declarations and swear affidavits. Section 27 (1) of the Oaths Act 1900 provides that a solicitor shall, except in so far as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by order otherwise directs, be authorised to take and receive affidavits concerning any matter within the jurisdiction of a court or required for the purpose of registering an instrument in New South Wales. Schedule 7 replaces the term "solicitor" with "legal practitioner", allowing barristers to perform these tasks.

Schedule 8 amends Part 7B of the Supreme Court Act 1970, which deals with referrals to early neutral evaluation. In early neutral evaluation, an impartial evaluator assists the parties to identify the issues in dispute, assesses the strengths and weaknesses of each party's case, and gives an opinion as to the likely decision of the court. The process is not a form of dispute resolution but is designed more to help crystallise the issues in dispute between the parties. Modern case management techniques adopted by the court achieve a similar objective. The amendments to sections 110H through to 110Q remove any reference to the process of early neutral evaluation, as it has not been useful in the Supreme Court because litigants generally have legal representation and have received advice on their prospects of success. Mediation, on the other hand, is useful as an alternate means of dispute resolution that has widespread acceptance among practitioners and parties.

Schedule 8 also amends section 110O of the Supreme Court Act 1970 to improve the mechanism by which mediators are appointed. The Chief Justice currently compiles a list of persons solely on the nominations of professional associations. This list becomes the panel from which mediators are appointed. The new provision allows the Chief Justice to issue a practice note providing a protocol for the nomination and appointment of mediators. Schedule 8 also amends section 110R to retain the same exoneration from liability that mediators and evaluators have under the current system. These amendments will improve the efficiency of the courts and provide an improved and more accessible service for legal practitioners and the public. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [9.25 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Courts Legislation Amendment Bill. Although the Opposition will not oppose the bill, it will move amendments to the bill in Committee, and I shall refer to those amendments later. The bill makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to legislation affecting the courts of New South Wales. This is the usual omnibus bill that gives effect to administrative or material changes to the way in which courts and the judiciary work. However, the bill includes a number of significant amendments, which I shall briefly identify.

The first seeks to amend the Crimes (Local Court Appeal and Review) Act 2001 to clearly state that a District Court judge has the discretion to vary the commencement of a suspension of a driving licence after the unsuccessful appeal of a conviction. The second seeks to amend the Criminal Procedures Act 1986 to restore the power of court staff to take the depositions of dangerously ill adults. The District Court Amendment Act 1973 will be amended to extend the number of locations where the court may sit. The locations no longer have to be proclaimed places. The Industrial Relations Act 1996 also will be amended to allow a single judge to make orders for the commencement of contempt proceedings in the Industrial Relations Commission. There is no change to the rule that the Full Court must hear the contempt proceedings. Further amendments to the Industrial Relations Act are intended to ensure that the Industrial Relations Commission has the power to make orders to prohibit the publication of names of persons or any information that could reveal their identity.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: What a disgrace!

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I will come back to that point in due course because it is a disgrace. The Jury Act 1977 will be amended to clarify that a court may make an order for the separation of a jury after it retires. Further amendments to the Jury Act will increase the penalty for individuals and companies who disclose the identity or address of a juror or former juror in a trial or inquest. The Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970 will be amended to increase the jurisdictional limit of the general division of the Local Court from $40,000 to $60,000. Although the Opposition will not oppose the amendment, I point out that it is now difficult for members of the general public to obtain in the Local Court the cheap and quick justice to which they are entitled.

Small businesses and others may find the increase in the jurisdictional limit for the general division of the Local Court of considerable concern. I am not sure that the Government and the Attorney General have their finger on the pulse with the workings of and the difficulties experienced by the Local Court these days. I hope that this change to the jurisdictional limit will provide an opportunity for stakeholders involved in the Local Court to put their concerns to the Attorney General, who will hopefully look at what is happening in the Local Court—the court of most importance to small business and the general community.

The Oaths Act 1900 will also be amended to give barristers the same authority as solicitors have to witness statutory declarations and swear affidavits. I am enrolled as a solicitor, so I was interested to learn that barristers will now have the same authority as solicitors to witness statutory declarations and swear affidavits. The Supreme Court Act is amended to remove references to "early neutral evaluation". This refers to an impartial evaluator assisting parties to assess the strength of their case. The Act is further amended to allow the Chief Justice to issue a practice note for a protocol as to the nomination and appointment of mediators. It is also amended to retain the same exoneration for liability that mediators have under the present system.

The Opposition has some concerns about the amendment to the Industrial Relations Act 1996, which provides for prohibition of the publication of names of persons or information that would reveal their identity in the Industrial Relations Commission. It is unable to support the proposition that such a non-disclosure order should be made for a whole set of reasons which may not necessarily be either in the public interest or, indeed, otherwise justifiable in the normal course of what would happen to a restraining order. Therefore, the Opposition will not oppose the bill but will move amendments in Committee. The first amendment will restrict the power of the Industrial Relations Commission in Court Session to make a non-disclosure order to situations in which such a non-disclosure order is in the interests of justice. We will also move an amendment to the powers of the Industrial Relations Commission by reinstating appeals to the Court of Appeal, which the Government removed in 1996.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.34 p.m.]: This is another bill that we have been given an unacceptably short time to consider. The crossbench was briefed on this bill only yesterday. Given that it is plainly not urgent, and that the Government must have known for weeks, if not months, that the bill was coming on, it is unacceptable that we were not advised of it weeks ago. We know that the Government has a problem in terms of how it treats the crossbench. In the past couple of days that treatment has been better, though sometimes it deteriorates. But this sort of behaviour, which is either incompetence or deliberately keeping us in the dark, will not do the Government any favours. The bill seems mostly harmless, which is a relief given other legislation we have been served up lately. Much of it appears to be quite worthy administrative improvements.

The Greens particularly support the amendments to the Industrial Relations Act that will confirm the powers of the commission to make orders prohibiting or restricting the disclosure or publication of matters before the commission. Such judicial powers are generally exercised to protect witnesses, and without them justice could often not be done. I understand that the Opposition will be moving an amendment to limit the power of the commission, and in that case the Greens will not support it. I make the point again that we have not been given sufficient time to consult fully with all the stakeholders we usually consult. This House has an important role as a House of review, and the Government is clearly trying to undermine that role by the way it is bringing legislation before the House.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [9.37 p.m.], in reply: I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Consideration in Committee ordered to stand as an order of the day.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG [Parliamentary Secretary] [9.39 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [9.39 p.m.]: Earlier today a most disgraceful incident occurred in another place. We saw the Australian Labor Party at its bastard best. My colleague the member for Southern Highlands attempted to address the Parliament on a matter of urgent, intense interest to the women of New South Wales, and she was deliberately bludgeoned by the member for Kiama, a bully and a bigot whose verbal bashings—

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Point of order: Under the standing orders it is inappropriate for a member to reflect upon a member in another place other than by way of a substantive motion. I am happy for the honourable member to proceed but I believe it should be in accordance with the standing orders.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I uphold the point of order. The Hon. Catherine Cusack may proceed. However, I remind her that imputations against the member for Kiama can be made only by way of a substantive motion, and not during the adjournment debate.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My colleague Peta Seaton was prevented from airing her important and pressing information about illegal brothels in the Illawarra. It is a sad day when that happens. I want to share with the House the issues that my colleague was prevented from airing. The issue concerns an SOS sent out today by Port Kembla businesses desperate to stop illegal street prostitution. I quote the words of my colleague:

The President of the Port Kembla Chamber has said the Premier's Department has not produced an acceptable solution to the problem of illegal brothels.

Clearly, the Carr Government has failed to do what is necessary to support businesses and protect exploited women.

Mrs Bryant sent my colleague proof—highly disturbing photographs of examples of the problems that are facing the people of Port Kembla, problems too big for the few but hardworking social workers. The photographs show makeshift tents and cardboard humpies, one with a person inside who appears to be a young woman lying on a filthy mattress on the ground, the area strewn with wine casks and rubbish—her shelter is a plastic curtain—and a stairwell with refuse, including what seems to be human faeces. Is this the street where sex workers conduct their trade? This is the filthy underworld of drugs, illegal sex work and exploitation of people at their lowest ebb in life—people who Jeanette Bryant says are drug dependent and suffering from mental illness. Anyone can see that these women are at risk. Today's Illawarra Mercury reports an arson attack only yesterday on a cardboard squat in Military Lane where sex prostitutes live, and the possible identification of an allegedly murdered woman's body as a missing local prostitute.

The effect on legitimate business is appalling. Businesses are struggling and facing vandalism, antisocial behaviour, graffiti and broken shop windows. Why have the Premier and the Minister for the Illawarra not solved the problem? Because they take this area for granted. What exactly has happened with the $330,000 of taxpayers' money that the Premier's Department boasts has been spent on the big problem in Port Kembla and other towns? Perhaps it is being used to pay for the tents and mattresses. Is this what the Strengthening Local Communities Strategy is all about?

My colleague sought to hear from Government members exactly what the taxpayer-funded main street project in Port Kembla has achieved. Mr Gino Mandarino—who, I hear, continues to have his eye on preselection for Throsby—has been paid $50,000 to run this program. Where are the accountabilities for taxpayers' funds on this project? Why do the Premier and the Minister for the Illawarra refuse to allow an independent audit of the $50,000 Port Kembla main street project—courtesy of the New South Wales taxpayer—which was administered by a board that then included Mr Neville Hilton and Mr Neville Despotovski, both of whom are now facing charges for alleged offences including under-age prostitution and illegal firearms?

If a woman or a 13-year-old child forced into prostitution is faced with this scene as a place to live, they might fall prey to people enticing them into illegal brothels. Why is there a cover-up by the Premier and the Minister on how taxpayers' money has been spent? It is simple: taxpayers' money has been spent yet illegal prostitutes are still living and working in these conditions, and businesses are crying out for help. My colleague is answering the call for help today and will offer to meet with local concerned shop owners, including Mrs Bryant, to address the Carr Government's neglect of this problem, because the Carr Government will not. Because the Carr Government has done nothing to fix the problem dozens of shops at Port Kembla have closed, the lives and health of sex workers and drug addicts are at risk, and the good work of many genuine business people who want to see Port Kembla restored is being wasted.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [9.44 p.m.]: Last Saturday I was a keynote speaker for the Services Clubs Association of New South Wales at its annual convention in Canberra. My talk was based on the Kokoda campaign in Papua New Guinea [PNG] during the period from July to November 1942. Later that evening I briefed the club representatives on the Kokoda Track Foundation that we have recently established to provide educational and health support to the Kioari and Orokaivean people who live in villages along the track. These are the grandsons and granddaughters of the fuzzy-wuzzy angels who helped us when we needed it during our darkest days in 1942. Many were never paid for the work they did for our Diggers and, to our great shame, none has ever received a medal. Our friends in PNG now need our help. We have not managed our relationship at all well since they gained independence in 1975 and much of our aid has been wasted. PNG does not have a welfare system and the people who live along the track operate a subsistence economy.

The devaluation of their national currency, the Kina, over recent years has caused a rationalisation in the provision of air services to many of the villages. As a result, many of them are not able to get their fruit and vegetables to markets in Port Moresby. The Kokoda Track itself has been neglected by successive governments since the end of the war. Until the opening of a new memorial at Isurava last year there was not a single monument along the track and most of the battle sites have been reclaimed by the jungle. Over recent years more and more Australians are visiting PNG to trek across the Kokoda Track. This has included corporate training groups, school groups, professional sporting groups, descendants of veterans who fought in the campaign and other adventurous individuals with an interest in our military history. Those who make the journey are humbled by the hospitality they receive from their guides and porters and from the people who live in the villages.

Sadly, they are also struck by the lack of educational and health facilities in the villages, the evidence of malnutrition and malaria amongst the younger ones and the lack of opportunity they have for the future. The Kokoda Track Foundation was formed to address these issues. One of the primary objectives of the foundation is to have the Kokoda Track established as a national memorial park with a view to creating a self-sustaining eco-adventure tourism industry for the Kioari and Orokaivean people who live along it. We are hopeful that this will serve as a model for other eco-adventure tourism opportunities in Papua New Guinea. As a first step in developing this strategy we are hosting a workshop at the University of Technology that will include representatives from Australia and PNG. It will be facilitated by two international experts on eco-tourism in Third World countries. We are indebted to Oil Search PNG for its generous support for the workshop.

On 20 August 2003 the foundation hosted a leadership oration in honour of Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Honner DSO MC, who was the commander of the 39th Battalion at the battle for Isurava. The foundation raised $12,000 from the oration, and this will be used to train a paramedic from each village and to establish a medical aid station within each village. Our next objective was to raise funds to support the educational development of young village students. It costs about $1,000 to pay for full board, books, uniforms and school fees at the PNG national high school at Sogeri. When I briefed the service clubs representatives on this need their support was immediate and overwhelming. Merrylands RSL and Canterbury-Hurlstone Park RSL contributed $10,000 each. Rooty Hill RSL and the Albury Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's clubs gave $5,000 each. Swansea RSL, Cardiff RSL, Pelican Flat RSL and Lidcombe RSL each gave $1,000.

Many other clubs gave a commitment to support proposals at upcoming board meetings. To date the foundation has received $38,000. The PNG Department of Education has been advised and is in the process of selecting students from village schools to prepare for their first year at Sogeri High School for the start of the 2004 school year. The Treasurer should take careful note of this generosity because it goes to the heart of what the services clubs are all about. These clubs realise they have to live in a modern competitive economy and that they have serious community obligations. Seminars such as that conducted by the Services Clubs Association last weekend are designed to improve management and marketing practices so clubs can better serve their local communities. They also play a pivotal role in providing facilities and support for our aged veterans and our seniors.

Most of the valuable community work they do does not appear on the Treasury balance sheets because they operate below the radar of the bean counters. I have also observed that a large number of Vietnam veterans are involved in the running of these services clubs. These veterans are the custodians of our proud military heritage at the local level in our rural, regional and urban communities. The sum of these communities represents our Australian identity today. These blokes do not drive flash cars and they do not have money stashed away in Swiss bank accounts. What they do have they give to their fellow veterans who need help and to their local communities. They are the dinkum article and you do not have to be in their company for very long to become aware of the strong bonds that exist between them and the strong sense of compassion they have for their communities.

The Premier and the Treasurer have to be very careful they do not destroy these unique Australian community organisations because of an overzealous approach from the economic rationalists in Treasury. Government is not capable of filling the social and community void their demise would cause. I am indebted to the Services Clubs Association for its spontaneous and generous support to the Kokoda Track Foundation. The educational sponsorships they have provided will give hope to those who do not have a great deal going for them at the moment, and I hope it might serve to remind the Premier and the Treasurer of what these services clubs are all about.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [9.49 p.m.]: My good friend the Aboriginal leader Ronnie Williams died a week ago. He was 63 years of age. He was the spiritual father to the Fatherhood Foundation established by Warwick Marsh that does so much good to inspire fathers to be better fathers for the sake of their children.

Ronnie Williams was a fatherless child himself. He knew what it was like to be separated from his mother and family by the dreaded rabbit-proof fence welfare police. He was separated by the welfare policies about which we understand so much in recent times. The story of his life and his charitable work may be found in a book written by his wife, Diana Williams, entitled Horizon is Where Heaven and Earth Meet, published in 2001 by Bantam Books. Honourable members may have seen a remarkable, memorable Australian Story on ABC television about Ronnie Williams and his wife. Ron told the story of saying, "G'day mate" with a smile to a man in the streets of Sydney who was staring at him. This same man turned angrily to Ron Williams and snarled in his face, "You black bastard! I hate you … I wish to God that my forefathers had killed you all … you talk like us, you wear our clothes, but I still hate you!"

While this made Ron sad, it did not stop him from helping, loving and providing counsel to all who asked, whether they were indigenous, European, black or white. Last Friday, 7 November, the Great Hall at Parliament House in Canberra resounded with the sound of black and white alike singing songs of thanksgiving for the life of Pastor Ronnie Williams and for his love and service to the people of Australia, black and white. He is only the second person since the Federal Parliament building has been open to be accorded the honour of a memorial service in the Great Hall of Parliament House in the Australian Capital Territory. It is a fitting tribute to a man of the people who was also a man of God. He met with heads of state, business executives, fatherless children and prostitutes, and accorded them all the same respect.

It was a moving experience for those of us who knew him when he fell in love with Diana Williams. Diana, an American academic who was studying in Australia, fell in love with Ronnie. In order to understand Aboriginal culture, she lived with Ronnie after marriage in a cave on the traditional family grounds. She shared this story about her husband Ron and his background, tradition and culture. Last week she shared with us an episode that happened just 24 hours before he died. Three doctors came to his bedside to report the bad news that the cancer was too aggressive and that further treatment would be of doubtful value. When the doctors told him, Ron lifted the oxygen mask off his face and said:

I don't want any further treatment. I have made my peace with God, I am ready to meet my maker.

Then, taking his wife's hand, he continued:

I have had a wonderful life with a wonderful wife and daughter. I want to thank you doctors and hospital staff for your patient and loving care while I have been here. I just want to say that the most important thing in someone's life is to love your family.

The doctors were deeply moved and surprised. They had never before received such thanks and love from anyone in such deep pain and at the point of death. He did not replace the oxygen mask, and died. The spirit of Ronnie Williams, this remarkable indigenous leader, lives on.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [9.53 p.m.]: I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions about the exploitation of outworkers, particularly in the textile, clothing and footwear industries, and about government initiatives such as the Fair Wear campaign. The campaigns have been initiated to assist outworkers, who often are women of non-English speaking background working in poor conditions. I was pleased to hear this week the announcement by the Minister for Fair Trading about the latest stage in the Government's Behind the Label awareness campaign, which is part of an ongoing program designed to promote an ethical clothing trade. In a press release the Minister said:

From today, everyone will have the chance to help build a better, fairer Australian clothing trade by supporting those retailers who carry the Behind the Label brand.

The press release contains a list of participating retailers, and includes some major companies in the retail industry. In previous years the campaign was slow to get off the ground and it was necessary to embarrass the major companies to participate. The Minister continued:

The Behind the Label Strategy and its Consumer Awareness Campaign asks shoppers to support a fairer clothing trade by shopping with retailers who are signatories to the Ethical Clothing Code of Practice, an agreement designed to combat exploitation of clothing outworkers.

More than 40 companies have signed the code, making a total of more than 1,000 retail outlets signatories to the code. We have a long way to go. Given the difficulties over the past few years to be able to act in this area, whether by legislation or regulation, I am heartened by the achievements of the education campaign. The pressure placed on retailers has led to a number of leading retailers joining with the relevant union and the community to work towards a fairer clothing industry. Currently, more than 40,000 individuals in New South Wales are employed as outworkers. Many work 12 or more hours a day, 6 to 7 days a week, for as little as $2 per hour. The minimum award wage for an outworker is at least $12 an hour.

As I said, often the outworkers are middle-aged women of non-English speaking background. Sometimes they enlist the help of their young children because of the pittance they are paid. The Office of Industrial Relations, in conjunction with the Department of Education and Training, has developed a program for outworkers. In addition, over the past four months bilingual investigators of the Office of Industrial Relations have inspected about 200 workplaces, identifying breaches of industrial law and recovering a considerable sum of money for employees who had been denied their rights. The Textile Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia supports the Government's initiatives in this area. The secretary of the union said that the solution to the exploitation of outworkers lies in the hands of the ethical retailers. He continued:

Ethical retailers will make the difference between the outworkers being paid an exploitative rate and the fair award which is the Australian rate.

That is true, but it is necessary for us to continue to use a multi-strand approach. It is not only a matter of signing up retailers, it is also a matter of the Government continuing its work, either through the Department of Fair Trading or the Office of Industrial Relations. Also, the Federal Government can play a role in this area. We need to continue to help stamp out the abuses that have for so long bedevilled this industry. I am pleased that the Government is continuing its initiatives in this area. I urge the relevant Ministers, the union and the major retailers to continue their good work.

The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [9.57 p.m.]: Yesterday the nation commemorated the special significance of the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918, the moment the guns finally fell silent on the European Western Front. The most devastating and costly war until that time had come to an end, with a ceasefire that brought peace to the survivors and a place in history for the millions who served. On 11 November 1920 the commemorative ceremony marking the end of the war was given added significance when the remains of unknown soldiers were interred with full military honours in London and Paris. As many as a third of the soldiers killed in what was then called the Great War and later World War I are without an identifiable grave.

The significance of Remembrance Day was brought back to the attention of Australians when, after 75 years, the remains of an unknown Australian soldier, exhumed from a military cemetery in France, returned home. On that day this unknown Australian—a symbol of all who were lost and, most specifically, the unidentified—was interred at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. World War II saw many more Australians serve than in World War I, but World War I produced the greatest loss of Australian lives. One in five were killed. When taking into account those who suffered wounds, including the new horrific innovation of poison gas, two in every three Australians who served overseas became casualties.

My own family serves as an example of these terrible statistics. Three young Australians from my family volunteered to fight in the First World War: my mother's great uncle Reg and my father's uncles Thomas and Albert. Albert came home in one piece. Thomas lost his arm while serving with the 10th Light Horse regiment at Gallipoli and Reg never returned. Our family, as a microcosm of all Australian families, had suffered its two out of three casualties. Proportionately to the number engaged, a small and very young nation suffered more casualties than any other nation of what in those days would have been considered the British Empire.

One could argue that all who experienced first hand the horror of combat were, indeed, heroes. They exhibited a spirit and bravery of the kind that Australia may never see again. I note an example of documented exemplary conduct and courage in the form of the first of the many Australians awarded the Victoria Cross in World War I. In doing so, it is not my intention to in any way detract from the outstanding records and sacrifices of all those who served our country in the various conflicts in which our armed forces have been engaged. Lance Corporal Albert Jacka of the 14th Australian Infantry battalion was awarded the Victoria Cross for actions at Gallipoli. His citation reads:

For most conspicuous bravery on the night of the 19th and 20th May 1915, at Courtney's Post.

Lance-Corporal Jacka, while holding a portion of our trench with four men, was heavily attacked. When all except himself were killed or wounded, the trench was rushed and occupied by seven Turks. Lance-Corporal Jacka at once most gallantly attacked them single-handed and killed the whole party, five by rifle fire and two with the bayonet.

Albert Jacka was later commissioned and twice awarded the Military Cross. It is largely accepted that Jacka's two Military Crosses should have been Victoria Crosses. It is not surprising that he is described as one of the Australian Imperial Force's greatest fighting soldiers—a phrase I am sure the Hon. Charlie Lynn would appreciate.

I am greatly disturbed by reports today that some schools had their Remembrance Day ceremonies disrupted by Muslim students who claimed that the day was of no consequence to them. One of the greatest dangers of the nonsense that is called multiculturalism is the denial by certain groups that Australian history matters. All Australian citizens—whether that citizenship is a birthright or has been granted—own this country's history; there are no exceptions. That must be impressed upon those who fail to understand the significance of our past to their present and future. If we continue not to address these issues, the time will come when we no longer commemorate Remembrance Day or Anzac Day. If we allow that to come to pass, everything for which so many Australians fought and died will have died with them.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [10.02 p.m.]: I have briefly raised the role of the Legislation Review Committee in the context of particular bills. However, it is appropriate that our new honourable member, the Hon. Jon Jenkins, be acquainted with the activities of this important committee. I know that other honourable members in the Chamber and those who read Hansard would like to be better informed about its role. Mr Barry Collier, the honourable member for Miranda, is the chairman of the committee, Ms Marianne Saliba, the honourable member for Illawarra, is the vice-chairman, and the other committee members are the Hon. Dr Peter Wong—who replaced the Hon. Peter Breen today—Shelley Hancock, who is the member for South Coast, the Hon. Don Harwin, Virginia Judge, who is the member for Strathfield, Russell Turner, who is the member for Orange, and me.

The committee commenced its legislation review functions only a couple of months ago in response to legislation passed by the Parliament. That occurred after extensive discussions that resulted in an expansion of the committee's previous and ongoing regulation review function. The committee has been undertaking regulation review for a long time, but the legislation review function is new.

All honourable members would have received a copy of the committee's extensive Legislation Review Digest. The committee meets on Friday prior to each sitting week to review every bill presented in either House. Each bill is examined under a number of headings prescribed in the legislation covering the committee's activities. The committee must consider whether a bill, by express words or otherwise, does a number of things: whether it trespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties; whether it makes rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined administrative powers; whether it makes rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable decisions; whether it inappropriately delegates legislative powers; and whether it insufficiently subjects the exercise of legislative power to parliamentary scrutiny.

I urge honourable members to examine Legislative Review Digest No. 5, which was circulated this week. It contains a wealth of information about legislation, including bills we have debated this evening. Honourable members would find, for example, that the committee has considered the Constitution Amendment (Governor's Salary) Bill. The digest provides information about when and where the bill was introduced, the responsible Minister and portfolio area, the purpose and description of the bill, a brief summary of its background, details of it, and any issues that arose under the five subheadings. It is a good summary. The committee did not raise any issues for comment in respect of that bill.

One good thing about the activities of the committee to date is that, despite the contentious nature of some of the legislation examined, there has been no divisive vote. The committee has been able to deliberate and come to a consensus decision on the basis of the evidence and information presented. That has occurred despite the fact that the committee comprises honourable members from various parties in both Houses. I urge honourable members to examine this material; it is very valuable. The committee welcomes input from honourable members and the community about how it might develop and more effectively undertake its role.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [10.07 p.m.]: I note the passing of one of Australia's legends, Reginald Murray Williams, who died last week aged 95. RM Williams, as he was affectionately known by everyone in the bush, started life in Adelaide and spent his days working in the bush with another iconic Australian, Sir Sydney Kidman. RM worked with Sir Sydney for a few years and realised that there was an opportunity to make leather goods for people working in the bush. He started making boots—they were his trademark.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: They are very good boots.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: He made terrific boots. In fact, they are absolutely fantastic. I note that a number of honourable members are wearing RM Williams boots tonight. RM Williams contributed an enormous amount to the bush. Not only did he set up a boot-making empire but he also made saddles, bridles and so on. He was loved by everyone in the bush. He travelled widely and created an empire based on his famous boots. I have worn RM Williams boots nearly all my life; I do not possess any other footwear. They are the best boots money can buy. An old saying about RM's boots is that one remembers the quality long after one has forgotten the price. I thank Reginald Murray Williams for the contribution he made to Australia and the bush. This country is certainly a much better place for his having walked in it.

Motion agreed to.