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

The Clerk of the Parliaments offered the Prayers.

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

The President announced the receipt, pursuant to the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996, of a report entitled "Report to Parliament: Operation Sandvalley", dated February 2006.

Ordered to be printed.

The PRESIDENT: I inform the House that on 2 March 2006 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile was elected Chair of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 1 in place of Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe, on behalf of the Chair, tabled a report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 2 of 2006", dated 7 March 2006, together with minute extracts from "Legislation Review Digest No. 15 of 2005" and "Legislation Review Digest No. 1 of 2006."

Report ordered to be printed.

The Clerk tabled correspondence from the Leader of the Government advising that the Government's response to Report No. 20, entitled "Inquiry into Post School Programs for Young Adults with a Disability—Getting a Fair Go", tabled on 30 August 2005, which was due on 2 March 2006, will be tabled on 10 March 2006.

Petition opposing any legislative changes that would violate the basic principles of marriage, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Petition requesting support for the Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Equality in Education and Employment) Bill and the Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Sexuality and Gender Diversity) Bill, received from Ms Lee Rhiannon.
Petition praying that the House reject legislative proposals that would detract from the exercise of freedom of religion and the right to employ persons whose beliefs and lifestyle are consistent with religious doctrine and values, and retain the existing exemptions applying to religious bodies in the Anti-Discrimination Act, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Petition requesting legislation to protect foetuses of 20 weeks gestation and to make resources available for post-abortion follow-up, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans.

Government Business Order of the Day No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony
Kelly.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.44 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 commenced on 1 September 2003 and represented the most comprehensive reform of the regulation of property agents in New South Wales in some 60 years.

The Government has been monitoring the Act's operation in practice, and today I will outline a range of amendments to strengthen the legislative framework and finetune some aspects for the benefit of consumers and the industry.

People engage in property and business sales and purchases relatively infrequently, yet they are some of the most important and expensive transactions we undertake in our lives.

When someone engages an agent to act of their behalf, they place an enormous amount of trust in that person.

Consumers face risks such as not finding a buyer or tenant, failing to maximise the true value of the property, and the potential loss of deposit or rental income.

The key elements of the reforms introduced by the Government in 2002 included:

• mandatory professional development to lift industry standards
• tightening of probity entry requirements
• increased transparency at auctions through bidder registration
• requirements to substantiate price estimates
• increased requirements to disclose conflicts of interest and
• streamlined disciplinary processes.

Since the Act's commencement, real estate investigators from the Office of Fair Trading have attended more than 500 property auctions.

Over 70 formal cautions have been issued for breaches of auction requirements, mainly relating to minor matters such as auctioneers not displaying required signage and accepting bids from people who have not displayed their bidder registration cards when making a bid.
In some of the more serious matters, I can also advise that:

• 82 notices have been issued to licensees to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against them, and
• 8 real estate agents have had their licences cancelled and been permanently disqualified from the industry due to misappropriation of trust creditor funds.

Despite these results, I am pleased to be able to report that since the introduction of the Government's reforms the number of breaches of auction requirements has consistently fallen.

Indeed the most recent survey of 46 auctions in September 2005 resulted in only six minor cautions, no prosecutions, and no penalty notices.

In another place I have congratulated the majority of agents and auctioneers on the way in which they conduct their businesses—most have accepted and are working with the changes.

But to ensure the Act continues to be effective in meeting the needs of consumers and the industry, some additional amendments are required.

These amendments fall broadly into 3 categories, and will contribute to an improvement in the operation of the Act in practice:

• firstly, reforms to licensing entry requirements for agents,
• secondly, to the provisions relating to the auctions process,
• finally, to agent conduct.

I will now provide an overview of the provisions.

[LICENSING ENTRY REQUIREMENTS]

Turning firstly to the provisions concerning licensing entry requirements, and the grounds for which a person may be disqualified from operating as a property agent.

Because of the significance of property transactions to consumers, and the handling of large amounts of trust money, it is imperative that there are high standards of probity applying to property agents.

One way of addressing this is through regulating who can obtain a licence or certificate under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act, and specifying the grounds for which those licenses can and should be cancelled or suspended.

Section 16 of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act establishes several grounds for disqualifying people from holding a licence or certificate.

Some of these grounds require finetuning because of gaps that have become apparent now that the Act has been operating for over 2 years.

Under section 16 of the Act a person may be disqualified if they are a "director or person concerned in the management of a corporation that is the subject of a winding up order or for which a controller or administrator has been appointed".

However, this concept does not adequately capture all directors or people involved in the management of insolvent corporations, which reflects on their ability and suitability to handle money.

The current reference to a winding-up order only refers to a winding-up by a court and excludes a creditors' voluntary winding-up, which occurs where the directors are not able to make a declaration as to the solvency of the corporation.

Also, a liquidator is not a "controller or administrator"—so the appointment of a liquidator to a corporation, unless by a court, is not currently grounds for disqualification.

In order to address these situations currently excluded, the Bill provides for the broader concept of a "director or person involved in the management of an externally administered body corporate" to replace the existing concept.

A body corporate which is the subject of a members' voluntary winding-up will be excluded from this section. A voluntary winding-up occurs were a company is solvent and is being wound up because it is no longer needed by its shareholders as a structure through which they wish to conduct some part of their business affairs.

Furthermore, the current provisions in section 16 which provide for disqualifying a director or person concerned in the management of a corporation that is the subject of a winding-up order, do not specify a time frame.

A person may therefore avoid disqualification by resigning the day before the appointment of an external administrator.

The Bill therefore provides that a director or person concerned in the management of a company in the 12 months prior to it becoming externally administered should be disqualified. Only actions taken by the person whilst involved in the management of the corporation will be considered.

Similar concepts are contained in the Corporations Act 2001, which deals with a court's power of disqualification in relation to insolvency and the non-payment of debts.

Another matter requiring modification relates to the disqualification of an undischarged bankrupt from holding a licence, because there has been some uncertainty in interpretation.
The intended purpose of the disqualification provision is to ensure that people who have demonstrated an inability to adequately manage their business, and who may put their financial needs before those on whose behalf they act, should be excluded from holding a licence.

The Act currently provides that the Commissioner for Fair Trading may grant a licence to an undischarged bankrupt if satisfied that the person "took all reasonable steps" to avoid the bankruptcy.

The amendments proposed in the Bill make it clear that the Commissioner should consider the steps taken by the applicant to avoid bankruptcy when financial difficulties first arise in the business, and not just only consider the steps taken once bankruptcy, liquidation or administration became imminent.

For example, a person should not be granted the discretion solely based on their actions after they have been served with a bankruptcy notice because this would ignore the financially irresponsible behaviour which led to the serving of the notice.

In addition, the Commissioner's discretion to grant a licence to an undischarged bankrupt does not currently appear to apply consistently to a "director or person concerned in the management" of a failed company.

But there is no reason why this discretion should not apply equally.

It is therefore proposed to amend the Act to ensure that the Commissioner's discretion applies equally to an undischarged bankrupt as well as people involved in the management of an externally administered corporation.

Under the current legislation, disqualification on the grounds of bankruptcy or association with a failed company applies equally to applicants for a licence or certificate. This is unduly onerous on applicants for a certificate under the Act given that they work under the supervision of a licensee, and the licensee now has an explicit duty in relation to supervision, backed up by guidelines from the Commissioner for Fair Trading.

The Bill therefore provides that disqualification for certificate holders on the grounds of bankruptcy or association with a failed company should not apply as they do not handle monies in their own right.

Section 16 also currently provides that a person is disqualified if they hold a licence or authority that has been suspended under the Fair Trading Act 1987 where serious consumer protection grounds exist.

However, this does not address the fitness of a trader who has been suspended or disqualified under other fair trading legislation and who now wishes to enter the property agent industry.

Suspension or disqualification is an indicator that a serious offence has been committed. Accordingly, where disciplinary action has been taken by the Commissioner against the holder of an authority under other fair trading legislation, resulting in the person's disqualification or suspension under that legislation, it is proposed that the person should also be disqualified under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act.

To ensure some flexibility in this provision, the Bill also provides that the Commissioner may ignore such a disqualification where it is appropriate in the circumstances, for example, if it can be demonstrated that the disciplinary action taken does not affect the applicant's suitability to trade fairly.

[AUCTIONS]

The second category of amendments contained in the Bill relates to auctions and these are aimed at lifting and sustaining consumer confidence in the auction process.

As I referred to earlier, the Government's reforms to promote better transparency and fairness through bidder registration at auctions—now in place for over 2 years—have been positively received by agents and consumers alike.

But again, a few amendments are necessary to improve the legislation and its operation in practice. In summary, these changes relate to:

• clarifying proof of identity requirements in relation to bidder registration
• new offences and penalties targeted at preventing 'dummy bidding' and collusive practices at auctions
• marketing of properties after an unsuccessful auction
• removing unnecessary accreditation for directors of corporation licensees whose employees conduct auctions.

Turning firstly to the proof of identify provisions. Section 69 of the current Property, Stock and Business Agents Act provides that an agent must not enter a person's name and address in a Bidders Record unless those details are established by the production of certain specified forms of proof of identity.

These include a driver's licence, Australian passport or other forms prescribed by the regulations.

Some confusion has arisen in practice about whether there is a need for an agent to check other information if a passport is produced which does not indicate the person's address.

The Bill will put beyond doubt the need for a bidder to provide additional information to verify their address at the time of registering for an auction.

I recently announced that the Government would be bringing forward amendments to outlaw the practice of 'dummy bidding' and to increase penalties relating to collusive practices at auctions.
Section 66 provides that only one bid may be made by or on behalf of the seller at an auction of residential property or rural land. The purpose of this provision is to deter the making of 'dummy bids' on behalf of the seller aimed at artificially increasing the selling price of the property.

It is also an offence to aid and abet the making of more than one vendor and to engage in collusive practices at auctions.

To put it beyond any doubt, the Bill explicitly outlaws dummy bidding in relation to residential property or rural land.

"Dummy bidding" is essentially defined as a bid by or on behalf of the seller other than the single vendor bid made by the auctioneer on behalf of the seller. The fact that the auctioneer will be the only person authorised to make the seller bid will make it very transparent. The proposed new offence will allow the penalty to be imposed on the person who actually made the dummy bid and will not require proof that it was made at the request of, or with the knowledge of the vendor.

A maximum penalty of 500 penalty units is to be imposed for a corporation and 250 penalty units in any other case. This reflects the seriousness of any action by a person who seeks to damage the auction process or bring it into disrepute.

The dummy bidding provisions will also be required to be notified by the auctioneer prior to the auction.

In order to help facilitate the purchasing of a property at auction by a co-owner…for example, if a relationship breaks down or by the executor or administrator of a deceased estate…the Bill ensures that people in these circumstances will have the right to make more than one bid, provided:

• the contract discloses the circumstances,
• the auctioneer announces the making of more than one bid prior to the commencement of bidding, and
• each bid by the executor or co-owner is announced as such.

Section 78 prohibits collusive practices at auction sales. The section applies to persons using any collusive practice to induce or attempt to induce a person to bid in a way that prevents free and open competition.

It also extends to those persons who agree to abstain from bidding or bidding in a certain manner as a result of a collusive practice.

To bring it in line with the penalty for the new dummy bidding offence, the Bill increases the current penalties for collusive practices from 200 to 500 penalty units for corporations, and from 100 to 250 penalty units in other cases.

Related to this, is the issue of 'invented' bids. A popular claim in the media, following a Victorian court finding against an agent several years ago, is that auctioneers will sometimes take bids from trees and passing cats and dogs.

The Bill tightens up the operation of the current auction provisions in the Act by clearly making it an offence to 'invent' a bid by acknowledging that one has been made when this is not in fact the case. The maximum penalty proposed for this offence will be 250 penalty units.

A further amendment relates to the circumstances where a property is passed-in at auction and is later marketed for sale.

In statements or advertisements made by agents when marketing such properties, the last bid made at the auction is often stated. If the last bid was made by the seller, a potential buyer of the property could be misled as to the market value of the property.

So that consumers can be better informed, the Bill provides that, where the amount of the last bid is stated in subsequent marketing and that bid was in fact the seller's bid, it is to be identified as such. This information is also to be recorded in the Bidders Record.


The final set of amendments relating to auctions provides that the director of a corporation licensee or a licensee-in-charge does not need auctioneer accreditation unless they are personally conducting auctions.

Under section 21 of the Act, real estate agents and stock and station agents who wish to carry out auctions must obtain specific auction accreditation as a condition of their licence. The purpose is to ensure that they have the specific skills to carry out this form of selling.

Section 14(2)(d) of the Act requires at least one of the directors of a corporate licensee to hold a licence that an individual person is required to hold to carry on the business that the corporation carries on.

Furthermore, section 31(2) of the Act also requires that there needs to be a licensee-in-charge at each place of business and that that person must hold a licence that an individual is required to hold to carry on that business.

Discussion has recently arisen in relation to whether the director of a corporation licensed as a real estate agent with staff that undertake auctioning needs to be accredited as an auctioneer since there is no "auction licence" per se, but rather an individual accreditation of auctioneers under section 21.

The requirements in sections 14(2) and 31(2) of the Act in relation to directors and licensees-in-charge are essentially aimed at ensuring that the people supervising others in a real estate business have the appropriate skills and qualifications to do so.

This is necessary in terms of longer term transactions which generally benefit from the establishment of systems and procedures.
However, an auctioneer essentially acts individually and does not act under supervision while carrying out an auction. If an offence is committed by an auctioneer as an employee, a licensee-in-charge's auctioneer qualifications are not relevant.

A strict interpretation of sections 14(2) and 31(2) would mean that an employee with individual auctioneer accreditation cannot conduct auctions for their employer if the employer is not also accredited as an auctioneer. But if that same employee freelances, they are able to contract their auctioneering services without the director of a corporation or the licensee-in-charge having the auctioneering accreditation.

The bill amends the Act to remove the imposition of this unnecessary requirement, so that either the director of a corporation licensee or a licensee-in-charge will not be required to hold auctioneer accreditation unless they are actually personally conducting auctions.

[MISCELLANEOUS]

The third and final category of amendments contained in this bill covers a number of miscellaneous amendments to agent conduct requirements.

These include: clarifying an agent's duty of disclosure; information to be included in advertisements; increasing penalties for breaches of rules of conduct; and allowing the Commissioner for Fair Trading to require an agent to discontinue unjust conduct and rectify the consequences of such conduct.

Section 47 of the Act requires an agent to disclose certain relationships and financial benefits to a "prospective buyer"…for example, a fee the agent will receive for referring the person to another service provider, or a relationship the agent has with the service provider.

There has been some confusion as to what a "prospective buyer" is, and therefore when disclosure needs to take place. The bill clarifies that disclosures to a "prospective buyer" only need to be made after an offer to purchase has been passed on to the principal.

In addition, section 47 (1)(c) imposes a disclosure requirement in relation to "any benefit any person has received". It is proposed to clarify that the section only requires disclosure in relation to any benefit received by a person to whom the agent has referred the client or prospective buyer.

Section 50(2) of the Act requires an agent advertising a property for sale to disclose in the advertisement if he or she has an interest in the property as a principal. The purpose of this requirement is to promote transparency where an agent engages in property transactions relating to their own property.

However, if the property is owned by a company of which the agent is a director, no disclosure is required.

Similarly, if one of the directors of a corporate licence holder sells his or her property as an individual, then no disclosure is required.

It is proposed that section 50 be amended to also require disclosure where the agent is linked to the owner of the property being advertised by a common individual or individuals licensed under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002.

This will ensure that the spirit of the legislation in promoting a high degree of transparency for consumers is maintained.

Section 86 provides that money received for or on behalf of any person by a licensee is to be held exclusively for that person and is to be paid or disbursed as the person directs, and, until so paid or disbursed, to be held in a trust account at an authorised deposit-taking institution.

To help prevent misappropriation of clients' money, the Act establishes audit requirements relating to licensees' trust accounts.

Section 86 requires that the trust account is to be in the name of the licensee or firm of licensees or, if the licensee is a corporation, in the name of the corporation.

Many licensees operate a number of trust accounts, for example, a general trust account plus a range of accounts in which funds belonging to specific clients are held. In those cases, the name of the client will also be included in the account name, for example 'Owners Corporation 1234'.

To help facilitate trust account investigations by the Office of Fair Trading, the bill amends section 86 to clarify that the name of the licensee or firm of licensees or corporation is to appear as a prefix of the account name, followed by any other necessary identifier of the trust account.

This will make accounts easier to identify and assist with auditing procedures.

A number of minor amendments are proposed in relation to the operating procedures involving trust accounts.

Under section 90 interest earned on trust accounts is paid into the Statutory Interest Account by authorised deposit-taking institutions on the 1^st business day of each month. To provide a more reasonable timeframe for these institutions, it is proposed to allow payment by the 7^th business day—a more realistic time frame.

Section 91 provides that authorised deposit-taking institutions must, within 14 days after the end of each month, notify the Commissioner in writing of several details concerning trust accounts, including: the number of accounts opened in the month; the names of the licensees who opened the accounts and the names and numbers of those accounts; and the addresses of the branches where the accounts are kept.
This information is currently provided in hard copy, which is sometimes difficult to manage.

The bill therefore amends section 91 to provide that the Commissioner for Fair Trading can prescribe the method by which a financial institution is to notify the required information relating to trust accounts, and this may include, for example, in electronic form.

Under Division 4 of Part 7 of the Act, unclaimed money held in a licensee's trust account for more than 2 years must be paid to the Commissioner for Fair Trading and deposited in the Compensation Fund. The provision requires that remaining unclaimed money be remitted to Treasury following the end of each year.

Section 98 requires that Treasury be provided with details of persons entitled to the money and the amount to which they are entitled. Under section 99, Treasury must pay money to an entitled person on application.

The Treasury has recently changed its requirements and now requires government agencies to keep their own Unclaimed Money Register of the persons entitled to money. Claims by entitled persons are made to and paid by the agency, and the agency then recoups the money from Treasury.

The bill therefore seeks to amend sections 98 and 99 to reflect current Treasury requirements.

The bill also increases penalties for breaches of the rules of conduct. These are prescribed in the Property, Stock and Business Agents Regulation 2003, and establish ethical standards of behaviour for agents.

The rules currently include a requirement for agents to act honestly, fairly and professionally with all parties in a transaction and not to mislead or deceive any parties.

Given the potential detriment from a breach of the rules and the serious consequences that may flow for consumers, the bill amends section 37 of the Act to include a specific offence for a breach of the rules of conduct.

The penalty for this offence will be 100 penalty units for a corporation and 50 penalty units for an individual.

The final amendment I wish to outline relates to a new power for the Commissioner for Fair Trading to require an agent to discontinue unjust conduct.

The Property, Stock and Business Agents Act already allows disciplinary action to be taken against a licensee for dishonest and unfair conduct.

But the Act does not provide for the Commissioner to require the licensee to discontinue unjust conduct against a consumer nor to provide compensation for such conduct.

There are provisions in the Motor Dealers Act 1974 which provide this option and it is proposed that similar provisions be inserted in the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act.

Unjust conduct covers behaviour that is dishonest or unfair, in breach of contract, in contravention of the Act or regulations, or any relevant Act administered by the Minister for Fair Trading, or failure to comply with a condition or restriction on the licence.

Under the amendments contained in the bill, the Commissioner would be able to request the licensee to discontinue the unjust conduct or rectify the consequences of the conduct; and apply to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal for a binding order restraining the conduct if the licensee does not desist.

This wider range of options for the Commissioner will ensure that appropriate action can be taken when it is appropriate to provide a remedy for consumers where unjust conduct has occurred.

[Conclusion]

I have today outlined a number of amendments to the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 which seek to strengthen the rights of consumers, and finetune and clarify some administrative and operational arrangements.

These amendments arise as a result of the Government's monitoring of the Act's operation in practice and ongoing consultation with all stakeholders in the industry.

A draft of the bill was forwarded to major stakeholders for their consideration and review…and several submissions were received and taken into account in the final drafting.

I want to thank those organisations for their input to the bill, and for their ongoing cooperation with Fair Trading on these matters.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [2.44 p.m.]: The Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 reformed the property agency sector, and the Opposition will not oppose the Property, Stock and Business Agents Amendment Bill. It will change the grounds of disqualification to enable a person to be disqualified on the grounds of being involved in the management of a corporation up to 12 months prior to an external administrator being appointed. At present disqualification can occur after such appointment. The bill provides as a defence to disqualification the fact that the licensee took all reasonable steps in that 12-month period to avoid bankruptcy. The bill extends the discretion to grant licences to undischarged bankrupts and people involved in companies that are being administered externally. The bill also disqualifies from holding a licence people who are banned under another Act administered by the Minister for Fair Trading.

The bill provides that a licensee does not need to be an accredited auctioneer unless the licensee conducts the auction personally. Licensees may employ accredited auctioneers. If the vendor's bid is the highest and the property is passed in, that fact may be disclosed in any subsequent marketing of the property. The bill provides certainty as to the address of the bidder and prohibits dummy bidding. It increases penalties for collusive practices at auctions and prohibits invented bids.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [2.46 p.m.]: The Greens support the Property, Stock and Business Agents Amendment Bill. The purpose of the amendments is to strengthen the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002. I will not speak at length on the bill as it has been outlined in detail by the Government and appears to be aimed quite straightforwardly at improving probity and fair practices among agents and licensees. The provisions will increase the scrutiny of agents, tighten entry requirements for prospective agents and increase transparency at auction through ensuring proof of identity and the address of all bidders. It imposes further requirements on agents and licensees to substantiate price estimates and disclose conflicts of interest, and streamlines disciplinary processes when it is found that someone has engaged in unfair, deceptive or unjust conduct.

The Greens acknowledge that the implementation of the principal Act in 2003 seems to have reduced the number of disciplinary notices issued to licensees, and that is good news. The Minister for Fair Trading outlined in her second reading speech the numbers of prosecutions, cautions and penalty notices issued. The proposed amendments to section 16 of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act would change licensing entry requirements and the grounds on which a person may be disqualified. The current wording of the Act does not cover a case where a liquidator is appointed to oversee the winding-up of a company or corporation. This amendment will ensure that a person may be disqualified when a corporation is wound up and a liquidator is appointed. The proposed amendments replace the current specific wording with the more general wording:

… director or person involved in the management of an externally administered body corporate.

This would capture a variety of situations where a company has gone under and been put into administration. It will not cover a situation where an organisation has been wound up voluntarily. A further amendment to section 16 ensures that an adequate time frame is set within which a director may be disqualified from being a licensee. The current situation is that a person may resign from a failed company one day before the appointment of an administrator. Therefore, the bill specifies that a director or person concerned with the management of a company in the 12 months prior to its becoming administered externally will be disqualified from being licensed.

The bill instructs the Commissioner for Fair Trading, when deciding whether to give a licence to an undischarged bankrupt, to consider not only whether a person took all reasonable steps to avoid bankruptcy but also what steps he or she took, if any, when financial problems first surfaced, not just what he or she did after the bankruptcy took place. As the Minister pointed out in another place, that person's financial management and poor decisions may have contributed to the bankruptcy in the first place.

The bill ensures that applicants for a certificate are not inadvertently caught up in disqualification provided they have been under supervision and did not handle money in their own right. In such cases they will not be punished as a result of the failure of a company for which they work. Another amendment to section 16 deals with a case where a person has been disqualified under other Fair Trading legislation and who then wants to become a property agent. If they have been disqualified or suspended already under other Fair Trading legislation, that is, they have committed a serious offence in another sector and have been disqualified, they may also be disqualified under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act. The commissioner will have the discretion to consider the circumstances of individuals.

Another set of amendments relate to auctions. We have all seen publicity about dodgy auctioneers and rigged bids. These amendments require that bidders registering at auctions provide stricter proof of identity. The current section 69 of the Act requires certain documents to be given as proof of identity. The proposed amendment makes it necessary for a bidder to also provide proof of address with a document. In relation to collusive practices the bill outlaws dummy bidding, such as when more than one bidder bids in order to try to inflate the price. Under these amendments, the auctioneer will be the only person authorised to make the seller bid. A penalty will be imposed on the person who actually makes a dummy bid, and there will be no necessity to prove that it was made on behalf of, or with knowledge of, the vendor.
The auctioneer is required to notify people attending the auction of the dummy bidding provisions. In the case where there is more than one seller bidding, for example where there are co-owners or executors, this must be announced by the auctioneer. The bill increases the current penalties for collusive practices and they will be the same as those imposed for dummy bidding. The bill also makes inventing a bid an offence—that is, where an auctioneer pretends to have seen a bid that in fact has not been made. The bill makes it a requirement when a property has been passed in and is marketed, that the last bid made, where it was the seller's bid, must be disclosed as the seller's bid. This is to prevent a potential buyer from thinking the property is more valuable than it actually is.

Another amendment specifies that a director of a corporation, licensee or licensee-in-charge does not require accreditation as an auctioneer unless he or she is personally conducting auctions. This is sensible as not all staff members working for a real estate agency may be involved in auctioneering. There are a number of other amendments of a miscellaneous nature. They include clarifying an agent's duty of disclosure. This amendment clarifies what is a "prospective buyer", namely, a party that has made an offer of purchase. Where the agent is linked to the owner of the property by an individual or individuals licensed under the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 there must be a disclosure and therefore greater transparency for the customer.

A proposed amendment to section 86 requires that the name of the licensee or firm of licensees appear as a prefix of the account name, in order to identify a trust account more accurately with a name rather than a number. Amendments to section 90 allow interest earned on trust accounts to be paid into statutory trust accounts by the seventh business day rather than on the first business day of the month. A suggested amendment to section 91 allows the Commissioner for Fair Trading to specify the methods by which a financial institution is to provide required information. This will allow information to be submitted in electronic form. Sections 98 and 99 will be amended to reflect Treasury requirements for unclaimed money that has been deposited in the Compensation Fund. Penalties are being increased for breaches of the rules of conduct, which are prescribed in the Property, Stock and Business Agents Regulation 2003. It adds a specific offence for a breach of the rules of conduct by amending section 37 of the Act.

Another amendment empowers the Commissioner for Fair Trading to require that an agent discontinue unjust conduct. This parallels the Motor Dealers Act 1974 and is in addition to dishonest and unfair conduct provisions. This would allow the commissioner to order an agent to discontinue doing something or to rectify what he or she is doing and could result in a binding order being sought at the CTIT to restrain such conduct if it does not stop. The Greens are satisfied that the amendments proposed would make it more difficult for dodgy agents to exploit homebuyers and easier to apply penalties for those who break the law. We are satisfied that the Government has consulted on this bill.

As with all provisions under the Fair Trading Act, their usefulness will depend upon the resources made available to departmental officers to ensure they are complied with. All too often, we hear of complaints about builders, real estate agents and others who are flouting the provisions of the Act and who are not adequately investigated or prosecuted and fined. Good intentions are not sufficient. That being said, The Greens are happy to support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.55 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Property, Stock and Business Agents Amendment Bill, which will amend the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 to clarify and improve the operation of the Act by making changes to licensing, auction requirements, trust accounting and investigators' powers. As honourable members know, the original Act was passed by Parliament in June 2002 and commenced operation on 1 September 2003. The Act introduced major reforms to the property agency sector. The reforms involved a detailed implementation process to develop regulations, orders and guidelines to support new requirements for auctions, licensing, auctioneers' accreditation, supervision of employees, and qualification and continuing professional development requirements.

As is the case with any new legislation, during the implementation process the need for clarification and adjustment to provisions became apparent. Consequently the Government introduced this bill, which makes a number of what I call minor machinery amendments to the original bill. Some additional amendments have been identified from complaints, industry associations, the Office of Fair Trading operational areas and legislation more recently enacted in other jurisdictions. These important amendments, which we support, relate to licensing, auctions, trust accounts and investigators' powers and obligations, particularly those that bring into line what has happened in the residential market to prohibit dummy bidding at auctions. The bill also contains amendments that deal with the disqualification of a licensee on the grounds of bankruptcy.
The bill requires the identification of the vendor bid in any statement marketing residential property or rural land that was passed in at auction where the highest bid was the vendor bid. The amount of the passed in bid must be included in the statement, and the information must be recorded in the bidder's record. It is very important to require the identification of the vendor bid. As I said earlier, the bill prohibits dummy bidding as a practise at auction sales, and provides that a person who makes such a dummy bid is committing an offence. The provisions allow the executor or administrator of a deceased estate or co-owner of a property the right to make more than one bid, provided that the contract discloses the circumstances, that the auctioneer announces the making of more than one bid prior to the commencement of bidding, and that each bid by the executor or co-owner is announced as such.

It is important that transparency occurs at auctions, otherwise other bidders can be misled and an offence can be committed. The bill enables the Commissioner for Fair Trading to require an agent to discontinue unjust conduct and rectify the consequences of such conduct. We are pleased to support this bill, which will tighten up the requirements for those involved with property, stock and business agents in New South Wales.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [2.59 p.m.], in reply: I thank the House for its support for the bill. As has been canvassed already by a number of honourable members, the bill contains important measures to clarify the operation of the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act. The bill takes steps to help ensure that the Government's policy objectives are clear and able to be implemented better in practice. The amendments follow the Government's close monitoring of, and experience with, the Act, and its ongoing consultation with the community and industry. All of these measures are designed to ensure a high level of consumer protection, transparency, and confidence in property transactions, and to encourage high standards of probity and professionalism in the industry. 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) [3.01 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

This Bill addresses the changing patterns of drug crime and is part of the Government's plan to respond to developments in drug crime as they emerge.

In particular the Bill addresses the proliferation of chemical or so called designer drugs and the methods used by those who distribute and manufacture them.

The measures contained in the Bill largely result from the work of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act Working Group convened by my Department which deliberated on various proposals for reform over the course of 2003 and 2004. The Working Group included representatives of a wide range of agencies with knowledge and expertise in drug crime including police, pharmacological and scientific analysis, criminal prosecution and defence.

Schedule 1—amendments to Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

The Government continues to monitor the drug market to identify dangerous new drugs introduced by entrepreneurial criminal drug dealers. In 2002 the Government listed the substance known as GHB, or GBH, as a prohibited drug. GHB is a central nervous system depressant which is suspected of being used as a drink spiking agent as well as a recreational drug. The use of GHB has unpredictable effects including coma, convulsions, severe respiratory depression and death especially when combined with other depressants such as alcohol. It is dangerous because of the very fine line between the amount required for a high and the amount that may result in unconsciousness.

There are other chemicals which are chemical precursors to GHB—which means that they can be used to manufacture the GHB. Some of these chemicals are also metabolic precursors to GHB in that they metabolise into GHB after ingestion and are known to be used as drugs in NSW. These two chemicals are commonly known as GBL and 1,4BD, which drug dealers have taken to peddling since the prohibiting of GHB.

Items [25] and [26] will operate to list these two chemicals as prohibited drugs in Schedule 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. Similar action was taken in New Zealand in 2003. The use of 1,4 BD in particular is known to be related to deaths including the death of a man at Kings Cross in 2003.

These chemicals are also known to have a variety of legitimate uses in industry. Items [17], [21] and [23] provide that it is not unlawful to possess, manufacture, produce and supply these substances or take part in their manufacture, production and supply for legitimate purposes in industry. This will cover all stages of the legitimate industrial process.

The trend towards the use of high purity crystal methamphetamine—or "ice"—is another emerging drug threat. This dangerous substance has been accompanied by the use of ice pipes. These are instruments that crystals are placed in, heated and inhaled. Ice pipes are designed for this purpose and have no other uses. It is already an offence to have possession of an ice pipe for use in the administration of a drug.

Items [2] to [4] create a new offence of sale, commercial supply or display of ice pipes in a shop for a commercial purpose which will carry a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment.

The Bill is part of a broader package containing practical and effective measures to choke off the diversion and supply of precursor chemicals and apparatus to those who manufacture prohibited drugs in clandestine laboratories. In 2000, the Government created an offence of possession of a prescribed precursor with intent to use for the manufacture or production of prohibited drugs. The Government also prescribed requirements to be complied with on the cash sale of those precursors resulting in an offence being committed in cases of non-compliance. The Drug Misuse and Trafficking Regulation will soon be amended to strengthen requirements for sale and storage of precursors.

Item [10] of the schedule will allow the Regulation to deal with storage of precursors in addition to sale and clause [24] increases the maximum penalties which offences under the Regulation may carry in the case of individuals and corporations.

The trend toward the manufacturing of chemical drugs in clandestine backyard drug laboratories has been a very concerning development which poses significant risk to children. The environment of an illegal laboratory is dangerous. The chemicals used are susceptible to fire and explosion. Chemical fumes pose serious health risks as do remnants of chemicals in powder form. In recent years there has been an increase in backyard drug laboratory explosions which in at least one case has been fatal. For these reasons the Government will increase penalties for criminals who endanger the health or safety of children in this way by creating an aggravated offence of manufacturing or producing a prohibited drug.

Item [6] contains an offence where a person manufactures or produces a prohibited drug or takes part in such manufacture or production and exposes a child to that manufacturing process or to chemicals stored for that purpose of manufacturing. Item [8] contains a defence to be available if the health and safety of a child was not in fact endangered.

Item [11] creates an offence where a person over the age of 18 years procures a child to supply or take part in supply of a prohibited drug (other than cannabis leaf). This further protects children from the trade in illicit drugs. Although the definitions of 'supply' and 'taking part in supply' include a wide range of activities prior to the actual supply of a drug, the ambit of criminal responsibility will be extended even further where children are involved. It will not be necessary for a child to have committed an offence of supply or taking part in supply to secure a conviction under the new procuring offence.

Items [9] and [11] define "child" as a person under the age of 16 years for purposes of the offences of procuring a child for supply offences and manufacturing aggravated by exposure of a child. Items [7] and [11] create corresponding offences with higher maximum penalties in each case where the amount of drug involved exceeds the commercial quantity.

Item [16] contains the maximum penalties for these new offences which will be an increase on the existing offences in sections 24(1) and (2) and 25(1) and (3) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act by 20 to 25 per cent and adopts the same penalty structure as supplying a prohibited drug to a child under section 25(1A) and (2A) of that Act. This means that the penalty for an offence not involving a commercial quantity on indictment will increase from 2,000 penalty units or 15 years imprisonment or both to 2,400 penalty units or 18 years imprisonment or both. The maximum penalties for offences involving the commercial quantity will increase from 3,500 penalty units or 20 years imprisonment to 4,200 penalty units or 25 years imprisonment or both.

The Bill also amends the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act in various ways to improve the operation of drug law enforcement and prosecution in NSW.

Items [25] and [27] operate to amend the quantities in Schedule 1 of the Act for methadone prepared in oral liquid form for therapeutic use. Single doses of methadone are distributed in a diluted form to be taken by drinking. Because of the admixture provision in the Act, the dilutants added to the methadone are currently counted as part of the drug's weight. This means offences involving a single standard oral liquid dose must be dealt with on indictment in the District Court as it exceeds the indictable quantity for methadone in the Act. This must happen even though the oral liquid dose only contains 25milligrams of methadone—far less that the 5gram indictable quantity. It is agreed that these matters involving a single oral liquid dose are more appropriately dealt with in the Local Court. The power of the DPP to elect to proceed on indictment in any case remains as a safeguard in relation to more serious cases. The quantities for methadone in other forms, such as tablet form, remain unchanged.

Item [1] amends the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act to exempt from the offence provisions of the Act persons holding authorities issued by Chief Executive of NSW Health for the conduct of clinical trials. This extends the current scheme of exemptions for persons complying with an authority issued by the Chief Executive for scientific research, instruction, analysis or study.
Item [19] will amend the Act to allow senior police of or above the rank of Superintendent to order destruction of substances which are or are reasonably suspected to be prohibited drugs and plants, under the relevant trafficable quantity, where no person has been charged or is likely to be charged. This measure has been requested by NSW Police and will reduce pressure on analytical resources as analysis will not be required in these cases to prove that the substance is a drug in order to obtain a destruction order from a court. This will reduce pressure on resources for exhibit storage, analysis and courts and ensure that drugs are destroyed at the earliest opportunity. There will be a record keeping requirement as a safeguard.

Item [18] will amend section 39A of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act to ensure that the 'minimum amount' is the same for all prohibited drugs. The 'minimum amount' equals the trafficable quantity for all other drugs but heroin which is 1 gram. Equating the minimum amount and the trafficable quantity in all cases will standardise procedures in practice for destruction of drugs under the Act.

Item [20] amends section 39RA of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act by extending the ability of the Commissioner of Police to delegate the power to direct that seized drugs be retained for use in a controlled operation or integrity testing program. At present the power of delegation extends to a Deputy Commissioner. The Act will be amended to allow the power to be delegated to a member of the NSW Police Senior Executive Service with power to authorise a controlled operation. The Senior Executive Service includes Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and officers at Commander and Superintendent level. Officers able to authorise controlled operations are 2 Deputy Commissioners and 3 other members of the Senior Executive Service of or above the rank of Superintendent nominated by the Commissioner of Police. This measure has been requested by NSW Police and will reduce the administrative burden on the Commissioner and the Deputies. The power of delegation will be strictly limited to a maximum of 5 officers only at a very high level in the police hierarchy.

Item [20] amends the Act so that evidence to be given in NSW courts of prohibited drug or plant analysis occurring outside NSW can be given in the same manner as for NSW analysts. This will only apply to analysts prescribed in the Regulation. For NSW analysts the Act dispenses with certain procedural requirements so that a certificate can be tendered as prima facie evidence of the matters contained therein without the analyst having to be called to give oral evidence in every case.

Schedule 2—amendments to Young Offenders Act 1997

Schedule 2 items [1] and [2] of the Bill amends section 8 of the Young Offenders Act to formalize in that Act the contents of clause 16 of the existing Young Offenders Regulation 2004. The amendment will clarify that, for the purposes of the Act, which include cautioning of juvenile offenders, eligibility for offences involving cannabis plant and leaf is the same and as set out in section 8 (3) of the Young Offenders Act. That is, relevant offences involving cannabis plant or leaf are not covered by the Young Offenders Act if the amount exceeds half the small quantity prescribed in the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, or in exceptional circumstances, where the amount does not exceed the small quantity and it is in the interests of the rehabilitation of the child and appropriate in all of the circumstances to deal with the matter under the Young Offenders Act.

In summary, the measures contained in the Bill are necessary to protect the community from dangerous trends in the drug trade particularly where children, the most vulnerable members of the community are concerned and to ensure the efficient allocation of resources in enforcing the drug law in NSW.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [3.01 p.m.]: In the fight against the illegal drug industry we need to be ever vigilant. Because of the enormous profits to be made from the misery and suffering of those addicted to illegal drugs, those who operate this evil industry constantly are formulating newer and more potent, and consequently more deadly, drugs. They are refining and revamping their methods of production and distribution constantly. As the law closes one door, the purveyors of illegal drugs look for another door to continue to reap the enormous profits that their trade in illegal drugs generates.

The Drug Misuse and Trafficking Amendment Bill is an initiative of the Government in the campaign against those who control and operate the illegal drug industry. The New South Wales Attorney General has said that the bill is part of the State Government's response to the proliferation of chemical, or so-called "designer", drugs and the methods used by those who distribute and manufacture them. In 2002 the Government listed a substance known as GHB—or GBH, as it is also known—as a prohibited drug. It is one of the newer chemical or designer drugs and induces coma, convulsions and even death. There is very little difference in the amount required to reach a high and the amount that may cause unconsciousness.

Two chemicals, known as GBL and 14BD, are used in the manufacture of this banned drug GHB. Additionally, those chemicals are also metabolic precursors to GHB, which means that they metabolise to, or turn into, GHB after ingestion. Pursuant to the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Amendment Bill, the chemicals GBL and 14BD are to be listed as prohibited drugs in schedule 1 to the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, although it will be provided that the use of these chemicals in a variety of legitimate uses in industry will not be unlawful.

The bill also deals with the use of high-purity crystal methamphetamine—or ice, as it is commonly known as—which has become an increasing drug problem. This illegal drug is administered by the use of what are called "ice pipes", also known as crack pipes, the possession of which for the use in administration of the drug is illegal already. They are used to inhale fumes from the heating of the prohibited drug. The bill prohibits the sale and display of these ice pipes, in line with an already existing ban on water pipes, or bongs, which are used in the use of other illegal drugs.

The Act is to be amended to make it an offence for a person of or above the age of 18 years to procure a person under the age of 16 years to supply, or take part in the supply of, a prohibited drug, other than cannabis leaf, to another person. It is a defence to this offence if the defendant establishes that at the time of the alleged offence he or she had reasonable cause to believe, and did in fact believe, that the person who was procured to supply or take part in the supply of the prohibited drug was of or above the age of 16 years. The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of 2,400 penalty units, currently $264, 000, or imprisonment for 18 years, or both.

Similarly, it is to be an offence for a person of or above the age of 18 years to procure a person under the age of 16 years to supply or take part in the supply of an amount of a prohibited drug, other than cannabis leaf, which is not less than the commercial quantity applicable to the prohibited drug. A penalty is provided of 4,200 penalty units, currently $462, 000, or imprisonment for 25 years, or both. However, if the court is satisfied that the offence involved not less than the large commercial quantity of the prohibited drug concerned, the penalty is a fine of 6,000 penalty units, currently $660, 000, or imprisonment for life, or both

However, it is a defence to an offence involving not less than the commercial quantity applicable to the prohibited drug if the defendant establishes that at the time of the offence alleged he or she had reasonable cause to believe that the person who was procured to supply or take part in the supply of the prohibited drug was of or above the age of 16 years.

The bill makes it an offence for a person who manufactures or produces, or who knowingly takes part in the manufacture or production of, a prohibited drug to expose a child—defined as being a person under the age of 16 years—to that manufacturing or production process, or to substances being stored for use in that manufacturing or production process. The penalty is 2,400 penalty units, currently $264, 000, or imprisonment for 18 years, or both. In addition, an aggravated form of this offence applies when the amount of the prohibited drug manufactured or produced is not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that drug, in which case the fine is 4,200 penalty units, currently $462,000, or imprisonment for 25 years, or both. If the court is satisfied that the offence involved not less than the large commercial quantity, the penalty is increased to 6,000 penalty units, currently $660,000, or life imprisonment, or both.

So far so good. The new offence of exposing a child to the manufacturing or production of illegal drugs certainly is welcome. It is a very good step in the right direction. The protection of our children certainly has the support of the Opposition. However, then something seems to go wrong. The Government goes on to virtually neutralise the effect of this new offence. Inexplicably, the Government proposes, only a few paragraphs later, to provide an out for drug manufacturers and others caught by the provisions only a few paragraphs earlier. By section 24 (3A) it is a defence if the defendant establishes that the exposure of the child to the prohibited drug manufacturing or production did not endanger the health or safety of the child.

When the bill came before the other place with only a few minutes warning to the Opposition, the Opposition's shadow Attorney General, Andrew Tink, clearly was outraged—and rightly so. He was outraged that such important legislation would be introduced without the Opposition having sufficient time to consider the bill fully and to discharge its duty properly under the parliamentary system. And he was outraged also that a commendable amendment to protect children from the illegal drug industry is, in the same bill, gutted only a few lines further down. The Opposition believes that this defence available to illegal drug manufacturers should be removed, and the Opposition will move to amend the bill accordingly.

The Opposition has a number of other concerns about the bill. For example, it amends the principal Act to provide that it does not apply to persons "conducting clinical trials of prohibited drugs who are acting under an authority granted by the Director General of the Department of Health". However, the bill fails to define the term "clinical trials", which creates an ambiguity over the interpretation. The Government needs to provide a definition of what it means by "clinical trials".

Another problem with the bill is that it amends section 8 of the Young Offenders Act 1997 so that it applies to young offenders who are found carrying not more than the total small quantity, defined as 30 grams. This amendment will allow young offenders to be provided with a warning or caution, rather than be subject to the penalties applicable to a summary offence under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, which is a fine of 20 penalty units, or imprisonment for a term of two years, or both. The amendment undermines the seriousness of cannabis leaf possession, and sends a very wrong message to young people. It should be opposed. The bill is a very mixed bundle. As I said earlier, we will move an amendment in Committee and we will support certain other amendments that, I understand, will be moved by the Christian Democratic Party.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.10 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I acknowledge that the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Amendment Bill makes some improvements, but it also has some serious defects, so we will move amendments in Committee. We share the concerns of other speakers, particularly the Hon. David Clarke, about proposed section 24 (3A) in item [8] of schedule 1 to the bill, which provides a defence to the offence of exposing a child to the manufacture or production of a prohibited drug if the defendant can establish that such exposure did not endanger the health or safety of the child.

That is a subjective test and provides a clever lawyer with the opportunity to argue that there was no danger to the health or safety of the child, even though the people manufacturing illegal drugs allowed a child to be in the premises where drugs were being manufactured. In the interests of the welfare of children we believe there should be a blanket prohibition and, therefore, it should be an offence for a person to expose a child to the manufacturing and processing of drugs.

The Christian Democratic Party is concerned with the insertion of the words "or a clinical trial" in various sections of the Act, as proposed by item [1] of schedule 1 to the bill. There is no explanation of what a clinical trial would be. We have had debates in this House about the injecting room in Kings Cross—I call it a shooting gallery—which was set up as a trial but has been operating for a few years. I believe this is a deliberate political device to reduce public opposition to a radical proposal by saying, "We will not actually make it lawful and we will not introduce a new law, we will simply have a trial. It may be a three-month or six-month trial and then we will stop." But it now seems that the word "trial" has a new meaning—"forever".

The bill does not specify what drug will be part of a clinical trial. The bill cannot refer to the injecting room, because that is covered by other legislation. It could refer to making heroin available to addicts on a trial basis, which has been proposed by the pro-drug lobby as one way to deal with drugs. Their head-in-the-sand idea is that if we make all drugs available and virtually legalise them, somehow the drug problem will disappear.

However, most people with commonsense would know that such an approach would increase the ongoing drug problem and result in its multiplying year by year as more young people, and even children, became attracted to drugs because they would be so easily available and become part of mainstream Australia. We would like to see item [1] of schedule 1 to the bill removed. During the past week I heard the claim on radio station 2GB that it had a message from the Attorney General, Mr Debus, that the Government would amend the bill to delete the reference in item [1] of schedule 1 about a clinical trial. However, the Parliamentary Secretary foreshadowed no such amendment when he moved the second reading. He might inform us whether Mr Debus will fulfil that commitment, which was quoted in the media. Sometimes the media gets it wrong, but they reported that it was a direct message from Mr Debus.

The legislation deals with the quantity of drugs. It may appear as though the Government is introducing a tough anti-drug bill, but when we look at the small print we find that the quantity of drugs prescribed to constitute an offence is so large that it undermines the purpose of the legislation. Schedule 1 deals with sections of the Act that state the prescribed quantity of drugs that constitutes an offence. The legislation refers to trafficable quantities, small quantities, indictable quantities, commercial quantities and large commercial quantities.

A naive person might think that a small quantity is very small, but when one examines the legislation one finds that it is not small at all: In fact, I would call it large. What we really have are trafficable quantities, large quantities and indictable quantities. The legislation provides that a trafficable quantity is 300 grams of cannabis leaf and a small quantity is 30 grams, or two grams of cannabis oil, or five grams of cannabis plant, or five grams of cannabis resin.

A person requires only one gram of cannabis leaf to make two joints to be smoked with tobacco, or four cones to be smoked in a bong. A small quantity of cannabis leaf—30 grams—translates to 60 joints or 120 cones under the Act. It is a joke to talk about small quantities. A small quantity of resin, which has five to 10 times the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol [THC]—which is the main ingredient in the cannabis leaf that causes major problems—of 30 grams of cannabis leaf, is the equivalent of up to 100 joints or 200 cones.

The Christian Democratic Party believes that it is misleading and dishonest to use the term "small quantity". Obviously, it would be agreeable to people who use cannabis or marijuana. They would be very happy with the contents of the legislation. But the people of New South Wales who think that the legislation introduces more offences and increased penalties and that the Government is getting tough on drugs, particularly cannabis-related drugs, are being misled.

For that reason I foreshadow Christian Democratic Party amendments to reduce those quantities in a number of categories. I will discuss that in more detail in Committee. I merely state that for cannabis leaf, our amendments will reduce the "small quantity" of 30 grams to 1 gram, which still is enough to make two joints or four cones. They will reduce what is provided in the bill in relation to cannabis oil from 2 grams to 1 gram, and the quantity of cannabis plant from 5 grams to 2 grams, and similarly in relation to cannabis resin, we advocate a reduction from 5 grams to 2 grams.

In regard to trafficable quantities, where the bill states a cannabis leaf quantity of 300 grams, we believe that should be 100, and for cannabis oil, where the bill states 5 grams, we believe that should be reduced to 2.5 grams, and that cannabis resin should be reduced from 30 grams to 12 grams. Some people could argue that we have not been tough enough and that the quantities should be even smaller than those we propose. But I believe that our amendments will be effective in trying to bring the legislation more into line with the usage of drugs and with what people regard as large or small quantities.

In recent days one of the interesting developments has been the large volume of evidence that has emerged relating to the harmfulness of cannabis or marijuana. I prefer the term "marijuana" because that is how the public refers to it, although I know that professional people describe it as cannabis. For example, in Queensland the new head of the Queensland Government's Mental Health Review Tribunal, barrister Barry Thomas, who was a former defender of cannabis or marijuana and who took the side of marijuana decriminalisation in debates on the topic, has stated that with the information he now has regarding the link between cannabis, marijuana and mental illness, he regards the drug as a major factor in mental illness. He is now opposed to its decriminalisation.

In an interview in the Australian on 10 November last year, he said that before taking up his post in January he had acted as prosecutor and defence counsel in cannabis-related cases, and he, "more or less formed the view that for small offences we were criminalising our young folk for very small benefit". The article states:

I would have leaned to the South Australian model," he said, referring to the decriminalised system under which possession and use of up to 100g of cannabis, while still illegal, incurs an "expiation notice" for $150 plus a $10 levy and does not carry a criminal record.

He went on to say:

But since taking up this job … it's obvious many … [doctors] are observing a real connection between cannabis use and mental illness.

That is why he is supporting the current policy of the Queensland Labor Government, which has not decriminalised, and does not propose to decriminalise, cannabis use or possession, and even may increase penalties. Finally, Mr Thomas said that many of the young patients who appear before the Queensland Mental Health Review Tribunal had their first psychotic episode after using cannabis, but failed to see any link between their condition and the use of the drug. He stated:

The involvement of illicit drugs in the development or continuation of psychosis is a common theme in hearings and a worrying trend.

It is interesting that people change their position when they become aware of more evidence linking cannabis with mental illness. We all know that there has been a tremendous increase in the number of people who have mental illness. People are sometimes so ill that they have to be given disability pensions, and that becomes a major cost in the provision of social security payments and increases the burden on taxpayers. We do not want to see people requiring mental health treatment. We do not want to see people having a mental health problem. That is why the Christian Democratic Party and other thoughtful people are opposed to any policies that seem to encourage the use of cannabis or give the impression that it is a harmless recreational drug.

The Federal Government is taking a tougher stand on the whole issue of drugs, particularly cannabis and marijuana use, and is providing educational programs to try to warn young people about the harmfulness of drugs to address all the previous peer group pressure which suggested they are harmless. It is a big job now to change that perception in our society. Even now we see reports of a large number of young people experimenting with cannabis, obviously thinking it is harmless. We need to get to those teenagers. The worst factor is that the age groups of people experimenting with drugs is becoming younger, as low as 10, 11 and 12 years of age, whereas previously the main age group was the 15, 16, 17 and 18-year-olds. That is another very worrying development. I believe we should toughen up the penalties, but also reduce the quantities stipulated in this legislation. I hope that in Committee honourable members will support the amendments I have foreshadowed.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.25 p.m.]: The Greens do not support the legislation. Once again the Government is trying to look as though it is tough on drugs but is acting contrary to the best research and expert advice available. The changes in the bill would exacerbate drug abuse. The Premier has said this package is designed to hammer home the message that party drugs are dangerous and unacceptable. Of course the Greens agree that drug abuse is dangerous—we do not condone it and we wish that people would not put their health at risk in that way—but the only way to deal with drug abuse is to be realistic.

Drug use is common. In the main, government policy has failed, and the only responsible approach is to minimise the harm suffered by drug users while helping them to quit. We can save lives and reduce drug-related crime by putting the emphasis on harm minimisation. The bill is an example of the consequences of the Government's desire to look tough while ignoring the negative impact of its initiatives on drug users in New South Wales. If the bill is passed it will be an offence to sell, commercially supply, or display ice pipes in a shop for sale. A ban on possessing and selling ice pipes will not reduce the use of the drug known as ice.

The risk run by this bill is that ice users will turn away from pipes to more dangerous means of using drugs. Experts advise that this may take the form of injecting the drug or smashing up light bulbs to use them as a vessel to heat and inhale the drug. Both these alternatives carry the risks of spreading blood-borne viruses, including HIV, and hepatitis A, B and C. This proposal also carries the risk of infection if ice users are forced to re-use old and broken glass pipes. This bill also leaves open the question of what exactly is an ice pipe. The bill has a definition but it is not very helpful. The bill defines an ice pipe as:

(a) a device capable of being used for the administration of a prohibited drug by means of the smoking or inhaling of the smoke or fumes resulting from the heating or burning of the drug in a crystal or powder form, or

(b) a device that is apparently intended to be such a device but that is not capable of being so used because it needs an adjustment, modification or addition."

After reading that definition, one would have to say that we are not any wiser. The bill begs the question: How will it be proved in a court of law that somebody's pipe was intended for use for tobacco or ice? We face the same debacle with the banning of bongs for smoking marijuana. Lawyers tell us of the difficulties faced when trying to define a bong. Is a milk carton with two straws sticking out of it a bong? Our courts will hear similar arguments about ice pipes. As an eminent drug expert, Dr Alex Wodak, has advised, this is a nonsense on stilts. Shopkeepers who sell pipes will be unjustly caught by the provisions in the bill. Glass pipes are apparently on sale now in tobacconists, displayed alongside bongs, scales and lighters. One would have to say that it is grossly unfair for a tobacconist to face a two-year gaol term because he or she overlooks a glass pipe on display, or is ignorant about its use, or is unaware of the law.

A two-year gaol term is a long time. Arresting such a person will not save lives or change the pattern of drug abuse on our streets. The sad reality is that drugs are readily available and are being used in our society, and they will continue to be used. The prohibition approach, which is reflected in legislation such as this, will do nothing to reduce drug use, save lives or make our community safer. The Greens would love a world that is free of drug abuse. However, we recognise that no matter what we say in this House and no matter how tough any legislation we pass, illicit drug use will continue. We must ensure that when drugs are used they are used as safely as possible to minimise harm to drug users.

Those honourable members who want to make this bill even tougher should think about the provisions that are in place for alcohol abuse. Recently a drug expert said to me that if alcohol were discovered today it would be banned. Alcohol is not banned; it is in use in our society. However, various measures are in place to minimise the harm that it causes. Prohibition does not work in the area of alcohol abuse and it has not minimised the adverse effects of any drug consumption. Prohibition has exacerbated poor health outcomes for people using drugs, as this bill is likely to do.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It did reduce the consumption of alcohol during prohibition.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Literature and evidence on the benefits of the harm minimisation approach are strengthening internationally. The Government should examine closely that literature, including evidence pointing to the benefits of regulating the supply of heroin. Recently the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Nicholas Cowdery, addressed that issue. He said, "We should make heroin free to addicted users on prescription by licensed medical practitioners." Mr Cowdery is grappling with the key issues of how to save lives, reduce harm and restrict drug use. The Government should at least consider such a proposal and engage in this important debate. While Labor and the Coalition refuse to face the failure of their policies young lives are being damaged or lost. It is time that the Premier faced reality and got on with the job of creating a sensible, useful drug policy in this State rather than misusing this issue to try to gain an electoral advantage.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [3.31 p.m.]: The Drug Misuse and Trafficking Amendment Bill is another attempt by this Government in its sad litany of attempts to criminalise everything. The bill originally sought to ban the sale of ice pipes which, presumably, are the glass pipes that are used to heat and smoke methamphetamine, a more potent form of amphetamine. There are definitional aspects of "homemade" or "improvised" ice pipes. It is clear that ice pipes sold with the words "ice pipe" on them are ice pipes. However, it is questionable whether or not a makeshift device with a couple of straws coming out of its chamber is an ice pipe. In 2004 ice pipes were banned in Victoria.

The Australian Democrats believe that the consumption of drugs such as methamphetamines should be minimised, but what is the best way to do that? It is debatable whether banning ice pipes would have any effect on the use of that drug in New South Wales. Given our other priorities, it is extraordinary that this House would pass a special bill on this subject. In New South Wales we lose 6,600 people a year due to tobacco-caused deaths and there are 150 admissions a day into our hospitals for tobacco-caused disease, at vast cost to this State. We pass legislation and regulations created by the Government to ensure, as long as pubs build a bit of a lean-to over their beer gardens, that the habit of smoking lasts forever. Legislation will be enacted to ban the sale of ice pipes but we have to wait two years, until 2007, before legislation to prohibit indoor tobacco smoking in pubs or clubs comes into effect. We will then have an escape clause that lasts forever.

That is the absurdity of the Government's priorities relating to the use of legal and illegal drugs. A sensible provision in this bill is that if children are involved in such practices they will be criminal, but if they are not harmed no offence would have been committed. I thought that would have been blindingly obvious and enforceable under legislation such as child abuse legislation, which provides a course of action if any child is damaged as a result of any activity undertaken by an adult. This bill has been ambushed by the Christian Democratic Party, which wants large penalties to apply even to those using small amounts of drugs, thus criminalising anyone who uses a drug. The question that has to be asked is: Does criminalising everyone who uses a small quantity of drugs have any social benefit?

If large fines were imposed on drug users whose penalty points had been racked up would that stop or discourage them from using drugs at a party? What studies have been carried out to show whether the use of certain illegal party drugs has been stopped? It is all very well for the Government to impose certain penalties or to adopt a certain course of action, but if that does not work why does it continue to introduce penalties if there is no certainty they will work? There is some doubt about whether or not these sorts of penalties work. Let us assume that drug users are given large fines. If those fines are not paid the Office of State Revenue and the State Debt Recovery Office prevent offenders from holding drivers licences until such time as their fines are paid. The Government believes that to be a clever way of forcing people to pay their fines so there are no unpaid fines.

What would be the effect of a provision such as that? Would people then drive without a licence? Some time ago I received two speeding fines because, unbeknown to me, the speed limit on two sections of road, which were close together, had been lowered. So I was caught driving at 11 kilometres an hour above the speed limit on two sections of the road. I paid the fine and when I received a reminder I assumed I had paid the fine without realising I had been charged with two separate offences. I was then informed that my licence would be cancelled unless I immediately paid the second fine and I could be charged for driving without a licence and incur additional penalties.

That is an example of how penalties can escalate. Absurd though it might be that I incurred two fines in an area in which the speed limits were changed, at least I could afford to pay those fines. If I had not been able to pay those fines there would have been a real danger of escalating criminality. The Government enacts laws without looking at the broader perspective. If a person were sent to prison at a cost of $60,000 a year what would be the medical cost to treat his or her drug addiction? What would be the cost to the Government to educate that person or to look at other alternatives? The foreshadowed amendment of the Christian Democratic Party would remove the possibility of any drug trial. So not only will we not know; we will be passing laws to ensure that we never find out. What an absurd basis for any policy!
In decriminalising cannabis the assumption was that it was a harmless little drug that made one a bit silly and sleepy for a while. Anyone who has studied the pharmacology of fat-soluble drugs would know that cannabis acts quickly because basically the brain is a lump of fat with a good blood supply. So if someone takes in a fat-soluble drug it goes to the brain quickly because of the good blood supply. Given a little more time, the fat-soluble drug defuses down its concentration gradient and is evenly distributed throughout the fat in the body. As the brain comprises a small amount of the fat in an average body, drug concentration in the brain goes down, not because the drug is eliminated but because it is redistributed evenly throughout the body and thus the concentration in the brain is lowered.

However, repeated cannabis usage saturates the fat mass of the body with the same amount of the drug. Even if cannabis usage is stopped the concentration in the brain remains at a high level because the drug is eliminated from the body quite slowly. A person would then be called a pothead, as he or she would have a high level of cannabis that would then continue to be excreted. Cannabis would also be detectable in his or her urine for a long time as the degradation products were expelled. During that time a person might become quite sleepy and function poorly because of the somnolent effect of that fat-soluble drug.

The same thing is observed in regard to barbiturates, which, although sometimes used as drugs of abuse, historically have been used as sleeping tablets and antiepileptic medication. While people have been seeking to decriminalise cannabis because they believed no long-term harm would result from occasional use because the amount remaining in the fat stores in the body was low, it would now seem that there is increasing medical evidence to suggest it is the trigger or catalyst for psychotic episodes, which may be quite prolonged, and that there is a long-term problem as a result of cannabis use. Whether that means that everyone who uses cannabis should be gaoled is another question altogether.

We are trying to minimise the harm from a drug and I believe we should base such decisions on the pharmacology and the economics of the distribution of the drug, and perhaps also on what can be done about education relating to harm minimisation. This problem must be addressed in an intelligent and thoughtful manner. Those who talk about harm minimisation want to know how we can get the best health outcomes in our society and the least harm from drugs for the minimum amount of dollars. We are not running a moral crusade. We have a chemical substance and we have a population and we are attempting to minimise the effect of that chemical substance on that population. I suggest that those who do not keep those priorities in mind and go off on some sort of crusade are merely being foolish, taking the high moral ground without thinking very much, and producing a lot of hot air based on indignation and some belief in their moral superiority. It has nothing to do with the problem, which must be approached in a coldly rational manner.

I believe a holistic approach involves asking: What harm does the drug cause? How can its use be minimised in a social context? If it is not minimised, what will be the cost? I noted the interjection by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile during the contribution of Ms Lee Rhiannon, in which he said that the prohibition on alcohol in America had been a great success because it lessened alcohol use. I believe that is true although, of course, the question is: Was that actual alcohol use or measured alcohol use? As consumption of alcohol was illegal, perhaps there was some alcohol use that was not measured. But the point is that it was at the cost of a huge rise in organised crime, gangland shootings and all sorts of other things. Some might even be bold enough to say that it was better to use a bit more alcohol and have fewer people shot in the streets and a bit less organised crime and corruption in the police forces. In other words, one should balance the amount of drug used with the amount of harm to society. Those issues need to be quantified to the best extent possible and discussed in the most sensible manner.

We have to look at the cost of the existing approach. There is the cost involved in law enforcement, including the amount of police resources required. There is the civil liberties aspect, for example, people going underground. Additional legislation relating to that aspect will be before the House probably later this week. There is then the possibility of police corruption because a huge effort is put into apprehending these people, who presumably are fairly wealthy. The next issue relates to the costs involved in locking up offenders—$60,000 each per year. There is also the poor rehabilitation rate for prisoners and the reoffending rate, and the educative effect of keeping people in gaol where they rub shoulders with hardened criminals. In addition, we have the administrative costs related to collection of fines and cancellation of driving licences. We have to ask ourselves: At what point do we say that this is not useful?

We should next look at the economic costs. Once the price of the drug is driven up there is greater incentive for persons willing to take the risk. Often they bully someone else into doing it for them, or get kids to do it for them so that they can stay one step away from the law. There is an incentive because the price of the drug is driven up and the profit margins for the drug barons at the top of the tree become greater. It is not enough simply to say that if drugs are cheap no-one will use these suppliers. I remind honourable members that petrol sniffing is also a problem, particularly for disadvantaged youth sometimes in Aboriginal areas. No-one is making a huge profit from selling that petrol, but the users are sniffing it. Effectively, the solvent dissolves their brains and, as the brain cells die, presumably they release their transmitters and some interesting memories go by.

Clearly, petrol sniffing will not be affected by increases in petrol tax because the total cost is not high enough, but we need funds to try to lessen the demand. Addressing the social disadvantage that gives rise to the despair of petrol sniffing requires reallocation of resources. Redirecting some of the funding from police and prison resources involved in the law enforcement aspect of illegal drugs might be a good place to start. One has only to look at the work of Tony Vinson, which indicated the view that much of the crime is committed in certain defined geographical areas that are economically disadvantaged, and there are loads of demographic indices to show where those areas are.

This bill, which started out as a mildly silly item of prohibition banning ice pipes and ensuring that children were not affected, has now been beefed up, if you like, by the amendments of the Christian Democratic Party. The sensible approach has again been pushed further into the background and we will not now go on to the Committee stage because the Government has to decide whether it has the courage to discard these rather silly amendments; whether to go down the law and order path, speculate on what some shock jock may say on radio in the morning and say, "Gosh, if it will criminalise drugs more, if it relates to even smaller quantities, yes. We are against drugs. We are tough on drugs. We will go along with the amendments". That wonderful phrase "tough on drugs" smacks of hairy chest beating and lack of thought.

I note the position of American foreign policy, which is to bully anybody who tries to engage in harm minimisation. Any withdrawal from keeping hard drugs illegal, of course, risks the wrath of the United States of America in any sort of aid or co-operation. Again, I think it is almost religious zeal overcoming any logical thought in the approach to harm minimisation so far as drugs are concerned, which of course is advocated by people such as Alex Wodak at St Vincent's hospital who studied the matter in some detail. I think this bill unfortunately is relevant but it is probably worsened by the Christian Democratic Party amendments. I do not believe it can be supported. It is another small step—or large step, depending on whether the amendments are agreed to—along the wrong path, which should be towards harm minimisation and a far more rational approach to minimise the harm caused by drugs in our society.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.48 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. The Government is always vigilant to ensure that when it acts to protect the community from the drug trade its efforts are not subverted by those who attempt to adapt their activities to fly under the radar of law enforcement. In the process those offenders cause greater harm, particularly to the most vulnerable members of the community. This bill arms police and the courts with the means to weed out those who do, and to condemn their behaviour.

The bill rightly targets those who attempt to conceal their drug manufacturing in domestic premises where children reside, thereby endangering children in the process. The bill targets those who exploit and put at risk children in their pursuit of illicit profit from drug running. The bill also protects the community in general from the risks of dangerous new drugs that resourceful drug dealers have turned to as the Government has acted to recognise the harm drugs cause and to prohibit new recreational drugs. The bill also aims to ensure that the resources of NSW Police are applied in ways that allow them to devote maximum energy to operational matters and that the police, the prosecution and the courts are able to give the appropriate priority to the most serious cases.

I turn now to some issues raised specifically by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and the Hon. David Clarke. A number of misconceptions have been reported in the media surrounding the operation of various provisions in the bill that concern the protection of children from harm related to the manufacture and supply of illicit drugs. Contrary to these misconceptions, the bill does not create more exemptions for drug dealers. The bill introduces a new offence of procuring a child to supply prohibited drugs, which carries a reverse onus of proof in situations where a defendant argues that he or she believed the child to be over the age of 16 years. This is simply a restatement of existing common law and is consistent with existing offences of supply to a child that have a similar reverse onus applying.

As to child endangerment, the bill also introduces an aggravated offence of manufacturing for producing a prohibited drug when a child is exposed to the manufacturing process or to substances stored for the purpose of manufacturing. The aggravated defence adds three to five years respectively to the 15-year and 20-year maximum penalties for the manufacture of prohibited drugs. The risk of harm is assumed, with the burden of proof shifting to the defendant, if it is argued that the health and safety of the child was not endangered. A similar defence is found in the Commonwealth Law and Justice (Serious Drug Offences and Other Measures) Act 2005, with the New South Wales provision being tougher for an accused person to establish.

Section 310.4 of the Commonwealth Law and Justice (Serious Drug Offences and Other Measures) Act 2005 creates an aggravated manufacturing offence when a child is exposed to the manufacture of a controlled drug or precursor or to manufacture of a controlled precursor. The Commonwealth offence also has a defence in the same terms as apply in New South Wales. However, it is harder for a person in New South Wales to raise a defence, as he or she must prove it on the balance of probabilities. For the Commonwealth offence a defendant has only to satisfy an "evidential burden", which involves pointing to evidence that it is a "reasonable possibility" that the child was not endangered. The New South Wales offence is also tougher in several other respects. For instance, it requires only "mere" exposure whereas the Commonwealth defence requires "reckless" exposure, which is proof that the accused appreciated the risks and proceeded regardless. The New South Wales offence covers children under the age of 16 years, whereas the Commonwealth offence covers only children under the age of 14.

The Hon. David Clarke also asked, "Why have a defence at all?" The provision of a defence means a reversal of the onus of proof in relation to the risk of harm so that the prosecution does not have to prove it. The prosecution usually has to prove every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. However, if a child is exposed to the manufacturing process or to chemicals or substances stored for the purpose of manufacturing, the risk of harm is assumed and the burden then shifts to the defendant to try to prove that the health and safety of the child was not endangered. The defendant must prove this on the balance of probabilities. That will be a difficult burden to discharge, especially when a cooking operation is occurring.

However, manufacturing is broader than the actual cooking and the offence is made out if the child is exposed to chemicals and substances stored for the purpose of manufacturing. Such substances may include caustic soda, which is used for clearing drains; hydrochloric acid, which is used for cleaning brickwork; and methylated spirits. These substances are commonly stored and used in homes in the community without harming or endangering children. This offence is about harm to health and safety. It is deliberately broad to make sure that no-one is missed. However, because of the sweeping ambit of the offence and the seriousness of the aggravated penalties, if there is any issue at all about harm that should be resolved it ought to be addressed by reversing the onus of proof and the responsibility of the defendant. It must be remembered that the defence relates only to the new 18-year and 25-year offences and, if made out, the offender still faces a 15-year or 20-year maximum penalty for manufacturing.

Ms Lee Rhiannon asked whether innocent shopkeepers who sell ordinary tobacco pipes will be caught by the laws regarding ice pipes. The answer is no. Ice pipes are custom-made from blown glass. They are designed specifically for the purpose of smoking prohibited drugs in powder or crystal form and are not known to have other purposes. Pipes used for the smoking of tobacco and other legal substances would not fall into the definition of "ice pipe". I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

Mr Breen Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Colless Mr Costa Ms Cusack Mr Della Bosca Mr Donnelly Mrs Forsythe Mr Gallacher Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay Ms Griffin Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Lynn Mr Macdonald Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Mr Oldfield Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

Ms Robertson Mr Roozendaal Mr Ryan Ms Sharpe Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Mr West Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Harwin Mr Primrose

Mr Cohen Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Dr Chesterfield-Evans Ms Hale

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads. Given the Minister said in the House last Thursday, "The Government could open all the closed roads, which would open up the potential liability", and in light of the opening of 12 roads around the cross-city tunnel without triggering compensation, will the Minister finally admit that he previously misled this House, and that it has always been in his power to reclaim public roads?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am stunned by the detailed and extensive question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. It is really worrying to me that the Opposition does not even read the Sydney Morning Herald or the Australian Financial Review but restricts its reading to the Daily Telegraph to get its questions. The Government's position on the cross-city tunnel has been clear from day one. We have said all along that we will not take unilateral action to reverse road changes, which would leave taxpayers of this State open to potential liability of tens of millions of dollars. That would be a reckless and irresponsible act by any government.

This Government has worked co-operatively with the cross-city tunnel operators to get a better result for motorists. We have seen an example of that. As honourable members would be aware, on Sunday the Government announced that the cross-city tunnel operators will halve the toll for cars and trucks to give a genuine benefit to motorists and allow a framework for the Government to work co-operatively with cross-city tunnel operators to resolve the issues around the tunnel, and to discuss road changes. That is the way a responsible Government acts—careful negotiations to get the best outcome for motorists and to resolve the issues around city traffic in the best way possible to benefit the motorists of this State.

This morning when I came into the city I noticed that William Street was better than it was previously. I can report to Parliament that on the first day that the tolls were halved an additional 4,400 cars went through the tunnel. That means 4,400 cars were not on the city roads and that makes city traffic a little less congested and allows better operation of the tunnel.

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

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: That is a sensible outcome for motorists. The Government is sitting down with the operators and working through the issues of road changes. Let us contrast that with the Opposition's position on the cross-city tunnel. The Opposition has a strategy—the Mugabe strategy. The Opposition wants Peter Debnam to go into the office of cross-city tunnel operators, tear up the contract and say, "How much must I now pay you?" "How much of taxpayers' money do I owe you?" That is what he is going to say and that is the Opposition strategy. It is an economic idiot's way to deal with this issue. This Government takes a serious approach to getting a better deal for motorists and listening to the concerns of the community.

Already the Government is seeing the benefits of its negotiations and it will continue to negotiate with cross-city tunnel operators to get a better deal for motorists: no reckless unilateral action, no dream strategies but a serious and appropriate way to deal with this issue. I urge motorists to take advantage of the half price and use the tunnel to see what a good piece of infrastructure it is.
The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Disability Services. Will the Minister advise the House about the concept of cash grants for people with disabilities?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: With a great deal of pleasure I thank the Hon. Kayee Griffin for her question. Today the Opposition has come up with a policy of sorts for disability services. The Hon. John Ryan has told the ABC Illawarra that "my belief is that people with disabilities should be given cash grants to find their own accommodation". It is a miracle cure—just give everyone cash! The Hon. John Ryan's "hand-out-the-cash plan" raises more questions than it answers. If the money is from the existing budget, which non-government agencies should be de-funded to release the cash?

The Opposition does not have to name every organisation that it will de-fund—the Hon. John Ryan might tell me the name of one. Is this additional cash or new cash that the Opposition will find for the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care? Where would people with disabilities find this accommodation? Exactly who would be eligible to get the cash? Would people with disabilities employ their own staff, and pay their own payroll tax and insurance, get an ABN number, and who knows what else? For most people, this sounds like more stress on families supporting disabled people, not less.

It is true that many jurisdictions, including this one, provide individual funding on a small scale in specific circumstances. In New South Wales, we have the Attendant Care program, the new Community Participation program, flexible respite, and brokerage funding. All of these provide greater control for people with disabilities. But the funds are held by a service provider on the individual's behalf. This means the service provider is responsible for things like insurance, taxation, employment and other important issues.

Disability services are intended to assist people with disabilities and their families and carers. The Hon. John Ryan's "cash grants plan" sounds like a headache for this group. It ignores the efficiencies and the tremendous buying power that can be provided by government to the tens of thousands of people who require assistance. The Hon. John Ryan's idea of handing out the cash is quite at odds with his party's track record. At the last election—at the last moment—the Coalition partly balanced its dodgy election commitments by slashing $700 million from the community services sector. And how many additional dollars did the Coalition promise for disability services in that election, that time round? Not one dollar.

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: The Minister was asked a question about cash grants, not Opposition policies. Clearly, he is beginning to discuss ancient history and his version of what the Opposition's policies were years ago. Those matters have absolutely nothing to do with the excellent question that he was asked about cash grants.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister that his response should be relevant to the question asked.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It is relevant to the question that the honourable member for Vaucluse, the Leader of the Opposition in the other place, and his Opposition colleagues are now proposing to cut 29,000 public service jobs.

The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: The Minister persists in giving an answer that is not in response to the question that he was asked. I do not believe the honourable member for Vaucluse featured in the question asked by the Hon. Kayee Griffin. The honourable member asked about cash grants, and cash grants ought to be what the Minister speaks about.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister of my earlier ruling.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Are home care workers listed as protected staff? Are disability services workers to be protected? No. I suggest the Hon. John Ryan understand that promising to hand out cash to everyone is not credible. It is not a policy that is deliverable. It is a cynical exercise that gives false hope to people with a disability, their families and carers.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads. Given that last Sunday on Channel 10 he stated, "Today's a culmination of pretty much two weeks of ongoing discussions", and the Premier's statement the day after on the Alan Jones radio program that "there's been negotiations … over the course of the weekend", will the Minister now acknowledge that their statements are conflicting and that one of them has misled the community over the deals done on the cross-city tunnel? Given that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile revealed earlier last week that a deal had been done, will the Minister admit that he also has misled the House?

The Hon. John Della Bosca: You do not want a deal? You do not want negotiation?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Well, we do not want Ministers lying.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been reduced to reading press releases of the honourable member for Vaucluse to frame his questions. This is a fairly sad day. I was not that great at English at school, but "culmination" usually means a final point after some negotiations. I have stated clearly, and the Premier has stated clearly, on the Friday afternoon the first offer was put on the table by the cross-city tunnel operators.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You said two weeks.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Well, there were a lot of discussions that led to the first offer. That is exactly right. When Opposition members sit there and talk amongst themselves, they are discussing something.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: Is the Minister lying now, or was he lying then?

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

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Melinda Pavey to order for the first time.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Sunday's announcement is a vindication of the Government's position. The reduction in the toll was much larger than was called for by the parliamentary inquiry, and there has been a reversal of road changes. The Government has consistently maintained the tunnel operator should reduce the toll.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister has the call.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Halving the toll and reversing the road changes are the first steps to building goodwill with the motorists of this State.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Catherine Cusack to order for the first time.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Discussions will continue between the New South Wales Government and the tunnel operator to determine what more can be done, including further negotiations on surface road issues. This is a commonsense approach to keeping traffic moving without putting taxpayers' money at risk. There is more work to be done, there are significant issues that need to be resolved, and the Government is getting on with the job. There is a stark contrast between the Government's position and the Opposition's position. The Opposition has no policy on the cross-city tunnel. All they have is bluff and bluster and contradictory assertions that change from day to day.

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

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: On 2 November last year the honourable member for Vaucluse called on the Government to renegotiate the tunnel contract. He apparently did not check with his roads spokesperson, the honourable member for Oxley, the Leader of The Nationals, who only four days earlier stated that it would be irresponsible for the Government to bail out the cross-city tunnel operator—a clear contradiction between the two of them. On the issue of the toll, in October the honourable member for Vaucluse urged the Government to review the tunnel toll pricing. That was his October position, yet only two weeks ago the Opposition leader told—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: My point of order is one of relevance. The Minister was asked a detailed question about his truthfulness, and he has gone on to a different area. I request you to bring the Minister back to the question—why he lied.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister was making general comments. The Minister is in order.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: In October the honourable member for Vaucluse was urging for a toll review, but then two weeks ago he said the issue is not the toll. He will say or do anything to get the cheap headline. What is his bold strategy? It is to tear up the contract—the Mugabe strategy. It is to nationalise the tunnel and just tear up the contract, and then work out how much we owe the cross-city tunnel operator afterwards. What a ridiculous position!

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Considering that the recommendations of a 2004 Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation addressed corruption in safety certification and training in the New South Wales construction industry, and that the construction industry has the highest level of worker injuries in this State, can the Minister give an assurance that all occupational health and safety construction induction certificates are being issued in accordance with procedures that WorkCover advised ICAC it had adopted following ICAC's findings of corruption in this particular area?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The member raises an important question. Indeed, WorkCover has put a great deal of effort into securing integrity for its licensing program, particularly regarding those matters that were the subject of the inquiries to which she referred. Because a number of matters were canvassed in the question, I will obtain a detailed response for the member and make it available as soon as possible.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Emergency Services. Will he update the House on investigations into the death of a pilot fighting bushfires at Cootamundra?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the honourable member for his question, particularly under such tragic circumstances. I am sure that all honourable members are aware of the death of pilot Brad Pead during the bushfire fighting operation at Cootamundra on 16 February. On behalf of the Parliament and the New South Wales Rural Fire Service [RFS] I extend our condolences to Mr Pead's wife, children, family, friends and colleagues. Our thoughts and prayers are with them at this time and I extend our sympathy for their tragic and untimely loss. Mr Pead was from Port Macquarie on the North Coast—I think he was known to some members of the Chamber—but like so many of our firefighters, both on the ground and in the air, he has travelled great distances to help protect a community under threat of bushfire.

Mr Pead was not a member of the Rural Fire Service, but he was working for one of more than 100 operators who are contracted to the RFS to supply about 150 fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters needed to support bushfire operations. The Cootamundra fire appears to have been started by lightening strike in the Mount Ulandra Nature Reserve on Thursday 16 February. More than 80 firefighters supported by three aircraft worked solidly for two days to bring it under control. In all, 600 hectares of land were burned. Australia has a proud record in aerial firefighting. This is the first tragedy experienced in the nation. Two investigations were launched immediately, one by the Rural Fire Service and one by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, into the circumstances of the loss of Mr Pead's fixed-wing aircraft and his life. In the fullness of time these investigations will reveal what went wrong and there may well be lessons to be learned, but at this stage it is too early to comment.

The courage of pilots who fight fires from the air is as unquestioned as the bravery of those who face the inferno on the ground. The combination of airborne and ground-based firefighting has served our bushfire-prone communities well. The RFS continues to refine its firefighting capacity each day, but it is inescapable that firefighting is, and will always remain, an activity that is not without an element of risk. Commissioner Koperberg has advised me that the impact of this tragic accident has been felt throughout the State. There is no doubt that it will have a profound effect on Mr Pead's colleagues, who must continue the work of rendering communities safe from fires. Sometimes these aircrew are the invisible faces of a significant part of the firefighting effort in New South Wales and throughout Australia. The loss of one of their number is deeply regretted by us all.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Roads. Given that three businesses in Bourke Street have been forced to declare bankruptcy and a further 12 have lost thousands of dollars because of the cross-city tunnel road changes, will he now compensate the victims?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: There is an issue around road changes in the city area that the media has dealt with on a number of occasions. Bourke Street is a particularly perplexing issue. Honourable members may be aware that it is under review at the moment by the Roads and Traffic Authority. It falls under one of the category D road changes, which the parliamentary inquiry recommended be reversed immediately. However, the Government has taken a more responsible position and has decided that the best way to approach the Bourke Street issue is to go back to the community for further consultation.

Honourable members would be well aware, and it has been canvassed quite publicly, that two active vocal community groups have very opposing views on the Bourke Street issue. There have been a number of demonstrations by a large group of community activists demanding that Bourke Street be reopened, and another demonstration by a large group of community activists demanding that Bourke Street stay closed. It is interesting that this puts people such as Ms Lee Rhiannon in a perplexing spot because although she claims to support taking traffic—

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The question was about businesses going bankrupt and the need to compensate them, yet the Minister is waffling on, not paying any attention to the problems that have been caused by his and his predecessor's incompetence. He should be brought back to the question of compensation.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister has the call.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: To the point of order: Clearly, we have a problem with the Minister understanding relevance. He continually strays from the question. He should stick to the issue before him and not try to put up bogeymen, straw men, to divert people away from the real issue, which is his mismanagement. I very much urge that you direct him to answer the question. The Greens have a very clear record on public transport. What he is trying to do now is just beyond the pale.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members not to debate an issue while taking a point of order. Debating points are not points of order.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: To the point of order: The Hon. Greg Pearce was right: He was asked a question about people going bankrupt. It is an important issue, and the Minister should return to the main substance, which is what the Government is doing to compensate them.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Had the Hon. Greg Pearce stuck to that point, there may well have been a point of order. However, he then went on to debate the point, and he must not do that. The Minister's answer must be relevant to the question.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Bourke Street is a very controversial issue, as Ms Lee Rhiannon has indicated. Ms Lee Rhiannon, who supported reversing the category D changes during the parliamentary inquiry, stood up publicly only yesterday and said, "Why are you reversing some of the changes, particularly in relation to Bourke Street?" The Government is well aware of the issues around Bourke Street. I am convening a meeting with the contractors to discuss construction issues on William and Bourke streets to see if we can expedite them to ensure safe pedestrian egress along the path and to ensure that the inconvenience to businesses along the way is minimised as much as possible.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Did he see the massive rally outside Parliament House yesterday protesting against the scheme to allow specially licensed shooters to cull feral animals on public land? Given the impressive size of the rally does the Minister still support the scheme to protect Australian native species against a wide range of introduced predatory feral animals? Considering that the more than 20 people who took part in this major protest want to protect feral animals on public land, will the Minister now abandon the culling scheme? If not, why not?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am always amazed by the politics of the Greens and some elements of the extreme environmental movement. These groups have criticised the Government consistently, claiming that it is not doing enough to tackle the impact of feral animals on our landscape yet when a sensible option is at hand they object at every turn. Let us consider the facts. Over time more than 80 introduced species have established wild populations in Australia. Approximately 30 of these have become pests. After habitat loss, invasive species are the single greatest threat to Australia's unique and treasured biodiversity, and the consequences are considerable. For instance, there are approximately 7.2 million foxes in Australia today. These foxes consume an average of 190 million native birds every single year. In some areas feral pigs have been known to attack and eat up to 40 per cent of newborn lambs.

Feral animals spread weeds and livestock disease, damage waterways and wetlands, cause crop damage, pose exotic disease risk and can cause land degradation. Recent studies have shown that across Australia feral animals cost an estimated $720 million every year in lost production and control measures. With the creation of the Game Council we have an excellent way to utilise the licensed trained hunters to help minimise the devastating impact of feral animals. In fact, starting next week recreational hunters will be able to access 31 State forests in a bid to control pest populations.

I must point out that it is not the first time that licensed recreational hunters have helped to tackle this problem. On the mid North Coast, for instance, hunters licensed by the Game Council are playing a key role in controlling wild deer populations that are destroying residential and market gardens, as well as agricultural crops. They have also participated in community-based feral animal control projects in the Illawarra region, the Hunter Valley and the Riverina. They will be co-operating with the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries and the Sporting Shooters Association on a project that will measure the benefits of targeted fox hunting. This concept has worked in Victoria and South Australia, as well as New Zealand.

Using licensed hunters in selected State forests is just one of a number of legitimate tools contributing to the Government's overall strategies for feral animal control. How can any true environmentalist not support such a program in light of the damage that feral animals cause? Yesterday's article in the Daily Telegraph was a brilliant example of hypocrisy by the extreme Green movement. In reporting on the protest staged by 25 members of the World League for the Protection of Animals the article stated, "Bizarrely, they claim wild pigs, dogs and other introduced pests are not a proven threat to native species—despite contrary evidence". I should note that this same organisation refers on its web site to the concept of free living cats. One might ask: What is a free living cat? And what are the effects of a free living cat on the environment and on our wildlife? It must be quite extreme. Free living cats are the new wave concept—the new concept that is destroying our wild life.

In a 5 January media release Ms Lee Rhiannon said the environment would be a loser when hunters moved into State forests. She is applying the same sort of ideological approach to feral animal control as she has applied to mining. In fact, Ms Lee Rhiannon regularly weaves a web of mixed messages. When it comes to our mining industry, for instance, she said:

The Greens are campaigning to stop the environmental destruction caused by long wall coal mining when it is carried out underneath rivers, wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas.

[Time expired.]

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: My question is addressed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will he inform the House whether workers on minimum wages will have to wait until the end of the year to receive a pay rise?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It gives me great pleasure to inform the House and the member that late yesterday the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission rejected the Howard Government's underhand attempts to delay the 2006 State wage case. Hearings will now commence in June. The Commonwealth has attempted to institute a wage freeze on Australia's lowest paid. The Commonwealth argued that the proceedings should be adjourned until after the Australian low pay commission hands down its first wage determination at the end of this year.

At a time of economic prosperity, record share market values, low unemployment and the New South Wales economy being described by Standard and Poor's as "in a very strong position", the Commonwealth argued that one and a half million low-income earners should not share in that prosperity. Some time ago the Commonwealth Minister was quoted as claiming that minimum wages were $70 a week too high. We are talking about people earning $480 a week before tax—too much money, says the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth Minister.

In stark contrast, the Iemma Government is committed to a wages safety net so that people who need it can make ends meet. The State wage case is the only way that the people of New South Wales who depend on the safety net of awards ever receive real wage adjustments to sustain their living standards. The Iemma Government strongly supports the right of Unions NSW to submit a wage claim before the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission. We believe the minimum wage, the wage paid to some of the most vulnerable members of the work force, should be kept up to date and consistent with movements in the economy.

Of course with the introduction of the Federal Government's WorkChoices industrial relations system, regular safety net reviews sadly will soon become a distant memory. The Howard Government has overturned the established way of determining a fair minimum wage, replacing it with a body with the Orwellian title of the Australian Fair Pay Commission. Just as WorkChoices provides no choice, there is nothing fair about the Australian Fair Pay Commission. It will be the commission that determines the timing and frequency of future wage reviews, the manner in which they are conducted and when any decision comes into effect.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You do not know that. You are just scaremongering.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: That is what the legislation says. Put simply, this low pay commission is not compelled to hear any wage case at any time. By stripping away the wage fixing powers of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, the Federal Government has moved away from a system of wage fixing that produced consistent, fair and reasonable award increases over the past decade.

The Iemma Government is doing all within its power to protect New South Wales families from the Commonwealth's attack on their living standards. That is why we are modifying the employment status of 180,000 public sector employees, including nurses, ambulance officers, bus drivers, TAFE teachers and home care workers. The Opposition will not stand up for frontline workers, but we will. The Iemma Government applauds the decision of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission to hear the State wage case in the normal way. A delay would have caused unnecessary hardship for a significant number of those on the minimum wage and their families in New South Wales.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health, representing the Minister for Education and Training. On 1 September 2004 I asked the then Minister for Education and Training a question without notice regarding asbestos in public schools. Given that the Minister has now admitted that more than 200 schools have deadly asbestos sheeting in their playgrounds, will the Government initiate a publicly available register of contaminated schools so that those dying of asbestos in the future can show that they were exposed as children in Government institutions?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will refer the matter to the Minister for Education and Training.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Disability Services. Are two respite beds at the Albatross Road facility in Nowra currently blocked? Is it true that these beds have been blocked for at least six months? Is it also a fact that there are many families who have now had scheduled respite cancelled up to four times in a year as a result of this closure? Has the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care also closed the other beds at the facility because it is concerned about the behaviour of the two permanent residents? How many of the 18 centre-based respite beds in the department's southern region, to which the Minister referred this morning on radio, are also blocked? When will he intervene to ensure that families on the South Coast have access to proper centre-based respite?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It is an important part of the public debate that the Hon. John Ryan is addressing. From time to time, as he knows and as most honourable members of the House would be aware, families supporting and caring for a person who has a disability find themselves in various sorts of crises, and people with disabilities are left at respite centres for extended periods. Of course, respite centres are not intended to cope with long-term residents. When this occurs, the department works with families to establish longer-term accommodation and support options for those who have been left in the respite facility.

This is the case with two young people who have been correctly identified by the Hon. John Ryan as having been left in the care of the Albatross respite centre on the South Coast. Other families who have had their respite services affected have been offered alternative arrangements, such as in-home support. This year the New South Wales Government will spend an additional $1.7 million on respite services for the South Coast. That is a 26 per cent increase from last year. In addition, a further $6 million has been provided this year for flexible respite in the southern region. The Government has substantially increased funds for respite services across New South Wales for older people, people with a disability, their families and their carers. We have doubled funding for respite services since 1996, with a total investment of over $166 million this year.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: So if it is that good, why do you have a problem?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I will get to that. Every day these funds provide in-home respite for 6,800 frail older people, people with a disability and families and carers, centre-based day care for more than 14,500 frail older people and people with a disability, and care for 620 people with disabilities. Last year the Government announced a further $48 million over three years for respite for older carers in a joint initiative with the Commonwealth Government. This $48 million will deliver at least 1,000 additional respite places ranging from limited to intensive support.

I note the Coalition has made a commitment to an additional $4 million for respite services over four years. I might add that this is a miserly amount in contrast to the Government's $166 million recurrent commitment to respite care. I remind the House that at the most recent State election the Coalition promised to fund its election commitments by cutting $700 million from the community services budget. The Coalition did not promise one extra dollar for disability, and at the last election when they were last in government, the Coalition axed over 1,000 staff from the then Department of Community Services, which included disability services. Now they are promising to axe 29,000 public service jobs with no protection for those workers.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN: I ask a supplementary question. I distinctly remember asking the Minister when would those beds open, as he was asked this morning. I would like him to elucidate that part of his answer, because if he mentioned it, I must have missed it.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: As the honourable member well knows, at the beginning of the question I said that from time to time families find themselves in crisis.

The Hon. John Ryan: When?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: They find themselves in crisis at times beyond my control. The staff of the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care are working with those families to secure alternative long-term accommodation for those individuals.

The Hon. John Ryan: For how many months?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Sometimes it takes a long time. What the Government is offering is an approach to disability services that will provide some long-term hope for people who require respite.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: But it has not yet, has it?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I would like to think it has. At the moment, in this particular instance, the Government is working to find alternative accommodation for the two individuals who are blocking respite beds. The Government is supporting, and will continue to support, all those who are currently unable to achieve home respite arrangements in an external service. Such issues occur from time to time. The important thing in remodelling disability services—and this is the focus of the Government—is to make sure that we support people in crisis as early as possible. If possible, we support families before they go into crisis. That is the basis of the Government's approach. It will pay dividends over time. These matters will always occur; there will always be issues such as those experienced at Albatross House, but they will occur less frequently as the Government remodels its approach to providing disability services.

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Roads. Will the Minister provide the House with information about the incidence of mental stress leave in the Roads and Traffic Authority?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the honourable member for his interest in this matter. On various road projects and in motor registries across the State the staff of the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] are working to keep New South Wales moving. Along with other public employees who serve our community, they deserve our support. However, they certainly get no support from the honourable member for Vaucluse. In the Daily Telegraph on 22 February the honourable member for Vaucluse, referring to stress, was reported as saying, "Well, if they feel stressed, they should get another job." It was a shallow attempt by the say anything, do anything member for Vaucluse. He told workers to deal with stress, or quit. It was Debnam, the Navy-man, telling everyone else to suck it in sailor and keep a stiff, Prince Charles upper lip.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Greg Pearce to order for the first time.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The real facts about stress leave in the RTA are that between 1 July 2003 and 30 June 2004 there were 520 workers compensation claims, of which no more than 39 were stress-related.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Point of order: My point of order is on relevance. To make this question and answer session incredibly relevant for the Minister, it would be appropriate to point out that he has a driver who relieves—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member will resume her seat. There is no point of order.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: There were 39 claims from a work force of 7,000. That amounts to half of 1 per cent of the RTA's entire staff—that is, 0.5 per cent! But the facts aside, the Leader of the Opposition made it clear that he could not care less about the circumstances that cause employees to take stress leave.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: My point of order is on relevance. The Minister, once again, has looking for scapegoats and is trying to drag in the Leader of the Opposition. That has no more relevance than, I suspect, reference to his predecessors, who caused this stress. I request that you ask the Minister to address the question, which asked about stress on employees.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister will not refer to the Leader of the Opposition when talking about stress.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Whether it be a traumatic personal experience, depression or a medical issue, this cold, hard, uncaring attitude is not new to the Liberals. Honourable members would remember how they gossiped, backgrounded and stabbed John Brogden in the back, in a disgraceful smear campaign to hound him out of office.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: This serial offender, who lives in Vaucluse, does not seem to want to listen to your rulings that relate to relevance. He has been asked a specific question and he is straying well and truly from it.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Madam President—

The PRESIDENT: Is the Minister speaking to the point of order?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: No.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister that I have ruled in the past, and I will continue to rule, that Ministers are out of order if they refer to matters in their answers that are not relevant to the questions that are asked.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Liberals had the hide to blame Brogden for their record defeat in Pittwater, and they still refuse to offer John Brogden the support he and his family deserve.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister is deliberately flouting your ruling. You have asked him to return to the question but he continues with his bad old ways. The Minister has indicated that he has no idea of the truth and that he lacks the ability to hear, and he is now flouting your ruling.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: To the point of order: The honourable member for Vaucluse made very public comments about stress leave in the RTA. I am responding to those comments as part of my answer on the question of stress leave in the RTA. That is clearly relevant.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister may speak about statements made by the Leader of the Opposition, but he may not speak about the Leader of the Opposition. If the Minister confines his remarks simply to statements, he will be in order.

[Time expired.]

The Hon. EDDIE OBEID: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The honourable member for Vaucluse told RTA workers "Cop it or quit", and that is the way the Liberals treat John Brogden today. The Liberals have absolutely no sympathy at all—they have no caring and no decency. They did it to the Hon. Patricia Forsythe and she walked out, they are doing it to the Hon. John Ryan, and he will walk out, but the Hon. Don Harwin has slipped in under the wire.

[Interruption]

Members of the Opposition know I am speaking the truth and they do not like it. Now who is getting stressed!

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that the Federal Q fever vaccination program has ceased? Is the Minister aware that almost half of all Q fever cases occur in farmers or other non-abattoir workers? Has the Minister assessed the cost effectiveness of such a vaccination program for abattoir workers and farmers? If so, what are the results and what plans are there for Q fever prevention in New South Wales? If not, why not?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Q fever vaccination program is a Federal-New South Wales program. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratory is the only manufacturer of the vaccine. The role of NSW Health is not to fund the vaccine, as it has always been a national issue. There is a committee that involves the Australian Government on which New South Wales Health is represented, and we will take the honourable member's concerns in relation to the issue to that committee. As a general aside, I get a bit tired of being requested at various times to take up Federal programs that are discontinued, and there is a whole string of them in Health. They last about a year or two and then they stop. Following their cessation the Federal Government comes to us and asks us to pick them up. Generally that is not on as I do not have the capacity to pick them up, particularly as they were manufactured by the Commonwealth.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Roads. Given that the cross-city tunnel and the Iemma Labor Government now have three months to come up with a permanent solution to the cross-city chaos, why will the Minister not stop all work on surface roads over that period? Or are road works completed over the next three months likely to be ripped up at more cost to the New South Wales taxpayer?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I find it amusing to hear the Hon. Don Harwin raise the issue of costs when his own leader, the Leader of the Opposition, has made it clear that his strategy on the cross-city tunnel is to tear up the contract and then ask the cross-city tunnel operators, "How much will I owe you? How much of taxpayers' money should I give you? How much will you charge New South Wales taxpayers after I tear up the contract?" This is a ridiculous question. The Opposition is flailing because the strategy of the Government, which was to sit down and negotiate with the cross-city tunnel operators, has proved to be effective.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The question quite clearly related to work that is continuing on access roads. The Minister was asked whether he will stop that work so that he does not have to pay to have them ripped up later. The question contained no reference to the Opposition. I ask you once again to ask the Minister to try to answer the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! That the Minister is continually making comments about the Opposition does not mean that he is not being relevant to the question asked.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The question was about cost to the taxpayers. I think a plan to risk up to $1billion in costs to the taxpayers of New South Wales is very relevant. That is what we have before us. We have a crazy strategy of "tear up the contract and then ask, 'By the way, now that I have torn up the contract how much do the taxpayers of New South Wales actually owe you?'" That is reckless and irresponsible. This Government is not about reckless, irresponsible, unilateral action; it is about negotiating. The toll has been halved—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The question was clear. Will the Minister stop the work on the roads so that he does not have to pay to have them ripped up later? I ask that you draw the Minister's attention to the question that was asked.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Making general comments about the issue is certainly relevant to the question asked. I ruled previously that the Minister should not simply continue to refer to the Opposition. The Minister may proceed.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: What a change in the Opposition! Three months ago the Opposition was saying, "You have to get the toll down. That is the critical issue." That was three months ago. Well, the toll has been halved and now the Opposition says, "Oh, it is not about the toll; it is about the road changes." We negotiated with the cross-city tunnel operators to get some resolution on road changes.

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: Point of order: I remind you of your previous ruling. The Minister immediately referred again to the Opposition.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister may make general comments about strategies and policies. I have ruled that he must not continue to talk about the Opposition as such.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Then it was about road changes. We negotiated with the cross-city tunnel operators in a co-operative way to get a good result for motorists, and what happened? We have a reversal of 12 road changes immediately and parameters have been set for negotiations over the next three months to resolve the other issues relating to road changes. The Government will not take unilateral action without the co-operation of the cross-city tunnel operators because, unlike the Opposition, we will not risk taxpayer dollars. We will work co-operatively with the cross-city tunnel operators to get the best deal for motorists, to ensure that the cross-city tunnel is a success and to deal with the issues of congestion around the city.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Lands. Will the Minister inform the House how the Government has supported the restoration of the Walka Water Works in Maitland?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Recently I had the pleasure of joining with the honourable member for Maitland, John Price, to announce a grant of $73,000 to the Walka Water Works Trust. The funds will be distributed over a period of two years, with the first instalment of $50,000 awarded in the 2005-06 financial year. Walka Water Works is one of Maitland's most beautiful and historical sites. As one of the largest and most intact nineteenth century industrial buildings in the Hunter region, it is listed with the National Trust in recognition of the building's historical significance and heritage. Work on the site will include the replacement of the structural walls in the western annex of the building following damage caused by white ants. Restoration of the external brickwork and sandstone in the eastern annex of the old boiler shop area will also be undertaken. The annexes of the building are perhaps the most historically important, providing a wonderful example of Victorian Italianate architecture. Other government agencies also contributed funding for the restoration of the Walka Water Works. Between 1993 and 2000, a total of $117,000 was provided through the Heritage Incentives Program for other restoration and conservation works to the site. A further $10,000 was also awarded by the Premier's Department to the trust for the management of the reserve.

Walka Water Works was originally built in 1885 because of the growing population of Newcastle and the Maitland area in general. It provided water to Newcastle as well as to Maitland in those times. Additional sections such as those being restored were completed in 1887. However, by 1900 the amount of water consumed by the region had doubled since 1892 and with further droughts in 1904 and 1905, the water works was under increasing strain. It was eventually phased out and closed in 1931, only to be resurrected in 1951 by the Electricity Commission as a temporary power station during post-war electricity shortages. Since 1978, however, the site has been decommissioned, the power station has been dismantled and sold for scrap, and the National Trust and Heritage Council of New South Wales has recognized the heritage significance of the buildings.

[Interruption]

The Opposition has not much interest in the Hunter region. It could not give a damn about the Hunter region. Walka Water Works made significant advancement for public health in the Hunter region by providing the first permanent, clean water supply.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why is it called "Walka"? You have not done your research, have you?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I do know. It is an Aboriginal name. I asked the question when I was up there. In fact, the water works complex was the first vital stage in the establishment of the Hunter District Water Board, now the Hunter Water Corporation. Other features of the Walka Water Works include extensive gardens and picnic areas, and 80 acres of bush land with more than 12 kilometres of walking trails. In fact, a number of school groups camp out in those gardens. The gardens, as well as the old annexes, are a popular venue for weddings, receptions and parties. Funds are provided by the Department of Lands and administered by the Public Reserves Management Fund, which is the source of funds for the improvement of Crown reserves throughout the State. I was pleased to join members of the trust to announce this new funding package, and I am confident the work of the trust will ensure that the water works endure as a testament to past engineering feats.

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Given the massive local community opposition to plans by Orica to locate its toxic waste incinerator near Grenfell in the State's west, what guarantee can the Minister provide for farmers who fear their clean, quality produce is at risk from this geomelt facility, which will require a three kilometre exclusion zone and an 80-metre high smokestack? Will nearby wheat, wool and lamb producers have their organically certified status threatened by this toxic facility? Does the Minister think it is safe to truck or train waste for almost 500 kilometres through rural New South Wales for processing at Grenfell? What action will the Minister take to help to protect local farmers from this toxic project?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: It is quite clear that when an issue arises that deals with public policy, such as this, a raft of very stringent environmental processes would have to be entered into before any decision was made to locate such a toxic waste facility at Grenfell. I am confident that these issues will be addressed within the context of the environmental impact statement. I have not received any particular negative assessments from farmers but, obviously, someone has approached the Greens. I am happy to look at the issues as they arise, but I am confident that, if it were to comply with the planning processes of this State, the process would be safe, not only for the work force but also farmers in the vicinity.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. Will the Minister advise if there are parts of New South Wales where NSW Health mental health helplines, although advertised as being available 24 hours a day, are in fact not available on a 24-hour basis? Which parts of New South Wales are not covered by a 24 hours a day service? Does the State Government have a plan to fill such gaps? If so, when will any gaps be filled?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner has raised some specific issues. I am not aware of any gaps in the service but I will take the question on notice and come back to the honourable member with the information she seeks. We hope this issue will eventually be resolved when a national call centre is established. We agreed at the Council of Australian Governments that this matter would be dealt with in that way. We also agreed with the Commonwealth that we would put in the money that is needed. We are going to be a happy family and have a national facility. I will get some details on this matter for the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG: My question is addressed to the Minister for Natural Resources, Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Mineral Resources. Will the Minister update the House on water savings initiatives in western New South Wales, particularly the Darling Anabranch project?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I thank the Hon. Henry Tsang for giving me the opportunity to talk about this exciting project. It is part of the New South Wales Government's comprehensive program of water reforms, which are based on a balance between environmental, economic and social concerns. As part of these reforms we are investing millions of dollars in genuine water savings projects, including the $115 million that we have committed to the Living Murray Initiative, through which we aim to recover an extra 500 gigalitres of water for the iconic Murray River. More than 20 projects are currently being considered, including the Darling Anabranch project. Importantly, they could all yield water for the environment without reducing the amount of water available for production.

As I told the House last year, the $54 million Darling Anabranch project will replace the river's existing water management system, which has affected water quality and flows. A major component of that project is the construction of a $28 million pipeline to provide a secure stock and domestic water supply for more than 40 landholders. I can inform honourable members that on 21 February this year I announced that the tender had been awarded to Mitchell Australasia Pty Ltd, and that work is set to begin later this month. I anticipate that the 300-kilometre pipeline, complete with two pump stations, will be finished by the end of this year. As I have made clear in the past, the project will be subject to strict environmental conditions. They include regularly reporting to the State Government, and community consultation.

I am pleased with progress on the pipeline, which shows that New South Wales is serious about water reform. It will complement other works under the Darling Anabranch project, such as removing weirs, improving fish passage, and reallocating water for environmental flow purposes. The current anabranch management system allows for the release of 50 gigalitres a year from Lake Cawndilla, which runs into 17 artificial weir pools along the anabranch. However, we now know that only about three gigalitres a year is needed for stock and domestic purposes and for wildlife. This new system will save an amount of water equivalent to the contents of about 47,000 Olympic-size swimming pools each year.

The Hon. Rick Colless: This is old news.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, I just announced it.

The Hon. Rick Colless: This is last year's news.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, this is about the contract that was awarded to Mitchell. It is an example of the steady success of the Government's new approach to water management. We understand the importance of natural wet and dry river phases to the life cycles of native plants, fish and animals. We understand that the Government can make these critical long-term changes only with the support of landholders. New South Wales is proud of its achievements to date in reforming the way we use, regulate and trade water. In a week we will be closely—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: When are you going to give out your weeds money?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were doing his job as the Opposition spokesperson for Primary Industries he would be asking me those questions.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We asked you last week: you couldn't answer.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I have the answer and I will give it when I am ready. In a week we will be closely involved with the 2006 Australian Water Summit to be held at the Sydney Convention Centre. Relevant departments from Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland will also be involved. The forum will be a valuable opportunity to emphasise again the need for all jurisdictions to work together, particularly on issues such as cross-border water trading. The New South Wales Government will be pleased to share our expertise, particularly as we were the first to implement several key reforms under the National Water Initiative.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they put them on notice.

Questions without notice concluded.
The Hon. Eric Roozendaal tabled the following papers:

State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989—Reports for year ended 30 June:

State Emergency Management Committee
State Rescue Board of New South Wales

Ordered to be printed.

Mr Ian Cohen, as Chair, tabled report No. 24, entitled "Budget Estimates 2005-2006", dated March 2006, together with transcripts of evidence, correspondence and answers to questions taken on notice.

Report ordered to be printed.

Mr IAN COHEN [5.05 p.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Ian Cohen.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Minister for Roads) [5.06 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 Government remains committed to providing a safe, clean and reliable public transport system to better meet the needs of the travelling public.

The rail clearways program, new bus and rail fleet acquisitions, the investment in new passenger information and the rollout of the Government's bus reforms are all initiatives aimed at improving services and meeting passenger needs.

However, the delivery of public transport is not just about buses, trains, ferries and associated infrastructure.

Fundamentally, delivering public transport services is about providing equity and connectivity to a society—and this is a key theme that the Government is making a reality.

In 2005, with the assistance of IPART, the Government harmonised bus fares across metropolitan Sydney. Effectively, this meant lowering bus fares on private buses so they were the same as those afforded to people travelling on the public bus services. For the first time, commuters on private buses are now paying exactly the same cash fare for the same distanced travelled as their counterparts in the east.

Last year, the Government also extended the Pensioner Excursion Ticket across the Metropolitan and Outer Metropolitan regions, making all day travel on public transport available to eligible pensioners and seniors for only $2.50.

Now, via the rollout of the new bus contracts across the Metropolitan and the Outer Metropolitan regions, there will also be equitable concessions arrangements provided between private and public buses—again, this is for the first time.

The next step in furthering equity and connectivity to commuters is the delivery of a universal ticketing medium across all transport modes that will allow commuters to travel on any form of public transport using only one single ticket.

Accordingly, this Bill before the house today provides the legislative framework for the creation of the Public Transport Ticketing Corporation (PTTC).
This new Corporation will be responsible for establishing and managing a common ticketing and fare payment system, known as Tcard and currently under development, for public transport users and operators in the Greater Sydney Metropolitan Area.

The Corporation will not be a policy making or regulatory agency—but one with an operational focus on delivering ticketing services to the travelling public.

The Corporation will, however, provide a means for achieving broader policy objectives such as progressing key aspects of the bus reform agenda—by enabling the charging of common fares and providing flagfall-free transfers across the metropolitan region and improving improved transparency for other transport concession payments.

It is proposed that the Corporation will take over the development work currently being performed by the Transport Administration Corporation (a division of the Ministry of Transport) to introduce the new ticketing system, based on smartcard technology, known as "Tcard".

Given the relatively narrow focus of the ticketing system (it is essentially a commercial cash-management business), it is not an appropriate long-term activity for the Ministry which is a policy and regulatory agency. Also, with the number of transport operators that will participate in the scheme, it is best that the ticketing agency has no conflicts of interest in its dealings.

The Tcard system was successfully trialled in 2005 for participants in the School Student Transport Scheme, and with the recent resumption of school, we again have almost 290,000 cards on issue. Work is currently underway to commence trials for commuters and other public transport users from the middle of 2006. Staged rollout of the full system would occur after the trials conclude.

This progression from development and delivery of the ticketing system to a fully commercial structure is reflected in the Bill, by providing for the Corporation to progress to a second governance structure.

Initially, the Bill allows for the Corporation to be created as a Statutory Authority, representing the Crown and under the direction of the Minister for Transport, enabling it to establish and bed down the integrated ticketing and fare payment system for public transport in the State.

Under this governance model, the Government will ensure that the Corporations business rules are appropriate and that its policies on fares and concessions have been addressed.

Once the ticketing system is deemed to be fully operational and its activities are of a routine commercial nature it will be feasible to adopt a more commercial governance arrangement. With this in mind, the Bill allows for the Corporation to be converted to a State-owned Corporation, with the function of providing for the ongoing management of the ticketing and fare payment system.

The Bill provides for this transition to occur at a time to be determined by the Governor. Tcard should be fully operational within the next 3-5 years, however, the governance structure will not change until the ticketing system is shown to be operating satisfactorily.

Statutory Authority

As stated, in its initial years, the Corporation will be a Statutory Authority representing the Crown. It will have a Chief Executive Officer appointed by the Governor, with a Board appointed by the Minister for Transport.

The Board will consist of not less than 3 and not more than 7 members, plus the Chief Executive Officer as an ex-officio member.

During the phase that the Corporation is a Statutory Authority, the Board will have strong representation from public transport operators to ensure it has the expertise and focus to achieve its primary objective of implementing a common ticketing platform for public transport in the Greater Sydney Metropolitan Area. However, it will also include other members with commercial skills and other expertise relevant to the Corporation's objectives.

As with other Statutory Authorities, the Corporation's Board will be subject to the direction of the Portfolio Minister. However, before giving any direction that would involve "significant financial consequence", the Minister must seek the concurrence of the Treasurer.

In terms of its ongoing financial responsibilities as a Statutory Authority, the Corporation will develop a corporate plan to specify its separate activities, the objectives of each activity, the strategies, policies and budgets for achieving those objectives, and the targets and criteria for assessing the Corporations performance.

Because the new smartcard ticketing system covers all modes of transport and all operators, and because of the need to ensure consistent system performance and security, it is necessary that all ticketing equipment is owned and operated by the ticketing corporation.

Accordingly, the Government intends that the Bill provides for the transfer of all ticketing and fare collection assets from Government owned transport operators to the Corporation to provide clear lines of ownership and accountability for the provision of ticketing and fare collection services and the maintenance of equipment. However, operators will continue to have operational control of the location of these assets so that safety and customer service can be assured.

The Corporation will also have responsibility for operating and maintaining existing ticketing systems during the transition period to Tcard and after establishment.
The Bill provides for the Corporation to enter into service agreements with transport operators to provide ticketing and fare collection services. These agreements will outline the performance and maintenance requirements to be met by the proposed Corporation. In addition, because the integrated ticketing project is a whole of government, and a whole of transport industry, initiative, the agreements will set out the roles and obligations of the transport operators.

The fare revenue collected on behalf of operators will be managed in an efficient and financially responsible manner, with funds to be appropriately 'ring-fenced' on behalf of public transport users who have loaded money onto a Tcard.

Finally, because the ticketing system will offer the opportunity for commuters to register their Tcards (to enable recovery of the cash balance in the event of loss or theft) and because records will be kept of travellers entitled to concession fares, privacy of information will be important.

As a Statutory Authority, the Corporation will be automatically subject to the provisions of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1988. In addition to this, the Bill provides for the Corporation, in conjunction with the Police Service, to be able to carry out investigations and inquiries in respect of proposed employees and contractors to establish their fitness to be associated with the exercise of the Corporation's functions.

In terms of privacy issues, the Transport Administration Corporation has already developed a comprehensive privacy statement which has been available on its website for a considerable period of time. In preparing this statement, expert advice was taken from a consultant with extensive Federal privacy experience, both for the wider Tcard project and those aspects concerned with school students. A copy of Tcard's privacy statement is available at www. tcard.com.au.

State-owned Corporation

Separate to achieving its principal objectives of delivering a common ticketing system for public transport, the Corporation may also pursue commercial activities which make use of the ticketing system beyond public transport.
For example, the Tcard may ultimately be able to be used for small value transactions at convenience stores or newsagents.

Once the Tcard system is fully operational and capable of undertaking a greater level of commercial activities, the Bill allows for the Governor to repeal the arrangements for the Statutory Authority governance model and replace it with new arrangements providing for the Corporation to be a State-owned Corporation (SOC).

As a SOC, the Corporation will continue to have a Board consisting of not more than 7 but not less than 3 directors, however the Board members will be appointed by the voting shareholders in consultation with the Portfolio Minister.

The Chief Executive Officer will be appointed by the Board, following consultation with the voting shareholders (the Treasurer and another Minister appointed by the Premier) and the Portfolio Minister who, in this case is the Minister for Transport.

The primary instrument guiding the operations and financial management accountabilities of the Corporation will be the Statement of Corporate Intent, as required under the State Owned Corporations (SOC) Act.

The Corporation will be subject to Ministerial powers of direction that are also provided for in the SOC Act.

As a State-owned Corporation, the Corporation will not be not subject to the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1988, however, the Government gives a commitment that it will ensure that the Corporation will include a commitment in the SCI, to follow the Act as it establishes policies and procedures for the protection of personal information.

A Privacy Officer will also be appointed by the Public Transport Ticketing Corporation to monitor compliance (including that of the Tcard Contractor) with privacy legislation; address complaints or, issues which may arise in the operation of the Tcard system, and review related documentation and procedures.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this Bill complements the Government's transport reforms by introducing a structure to manage the fully integrated fare payment system which will dramatically improve the operation of the public transport system for the hundreds of thousands of travellers who use it every day.

Boarding times will be reduced, fare collections will become more accurate, and travellers in unfamiliar areas will no longer have to waste time trying to work out the correct fare. Tcard is a step towards a cashless transport system and should be welcomed by all members in this House.

The establishment of the Public Transport Ticketing Corporation will allow for one organisation to provide specialist ticketing services to operators and be responsible for introducing a modern ticketing system that meets the needs of the travelling public by improving equity and connectivity across the public transport network.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [5.06 p.m.]: Many thousands of words have been written about integrated ticketing systems and the Tcard, which was previously known as the "smart card". I note that the Minister for Transport in another place has decided to drop the term "smart". That is smart! Judging from what I have read about Tcard, when used for public transport purposes it is a kind of e-tag for people. The difference is that when cars use a road they all pay the same toll. In the case of public transport, we have one of the most complex pricing systems known to modern man. I hesitate to use the word "system" because it implies a level of rationality and cohesiveness that is inappropriate when we talk about public transport pricing. I will return to that point in a moment.
For me, smart card technology is a bit like the very fast train in that it is a project that has been announced and reannounced on a regular basis ever since I was a child. The closest we came to having an effective implementation of smart card technology was on 13 March 1995, when Premier Fahey announced a $174 million package to integrate public transport. It was a wonderful package. It included a six-month trial in Sydney's outer west, the creation of a transport integration council, $77 million to upgrade amenities for connections—new bus stops and 20 new rail car parks, which were to be funded with the $40 million collected from the tax on city car spaces—and instant timetable information, which was to be put online and screened at train stations as well as bus interchanges.

Now that is an integrated transport package—all researched, funded and presented—and it was announced in March 1995, 11 years ago next Monday. In contrast with the reaction to the Liberals' previous package, the Secretary of Action for Public Transport, Alan Miles, has expressed some cynicism about Tcard, saying:

The proposed changes to Sydney's transit-ticketing system have all the hallmarks of accountants trying to reduce government subsidies rather than optimising the use of the transport infrastructure for maximum efficiency.

Given the record of the State Government, which has lurched from one transport fiasco to another, I am fearful that Tcard will be the next disaster. There can be no question that the Opposition supports the introduction of this technology; it has been our policy for many years.

But the problem as we see it is not in the concept but in the ham-fisted implementation by a government that loves to deal in backrooms and undertake hidden agendas and has completely lost touch with the fact that public transport is far bigger than its backroom agendas; it is actually about delivering a service. Tcard seems perfectly straightforward. What sneaky little tricks could this sneaky little Government possibly get up to? Free student travel is one that immediately comes to mind.

When faced each year with the task of nipping and tucking the budget, Treasury has always viewed school travel as some kind of King Solomon's mine. It is frustrated that it cannot just burst in and plunder its treasures—never mind the fact that the student travel scheme is not only the backbone of choice in our education but it is also the heart of the transport system in the country, where all services are provided by private buses.

As I have said many times on this issue, the lack of a coherent plan for public transport outside the metropolitan region has created a funding omelette in the bush. Free student travel is holding together the full basket of services provided by private bus companies, many of which are family concerns operated by second and third generations who know their communities and have responded to the requirements and incentives operating in the system over many decades. I shudder every time I hear Treasury or the Minister for Transport pick on this issue because they have no concept of how this travel scheme operates in servicing communities, and no care or regard for the damage they will cause by playing games with the operation of this very important scheme.

This issue is raised in the bill because in July 2004 Tcard commenced with school trials of 2,000 students from seven schools on Sydney's north shore. Now, that is a logical place to begin, given the likelihood of multiple modes of transport those students may use—bus and train, ferry and bus, being amongst some of the combinations. So there I see a clear rationale for testing an integrated system with those students. They are not paying, so if the data collection is flawed or when hiccups occur nobody is to be penalised, so that is fine, that is logical. But the next step in July 2004 was a trial in 11 south-western Sydney schools and then in October it was extended to Westbus and 3,000 students from seven schools in Penrith.

The next milestone in the development of Tcard was to equip 2,400 buses owned by 40 private bus operators in the Greater Sydney Metropolitan Area with Tcard technology for the commencement of School Tcard in 2005. School Tcard commenced in January 2005 and, according to the project's milestones, 260,000 students entitled to free travel on private buses were issued with School Tcards as part of the School Student Travel Scheme. I was very cynical when I learned that Tcards were being issued to a group who travel for free. After all, there seems to be no value in the trial for them or for the Government, except in the case of Treasury, where there is one special thing, that is, the collection of data.

For the first time the Government can monitor actual usage of student travel concessions instead of relying on a formula. The Government's agenda has always been to pay on actuals to private bus companies rather than on a formula, because it believes the concessions are underutilised by students, particularly in the afternoon, and there is a pot of gold waiting for Treasury if only the gap between actuals and the formula could be proven as certain fact. I stress that I am not placing this interpretation on the legislation, or making it up; the Government's own web site explains why school students were selected as the test group for Tcard. It states:

December 2003—In response to the Parry Inquiry into Sustainable Public Transport, the NSW Government announces the introduction of Tcard will be fast tracked for student travel on private buses as part of the School Student Travel Scheme (SSTS) in 2005.

I do not think one needs to be Albert or Alberta Einstein to see what is going on. After nearly a decade of doing next to nothing about integrated ticketing—including completely overshooting the 2000 Sydney Olympics, when the whole idea was to have it prepared and implemented in time for it and it is now 2006—the Government finally sprang into action when the Treasurer, the former Minister for Transport, made the connection between data collection by a smart card and the potential to slash funding for the School Student Travel Scheme. One can see the beauty of it from Treasury's point of view.

Under the current system the Department of Transport audits individual bus routes to establish usage and need for services. When a bus route is targeted for such an audit, the students and their school communities go straight to action stations. For the duration of the audit, students are made by their parents to catch the bus to and from school every day—rain hail or shine. Doctors' appointments are cancelled, custody arrangements varied and school excursions deferred in order to ensure that each and every eligible child is on that bus. In this way the community ensures the audit can produce a favourable result and the service can be permitted to continue. The only possible benefit of this arduous cat-and-mouse game being played between the community and the Government is that it can be very bonding for communities to unite completely against the Department of Transport. But it can also be very stressful for all concerned.

Enter the former Minister for Transport, enter the smart card, and enter the whole new world of actuals. Now he is the Treasurer, I have no doubt this Pandora's box is about to be opened and service planning and provision for student travel is going to reduce. Of course, all this is being done in the name of better customer service. One does not find that mentioned in media releases. I note under the agreement with operators for the so-called trial of Tcard that a monthly account of actuals was to be given to private operators, which would have provided a feedback from the trial and an idea of what the data being produced was going to look like, and that it might also put them in a position to comment on the accuracy of the data. I would have thought that was an essential step in any trial.

None of the information that was promised on the implementation of the scheme in January 2005 has materialised. Therefore it is impossible to understand how anybody can pronounce the trial a success as the Minister has done. To make such a judgment one needs to have information, collaboration and assessment; and one needs to meet pre-determined accountability measures and performance indicators and, of course, the Government has done none of those things. So it has not really been a trial. A trial has a beginning, a middle and an end, from which one can draw conclusions. And so it cannot be considered a real trial until it starts to generate some outcomes. It really does worry me that the Minister for Transport cannot seem to understand that.

In his second reading speech the Minister referred to harmonising fares for private and public buses and extending concessions across the metropolitan and outer metropolitan areas. The Government is implementing what it calls equitable concession arrangements across public and private buses. All this is welcome for consumers—but I have to point out that while passengers have equitable fares, the level of subsidy provided by the Government to private bus companies is not equitable or comparable in any way with the massive subsidy paid to Government buses. The requirement for value is therefore being shouldered almost 100 per cent by the private part of the system. I understand that this is being implemented effectively. My concern today is to ensure that the Minister's remarks about equity are taken in their proper context. There is equity for metropolitan passengers but there is no equity for private service operators.

As a rural member of Parliament I cannot reflect on equity in public transport without mentioning the gross inequity endured by country New South Wales, where a lack of access to public transport is literally ruining the quality of life for many elderly or disadvantaged people, and destroying the life prospects of many children. The map of our transport system for the purposes of Tcard extends as far north as Dungog, as far south as Nowra and as far west as Bathurst. But I would have to say there is a hell of a lot more to New South Wales than that.

I would appreciate it if the Minister could assure me that the Act applies to all public transport passengers in New South Wales. I presume that students who get free student travel to schools in Lismore, Ballina and the Tweed are defined as public transport passengers and that their needs are covered by this Act. But the map of the operation ends at Dungog. I am not quite sure of the applicability or the implications of the Act on services north of Dungog, even though they appear to be captured by the bill.

Ten days ago the Treasurer delivered an audit of New South Wales which sought to dramatically reduce the number of government agencies through amalgamations and groupings. It is ironic that this bill, which seeks to establish a new agency, was introduced only days after an announcement by the Government that it would massively cut back the public sector. The Opposition recognises the need for the Public Transport Ticketing Corporation and its evolution to a statutory authority. We support its independence from the Ministry of Transport. That is appropriate, given the range of services that the corporation needs to operate across and the contracts that the ministry has with a variety of private bus companies, for example. There needs to be some separation of the operation of ticketing mechanisms.

Having seen the extraordinary game of musical chairs played by the Government with its board appointments, and noting the use of the likes of Barrie Unsworth to undertake key transport reviews, we are very anxious that the Government not continue to go down the track of merely appointing its mates. Of course, the Government can ignore what I say and go ahead and do what it always does but, if it does, the ticketing issue will degenerate into yet another mess. If the Government wishes to avoid a mess, it will take advice and appoint confident, qualified people, including representatives of all with an interest in this issue.

Coming from northern New South Wales, I strongly believe that private bus companies need to be represented and have a voice on this matter, particularly as so many of its members are affected. Anything that does not include genuine representation of industry and consumers, and anything that does not include competent people, would be a farce.

The big bogeyman of this Government is of course the financial viability of major projects such as the Millennium Train and the cross-city tunnel project. This is where many of the big messes have occurred—naivety about the finances. The shadow Minister in another place has raised concerns about the cost blowouts in the contract with the company that was awarded the tender for integrated ticketing. Last year the cost of Tcard was estimated to be $400 million—an increase of $62 million since the contract was originally signed in February 2003. In Minister John Watkins' media release of 16 November 2005 he referred to it as the "10-year $600 million program". To put these astonishing blow-outs into perspective, I point out that they were occurring at the same time as former transport Minister Michael Costa was closing the Casino to Murwillumbah rail line, allegedly to save a relatively paltry $5 million a year. That was yet another service withdrawn at a time when the Government is wasting hundreds of millions of dollars in cost blowouts.

The contractor is a business by the name of ERG, which has been on something of a roller-coaster in recent years. In 2002 it purchased a business called Proton World, which in 2004 it was forced to sell at a reported loss of $56 million. ERG was forced to take out a special $67 million rights issue in order to pay out its Proton purchase and repay a shareholder who had made available a $28 million loan facility. The Age newspaper reported that in the process ERG breached its banking covenants.

In January 2004 the then managing director of ERG resigned due to an injury he apparently sustained on a tractor and was rewarded by his business with a $2.6 million separation fee, including a $1.91 million "additional fee … for settlement and release of contract". This raised many eyebrows in the industry, especially as he had been judged to be responsible for the Proton fiasco, which really brought ERG to its knees. According to the Age newspaper, ERG sustained losses totalling $500 million between 2000-04, including the period in which the New South Wales Government awarded the company this ticketing tender. Five years ago ERG shares were trading at $11.50. In 2003 the share price dipped to less than 10¢. On 9 March last year the Age newspaper reported ERG shares trading at 36¢ a share. The Age reported ERG's new managing director, Dr Allan Sullivan, as saying:

We've had excellence in bidding, excellence in technology, but relative underperformance in project delivery, and that's where we've lost money.

ERG is an Australian company, listed in 1984 with headquarters in Perth. Its main asset is smart card technology, which it has sold globally. ERC has 40,000 shareholders and 1,000 employees working in 10 countries. It is a substantial business. This afternoon I checked ERG's share price, and it was trading at just 12¢ a share—down from $8.50 five years ago! The company secretary, W. J. Bargmann, wrote to the Australian Stock Exchange in Perth on 22 February 2006 to advise that ERG had experienced an $18 million increase in costs to complete major projects, including its supply contract in Sydney. The net loss for the six-month period to December 2005 was expected to be in the range of $18 million to $20 million. The company decided to write down the value of its Multi Application Smart Card system by $19 million as at 31 December 2005. That asset will be fully written off by December 2010. ERG is hoping to break even for the remainder of this financial year. If it can do this, it will contain its end-of-year loss to between $18 million and $20 million. But one has to wonder how much longer this can go on.

As the Government found with its Millennium train, and the financial crisis that hit EDI, when your main supplier looks like going belly-up, it is not just a problem for them, it is a major problem for the travelling public, and, frankly, that makes it a big problem for the Government too. In his second reading speech the Minister did not refer to the financials of the project, or to the exposure of taxpayers should ERG fail in its battle to return to profitability. Opposition members are concerned about the viability of this business, which now seems to maintain all public transport ticketing in Sydney. The Minister said:

… the bill provides for the [Public Transport Ticketing] Corporation to enter into service agreements with transport operators to provide ticketing and fare collection services.

But, of course, these services are already under contract, and it is not clear what happens to the ownership of the technology if the contractor proves to be unviable. There is one other issue that I wish to mention, and that is privacy. The Opposition shares the concerns of others, including the Public Transport Action Group, on the issue of privacy, as the provisions in the Privacy Act will apply to the step that we envisage today, which is to create a statutory authority. However, those provisions will not apply when the statutory authority goes the next step and becomes a government-owned corporation. We would appreciate hearing the Government's comments on that issue.

In conclusion, the Opposition does not oppose the bill. We look forward to, we hope, a significantly better performance on the part of the Government in implementing this initiative than, frankly, we have seen on any other public transport initiative in the past 11 years. Hope springs eternal, and we would like this project implemented without having yet another major fiasco on our hands. I have a bad feeling about how things will go but, as I indicated, hope springs eternal: I hope, for Sydney's sake, we can get through this.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.27 p.m.]: When it comes to public transport, sadly the Carr-Iemma Government's track record is one of failure and incompetence. Out of the litany of failures and disappointments one could list, perhaps no single issue better demonstrates the Carr-Iemma Government's fundamental incompetence than integrated ticketing. Of course, it would be wonderful if we could have an integrated ticketing system for Sydney, making it easier for travellers to move from trains to buses and trams and ferries. The Greens will support anything that makes public transport more attractive and more efficient. But the issue here is not integrated ticketing per se but the ability of the Government to deliver a sensible and effective system within a reasonable timeframe.

The Carr-Iemma Government has been promising us integrated ticketing for many years. Last century we were told it was coming. It was supposed to be in place in 2002, until the Government was taken to task in the Supreme Court over an issue to do with the tendering process. Then, conveniently, just prior to the last election, a 10-year deal was struck with Integrated Transit Solutions. Under that deal it was announced that comprehensive system design, development and testing would be completed by the second half of 2004, during 2005 most of Sydney's transport systems would be converted, and the system would be fully operation by 2006, with two million smart cards in operation.

Like so many Labor election promises, it never materialised. Now, barely 12 months before the next election, we are told that the bill will get the project off the ground. What are the odds that integrated ticketing will be in place before next year's election? It would be a brave punter who would take those odds. After the election, when the pressure is off, this so easily could end up back on Labor's backburner. But there are problems with the bill and with the Government's plans. There is a huge issue of privacy. Under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 State-owned corporations [SOC] are exempt, that is, they do not have to comply with New South Wales privacy laws. Once the Public Transport Ticketing Corporation comes into being privacy goes out the window. This is particularly a problem because of the sensitive and intrusive data that will be collected from concession cardholders. The Tcard of a full fare-paying traveller will hold information such as, "Caught the 387 bus on Wednesday morning and caught the train to Strathfield in the afternoon."

But the Tcard of a concession cardholder, the elderly, students or the unemployed will also record their names. The corporation will have records identifying in detail the travel movements of individuals. Because it is exempt from privacy laws, if someone had his or her records misused there would be no recourse to justice. The bill contains a provision for a fine for employees who misuse information, but it is much weaker than the penalties available under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act. There is no provision to allow individuals to request access to their records. It is not hard to imagine scenarios in which the privacy of travellers would be violated. For example, in the wake of the shameful riots that occurred recently at Cronulla I am sure the police would have loved to be able to check the movements that day of concession cardholders in and out of the area on public transport. Alternatively, the police might like it simply as a means to eliminate or confirm suspects in a criminal investigation of any kind.

We could debate the merits of such data being available for some time, but surely the real issue is that the bill represents a significant erosion of privacy. It is not acceptable for the Government to try to get it in through the backdoor. Significant changes to important rights like privacy ought to be debated in the open with everyone fully informed. This is sneaky behaviour. The Government is hoping that no one will notice, but the Greens have noticed and I will move an amendment at the Committee stage to render the bill subject to the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act. It is a commonsense step. The same privacy laws that apply to other public sector agencies should apply also to the Public Transport Ticketing Corporation. There should be no loophole at all. The Greens believe that concession cardholders should not be affected adversely in comparison to those who pay full fare. I understand it is important to combat evasion but I do not understand why it cannot continue to be done as it is now with transit officers checking the concession passes of those who travel with concession tickets.

Why do we need this enormous intrusion into the privacy of the elderly, students and the unemployed? Although electronic integrated ticketing is to be welcomed, the Greens are keen to ensure that it is not used as an excuse to further reduce staff numbers at railway stations. Railway staff perform many important functions, including providing safety, answering questions, helping with problems, and so on. Maintaining and restoring their numbers is essential if we are to rebuild public confidence in our public transport systems. Integrated ticketing must not be seen as an opportunity to reduce front-line staff. The Greens wish the Public Transport Ticketing Corporation well. We all want improved public transport and in no way do I wish to disparage the hard-working public servants who strive to make these things happen. But the Carr-Iemma Government has no credibility with this type of project. It has a sorry track record of disappointment. It is the political leadership of the State that is lacking. The Government is running out of time to get our public transport in shape. The Greens will be pleased to support the bill because integrated ticketing must happen. We want to ensure that the Government puts it into practice.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.34 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Transport Administration Amendment (Public Transport Ticketing Corporation) Bill. An important aspect of the Government's policy is to improve the public transport system in New South Wales, particularly in Sydney. We know that public transport—buses, ferries or trains—is vital to the majority of people in the State and particularly to those living in Sydney, even though we recognise that many people are forced to use their motor vehicles to get to and from their place of work because a simple public transport system is not available. We are pleased that the Government introduced a structure to manage the fully integrated fair payment system, which will improve dramatically the operation of the public transport system for hundreds of thousands of travellers who use it every day. The system will make it easier to board public transport, reduce time delays and ensure that the correct fare is paid. The Tcard will be a step towards a cashless transport system, which the Christian Democratic Party supports.

The establishment of the Public Transport Ticketing Corporation [PTTC] will enable one organisation to provide specialist ticketing services to operators. It will be responsible for introducing a modern ticketing system that meets the needs of the travelling public by improving equity and connections across the public transport system. The authority controlling the ticketing system will be developed in two stages. The bill creates the Public Transport Ticketing Corporation which, in its initial years, will be a statutory authority overseen by the portfolio Minister. Once its operations become fully commercial it will become a State-owned corporation. In 2003 the Government entered into a contract with Integrated Ticketing Solutions, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the ERG Group, for the development and operation of a new ticketing system to be applied to all buses, trains and ferries in the greater Sydney area. The PTTC will be responsible for establishing and managing a common ticketing and fare payment system for public transport users and operators in the greater Sydney metropolitan area.

The PTTC will meet the policy objectives arising out of the Parry inquiry and the Unsworth review of bus services, and it will help to facilitate the delivery of the Government's transport reforms. Public transport ticketing includes the new smartcard-based ticketing system, known as Tcard, which will provide passengers with a single ticket to purchase fares on CityRail and government and private bus and ferry operations. Ultimately the product will be extended to light rail and the monorail. Changes brought in by the Government for consistent prices for both government and public buses have enabled this development. We look forward to its successful implementation. It is proposed that the transition of the PTTC from a statutory authority model to a SOC model will be at a date to be determined by the Governor, probably in the next three to five years. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [5.39 p.m.]: I support the bill, but with considerable caveats. The Transport Administration Amendment (Public Transport Ticketing Corporation) Bill is the State Government's first real attempt toward establishing a truly integrated ticketing system for all public transport in New South Wales. The Australian Democrats have no problem with introducing Tcard or similar smartcards for fare payment if its introduction is planned, introduced and operated properly. In fact, we have been advocating for an integrated ticketing system since 1996. But those of us who are advocates for public transport fear that the implementation of the proposed Tcard will not run smoothly, will not be as flexible as commuter expectations would want, and may even cause great confusion and resentment. I turn, first, to the provisions of the bill and I will then discuss it.

The bill will establish the Public Transport Ticketing Corporation [PTTC] as the statutory body to establish an integrated ticketing and fare payment system for public transport with the intention of the PTTC eventually becoming a State-owned corporation. New section 35S sets out the principal objective of the PTTC, which is to provide ticketing and fare payment services to public transport operators in the State, to promote and facilitate the integration of ticketing products and fare payment systems for public transport in the State, and to control and manage any funds within that system that represent unused prepaid fares. New section 35ZC establishes the Public Transport Ticketing Corporation Fund in the special deposits account in the Treasury and provides for the moneys that are to be put into and taken from the fund. New section 35ZJ provides that the Minister may, by order in writing, direct that the assets and liabilities connected with the operation of a ticketing and fares payment system of a transport authority be transferred to the PTTC.

The Public Transport Ticketing Board will determine the policies of PTTC and will oversee its functioning. The board will comprise the chief executive officer and between three and seven members appointed by the Minister. When it comes to qualifications of the members of the board, it is up to the Minister to determine what skills would be necessary in order to realise the principal objective of the Public Transport Ticketing Corporation. The Public Transport Ticketing Corporation must prepare and deliver to the Minister a draft corporate plan for each financial year. New section 35ZA (3) states:

During the preparation of a corporate plan after the commencement of this subsection, the Public Transport Ticketing Corporation is to make a draft plan available for public comment for at least 30 days and is to have regard to any submissions it receives about the draft plan within that period. The arrangements for obtaining or inspecting the draft plan and for making submissions are to be advertised in a daily newspaper circulating throughout the State.

Thirty days is not long enough for a proper and comprehensive public consultation period, especially considering that this Government's practice of public consultation tends to be, "This is what we are doing; any questions?" According to Action for Public Transport, the designers of the integrated ticketing system continue to fail to have any meaningful consultation as the membership of the ticketing board comprises transport operators. The most important stakeholders of all—the travelling public—have been left out. Allan Miles from Action for Public Transport expressed concern that the most convenient ticket of all, the good old TravelPass, will disappear, and that each journey on each bus, train or ferry will be charged separately.

The Public Transport Ticketing Corporation will be required to make the completed corporate plan available for public inspection. However, the corporation is not required to include, in any draft or completed plan made available for public comment or inspection, information that is of a commercially sensitive nature or that otherwise would not be required to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act 1989. Clearly this Government has learned nothing from the cross-city tunnel. Everything will happen behind closed doors.

The bill lacks any specific objective, apart from those that set up the system. This is what I refer to as "Minister may" legislation. In other words, there is open slather for the Government to do something, and very little control on what it might be doing, or how it might do it. Clearly, if one has a prepaid ticket system, the Government becomes a nice little earner from the interest on revenue before the funds are applied to projects, thereby maximising revenue. Presumably for each journey there will be a flag fall and then a charge on the basis of each kilometre travelled. There is a suspicion that there will be reduced discounts for long journeys. Of course long journeys provide the maximum benefits through a reduction in the number of cars on the roads and a reduction in vehicle pollution.

People who obtain weekly, monthly or yearly passes save a lot of time for other commuters and people engaged in selling tickets. That also is a saving to the Government that must be recognised. Everybody who has travelled on a bus would be aware that when people queue to pay their fares to a driver, the bus trip takes longer than it would otherwise take. The bill causes concern not only in relation to the question of the cost of ticketing; it worries me that this Government adheres to its foolish policies of reducing debt even when it has asset backing for that debt. The Government refuses to borrow to build infrastructure and is therefore perpetually in a cash flow crisis, even though the State has a record boom and a wonderful credit rating. The dogma, "We shall not borrow" means that the Government scrambles and scratches for every dollar and tries to squeeze funds out of consumers, however inappropriately and irrespective of whatever other objectives are destroyed in the process through its set of priorities.

In costing public transport the Government really needs to examine the opportunities inherent in costing. For example, in relation to increased usage resulting from cheaper public transport, one would have to conclude that if public transport were cheaper a number of people would decide not to travel in private vehicles and thereby traffic congestion would be massively reduced. That would result also in reduced wear and tear on the roads, a reduced need for infrastructure and reduced air pollution, which are all benefits—factors that should be recognised in the pricing of tickets. In any rational system, a government should look at the price fluctuations associated with demand in order to ascertain what effect price would have on the use of public transport as well as the consequential effects of that on private car usage and on the costs associated with those changes.

There is no evidence that the Government ever considers benefits beyond whatever revenue is derived from the sale of tickets. The Government simply says to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, "Put up the price as much as the public will bear. We need the money." Some time ago I spoke to several lobbyists who were trying to win this contract. They were so excited it seemed as though this was a licence to print money. It seemed to me as though they regarded the whole process as akin to taking candy from a baby. That was the essence of the lobbying effort. I think the current ferry ticketing system works all right, but that was not the case initially.

The previous system was so complicated it was almost impossible to buy a ticket, and there was a great deal of public comment about it at the time. Even when the ferries were running smoothly I was interested to find out what actually happens. One day when I was taking my son to his day care I pushed his pram through the ticket turnstiles. I had one hand on the pram and I used the other hand to feed the ticket through while someone was talking to me. I pushed the ticket 1½ centimetres from the slot and it went into a gap between the flange, which covered the machine, and the piece of plastic where the slot was. It simply disappeared into the cover of the machine. I said to the man at the ticket gate, "I have lost my ticket." He said, "You will have to go to the contractors. It has nothing to do with us. Go up to the other wharf."

He had a sort of smirk on his face, as if to say I would find out what a terrible service they provided, but he did not say anything along those lines. I went up to the ferry office staff and they also said it had nothing to do with them. They said I would have to phone a number in Melbourne, so I did that. I was told to go back where I had come from and after asking me which wharf it was they said someone would eventually come. After about 20 minutes a fellow came and asked me what the problem was. I said that the ticket had gone in the cowling over the machine and he said, "Were you not watching what you were doing. Who are you?"

I said, "I am a citizen trying to use your automatic ticketing system." He said, "I am not just doing the ferries; I have other ticketing machines to look after." The implication was, "Fools like you make a lot of trouble." Generally he was arrogant and his demeanour implied that the service was poor. The ticket machine had a slot in the cowling that could capture the ticket if one was not careful. If that happened it could take 20 minutes for someone to respond and an idiot would then abuse the person who lost the ticket.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: I wonder what he thought.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS: I have already told Opposition members what he thought. That lack of concern for a consumer struck me as quite appalling. It was easy enough, while pushing a stroller through the gate, not to watch whether the ticket went exactly into the slot and to assume it either went into the slot or nowhere. That seemed to be a reasonable assumption. The officer said I had to be more careful. I have been using the ferries for a decade without incident. Perhaps one becomes blasé with time but one ought to be able to mishandle a ticket without being abused by those who are delivering a very poor service.
If those sorts of systems are not monitored closely they will be abused. It is interesting to observe that the Greens want some privacy protection. Data should be collected to determine what journeys are made and when, and that data must be analysed carefully. The price sensitivity of demand must be addressed. If cost is directly proportional to distance—people travelling a long way will have to pay a lot of money and it will become more economic to drive—that will have a bad effect. Many long car journeys will then be made with the consequent effect on pollution and road congestion. The group Action for Public Transport [APT] published a critique on this bill, which states:

1. That the system appears to be designed for the benefit of the government, the operators and the bank holding the money. As with the bus contracts, the needs and wishes of passengers appear to be the least concern.

2. That the travelling public is not being involved as a true stakeholder. There have been many "consultations", but they have all been along the lines of "This is what we are going to do. Any questions?", instead of "Please help us design the system the way you would like it." There is no commuter consultative committee involved in the planning.

That is a worry. The critique continues:

3. That the technical part of the system may be unreliable. That is, that cards may not be read properly, that fares may not be recorded or charged accurately, and that the dozens of "what if?' questions may not have been addressed and resolved. A.P.T. has no knowledge of whether the computer processes work properly or not, but anecdotal evidence suggests that there have been problems.

4. That Tcard will charge fares only by distance, that is, single fares or TravelTens and FerryTens, and that zone fares provided by the popular TravelPass tickets will be lost. It seems that TravelPasses do not suit the contractual arrangements between the Ministry of Transport and the private buses, regardless of how convenient they are for the public. Tcard will provide integrated ticketing but not integrated fares.

5. That there has been no decision, or none that we know of, on how to calculate fares for users of rail weeklies or longer-term season tickets. At present, the discount on such tickets increases both as the length of the journey increases and as the term of the ticket increases.

When the system designers are asked, "Can the system do such-and-such?", they reply, "Yes, it can do anything you want." When asked again, "But WILL it do such-and-such?", they reply, "Nobody has made a decision about that yet."

6. That the take-up rate of Tcard by the public will not be as high as the Ministry hopes. This is mainly of concern with buses, where people buying fares from the driver are a frustrating and expensive cause of delay and congestion. APT is not aware of what the Ministry's target percentage is, nor what an acceptable percentage might be. However, if people don't buy TravelTens or TravelPasses now, when all the money goes towards the fares, they won't buy a path of Tcard, where some of the money goes into a deposit.

7. That magnetic stripe tickets will be withdrawn, and that all users will either have to buy a Tcard, or pay cash to the driver. One cannot but help draw similarities with motorists being funnelled into the Cross City Tunnel.

8. That a statement of "Objectives of the System" may not have been written and that it may not be possible to monitor compliance with any objectives—

Objectives do not exist in the public domain. The critique goes on to state:

9. That quantitative success criteria may not have been pre-determined, so that a success or a failure may not be able to be objectively assessed. We fear that it will be like the cross-city tunnel—whatever user figure occurs will be judged "OK in the circumstances—it's early days yet". What is the Ministry's pre-determined success criteria? Have objective success criteria been pre-determined for: Boarding speed? Technical reliability? Accuracy of fare calculation? User acceptance?

I wonder. The critique continues:

10. That implementation is so long delayed. The trial in the Inner West was supposed to have started in early 2005 but has not started yet. This trial is to cover (a) selected STA bus routes, (b) selected private bus routes, (c) selected SFC ferry routes, (d) selected railway stations, and (e) selected customers. There has been no mention of private ferries in the trial so far. Continual time and cost over-runs do not inspire confidence.

One cannot help remembering the attitude of lobbyists who seem to think this was like taking candy from a baby. The critique goes on to state:

Other issues such as Flag fall charges, will periodical tickets be available across all private and public operators and dip-on, dip-off tickets?

I have grave concerns about the implementation of this legislation and other "Minister may" legislation.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.56 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.58 p.m.]: I move:

Page 24, schedule 1 [6], insert after line 29:

35YA Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 extends to Public Transport Ticketing Authority

The Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 extends to Public Transport Ticketing Authority as if it were a public sector agency within the meaning of that Act.

Earlier I said that privacy was a key aspect of this bill. Under the bill as it is currently structured the privacy issue will not be respected. Under the new provisions the privacy Act will not apply. I hope this is an omission and that the Government will do the right thing and agree to the Green's amendment. If that is not the case, people will be put in a most extraordinary position. Those people are the elderly, students and the unemployed, people who have some type of concession card. It is not simply that the Government will know where that cardholder has gone; it will have the name and contact details for that person. The Government will be tracking individuals. There is a degree of invasion of people's privacy.

[Interruption]

I acknowledge the honourable member's interjection, which is disappointing. I would have thought that this is one area in respect of which we would have agreement. I know we do not have agreement—

The Hon. Patricia Forsythe: I was not suggesting otherwise. I was merely suggesting no-one is forcing them to have a ticket.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I interpreted it that way when you made the comment. It sounded as though the suggestion is that the way to solve this problem would be to not have a ticket. I believe that is most definitely not the solution. From what I hear, people are strongly supportive of integrated ticketing because of the great benefits that it will bring. Clearly, there should not be just one group that is disadvantaged. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.00 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment. So far as privacy issues are concerned the Transport Administration Corporation has already developed a comprehensive privacy statement that has been available on its web site for a considerable time. In preparing this statement expert advice was taken from a consultant with extensive Federal privacy experience, both for the wider Tcard project and those aspects concerned with school students. A copy of Tcard's privacy statement is available at www.tcard.com.au. In addition, a privacy officer will be appointed by the Public Transport Ticketing Corporation to monitor compliance—including that of the Tcard contractor with privacy legislation—address complaints or issues that may arise in the operation of the Tcard system, and review related documentation and procedures. In conclusion, as a statutory authority the corporation will be automatically subject to the provisions of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1988. The Government opposes this amendment.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.02 p.m.]: I support the amendment. It is important that privacy and personal information be incorporated in the bill. Such information can be misused. Technical failures may incorrectly identify people. It makes me wonder whether this aspect should come under the umbrella of the Energy and Water Ombudsman, who appears to be one of the more successful regulatory mechanisms, in that energy and water are essential services and the Ombudsman appointed to deal with them is adequately funded. I recently examined regulatory mechanisms for different industries. In general, self-regulation is regulation of the self by the self and for the self. The regulatory system in the building industry is completely unsatisfactory and that of the advertising industry is farcical. There are somewhat dubious arrangements in the health industry and the regulatory system in the law profession is problematic. The Energy and Water Ombudsman, being an essential service which was taken from the Government and given to competition, is adequately funded and has been quite valuable in that industry.

This is another situation in relation to which people will buy tickets. The Government has provided blanket legislation to set up a corporation. It is unclear what it will do except that it intends to negotiate with those who will provide ticketing services. In such instances personal information and privacy are very important. In saying this I have made the point on a number of occasions that collected data is extremely important. I am always worried when the Government hides behind privacy when it suits, for example, when we want to know how many prisoners reoffend or how many wards of the State commit crimes because they have perhaps not adequate support or supervision, in order to determine whether things can be done differently, or what studies could be undertaken of behaviour and other aspects of people's lives to improve public policy or health outcomes. In such instances the Government is extremely interested in privacy, but when it comes to a big corporation wanting data in order to make a profit from it, the Government is not quite so dedicated.

It is important to include this detail in the existing Act. The idea that privacy is some sort of add-on and is a lot of trouble is given the lie by the fact that the Government still has not appointed a permanent privacy commissioner—although an acting commissioner is incorporated in anti-discrimination legislation. Chris Puplick, the former privacy commissioner, was keen that privacy be discussed intelligently, and with regard to medical confidentiality he was of the view that the identity of individuals should be kept confidential but that information relating to the success rates of certain operations and surgeons, comparisons between hospitals and so on, should be collected and pooled. The Government was more than willing to discuss indices of school performance in certain areas. It is important that this new corporation should come under the umbrella of the public service generally and that discussion in relation to it should be full and open—a practice disliked by this Government. I ask honourable members to support the amendment. The Minister might indicate what is at issue with regard to some sort of regulatory system, whether there are going to be teething problems, and whether the Energy and Water Ombudsman should be involved. Perhaps the position could be renamed the Energy, Water and Public Transport Ombudsman.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [6.06 p.m.]: The Opposition is very concerned about the privacy issues in the bill. I said in my contribution to the second reading debate that they are very light on in this legislation. However, the amendment proposed by the Greens is not in our view a practical way to deal with the problems as outlined by the Minister. Therefore, the Opposition will vote with the Government and against the amendment.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.07 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party does not believe the amendment is necessary, given privacy policy that the Government already has in place.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.07 p.m.]: Personal information will only be collected if travellers take up the option of registration or, in the case of people entitled to concessional fares, ensure that they do not hold multiple cards. As a statutory authority the corporation will be automatically subject to the provisions of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1988. Prior to it becoming a State-owned corporation, the corporation will establish policies and procedures for the ongoing protection of personal information. The corporation will only collect and retain personal information necessary to carry out ticketing functions and services. It will respect the right of every person about whom it collects or retains information and it will ensure that that personal information is treated in accordance with the law.

The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.08 p.m.]: If the Government is willing to give such an assurance, which would seem to fall within the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, why will it not incorporate it in this Act? The Government does this quite frequently. It gives assurances but refuses to have them enshrined in legislation. Why is that? If the Government is proud of its privacy legislation, surely it should include this in the Act. If the Government is serious about this matter, why will it not accept the amendment?

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Cohen Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Dr Chesterfield-Evans Ms Hale

Mr Breen Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Mr Clarke Mr Colless Ms Cusack Mr Donnelly Mrs Forsythe

Mr Gay Mr Jenkins Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Mr Obeid Mr Oldfield Ms Parker Mrs Pavey

Ms Robertson Ms Sharpe Mr Tingle Mr Tsang Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Harwin Mr Primrose

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

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

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.19 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon John Della Bosca: 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.

Earlier this year, the Prime Minister wrote to the former Premier, at the request of the Governor General, seeking a relaxation of the restrictions on the use of Admiralty House.

The Governor General has expressed concern that he is not able to respond favourably to requests to use Admiralty House because of the tight restrictions on its permitted use.

Such requests have included approaches from charities wishing to use the premises for fundraising events as well as requests from schools in remote areas of Australia wishing to visit Admiralty House.

Currently, the use of Admiralty House is restricted by the Governor General's Residence (Grant) Act 1945 and the Crown Grant made pursuant to the Act.

The Crown Grant provides that Admiralty House must be used exclusively as the Governor General's residence, and for no other purpose.

It provides that a breach of this condition will enable the NSW Governor to reclaim the land from the Commonwealth on behalf of the State of New South Wales.

To relax these restrictions, the Governor General has proposed that the principal Act be amended to permit Admiralty House to be used "primarily", rather than "exclusively", as the Governor General's premises.

After close consideration of the Governor General's proposal, the NSW Government has formed the view that it is in the public interest to relax the restrictions on the use of Admiralty House.

Admiralty House is an important part of the heritage of both New South Wales and Australia and should be able to be used for select public purposes.

The Bill implements the Governor General's proposal by enabling the Governor General to permit the use of the land for certain charitable, educational and other public purposes so long as it is primarily used as the Governor General's official residence in Sydney.

By permitting Admiralty House to be used for these additional purposes, the Governor General will now be able to consent to charities using the premises for fundraising events.
It is anticipated that by being able to host their functions in such spectacular premises, charities could expect to raise more funds, benefiting worthy causes.

Relaxing the current restrictions will also enable the Governor General to consent to visits by school groups wanting to learn more about the role of the Governor General.

By limiting the permitted uses to charitable, educational and other public purposes, and by providing that any such use is at the Governor General's discretion, the Bill will ensure that the integrity of Admiralty House is not undermined.

For constitutional reasons, the Bill will be given effect through an agreement between the State and Commonwealth which will amend the Crown Grant.

The Commonwealth has been consulted and supports both the Bill and the proposed Agreement.

The Bill provides the Governor General with the discretion to permit the use of Admiralty House for public purposes that will benefit the community.

I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [6.20 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Governor-General's Residence (Grant) Amendment Bill, which, although technical in nature, will certainly benefit the people of New South Wales. At present Admiralty House, the Governor-General's official residence in Sydney, can only be used as the Governor-General's official residence and for no other purpose. It cannot, for example, be used for charitable, educational or other worthwhile community events. This restriction arises as a result of the original Crown grant as well as the provisions of the Governor General's Residence (Grant) Act 1945. A breach of this restriction would enable the State of New South Wales, if it so wished, to reclaim the land from the Commonwealth.

Because of its location on the foreshores of Sydney and its historic importance and architectural significance Admiralty House, apart from being the Governor-General's official Sydney residence, is seen as a most desirable venue for the holding of appropriate charitable and other community functions. As a result of the Governor General raising his concerns that he is prohibited from using Admiralty House for such worthy purposes, the Prime Minister approached the New South Wales State Government seeking a relaxation of this restriction. As a result, this bill will amend the Governor-General's Residence (Grant) Act 1945 so as to enable Admiralty House to be used for certain charitable educational and other public purposes so long as it is primarily used as the Governor General's official residence in Sydney.

The bill also authorises the New South Wales Registrar General to make the appropriate notations or cancellations to the register kept under the Real Property Act 1900 to give effect to this expanded use. As I said earlier, the bill will work for the benefit of the people of New South Wales. It will allow Admirably House and its surrounding grounds to be used for charitable events as well as educational purposes, particularly for school students and other community groups wishing to learn about the role of our effective head of state, the Governor-General. In fact, a whole range of worthwhile community activities will be enhanced by and will benefit from the change proposed by this bill. Accordingly it has the support of the Opposition.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [6.22 p.m.]: The Greens do not oppose the bill, which will have the effect of relaxing restrictions on the use of Admiralty House, the Governor-General's residence. The bill will enable the Governor-General to exercise his or her discretion to allow the premises to be used by charitable and community-based organisations for fundraising events, and to enable schools to visit and learn more about the role of the Governor-General. The permitted uses are charitable, educational and other public purposes. The Greens do not support the English monarchy and its role in Australia, and do not really see the need for a residence to house the representative of the Queen at all, but until the majority of Australians agree in a referendum for the country to become a republic, the Greens have no problem with the Governor-General's residence being used for functions, provided they are for educational, charitable and community purposes. The Greens would not want commercialisation of the residence, and do not want corporate functions held there. However, I am satisfied that this bill will limit the purpose to which the building can be put.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.23 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Governor-General's Residence (Grant) Amendment Bill, which will allow Admiralty House to be used for purposes other than solely as the Governor-General's residence. The bill will provide for its use for charitable, educational and other public purposes, for example, fundraising for charities and for worthwhile educational purposes by school groups. I want to ensure that the legislation is water tight so that no function can be held at Admiralty House without the approval of the Governor-General. For example, before the Labor Government can publicise an event at that venue the Governor-General must give his or her approval rather than be embarrassed about not having given consent to an event being held there about which an announcement had already been made. I am reminded of the shameful use of Government House by homosexual members of the Mardi Gras. I do not want to see a repeat of that at Admiralty House. The Governor-General must have veto powers and must be consulted before any decision is made—and, indeed, publicised—to allow any group to use Admiralty House. With those provisos, the Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.24 p.m.], in reply: I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Justice, Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [6.25 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow the moving of a motion forthwith relating to the conduct of business of the House

The House divided.

Mr Breen Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Della Bosca Mr Donnelly

Ms Griffin Ms Hale Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Ms Rhiannon

Ms Robertson Mr Roozendaal Mr Tsang Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Mr Clarke Ms Cusack Mrs Forsythe Miss Gardiner Mr Gay

Mr Jenkins Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Ms Parker Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce Mr Tingle Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Mr Costa	Mr Gallacher
Ms Fazio	Mr Ryan

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Justice, Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [6.33 p.m.]: I move, without notice:

1. That General Business take precedence of Government Business after 8.00 p.m. today.

2. That Private Members' Business item No. 5, in the Order of Precedence, relating to the Constitution Amendment (Pledge of Loyalty) Bill 2005, proceed forthwith.

The House divided.

Mr Breen Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Della Bosca Mr Donnelly Ms Griffin

Ms Hale Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Ms Rhiannon Ms Robertson Mr Roozendaal

Ms Sharpe Mr Tsang Mr Wong Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Mr Clarke Ms Cusack Mrs Forsythe Miss Gardiner Mr Gay

Mr Jenkins Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Ms Parker Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce Mr Tingle Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Mr Costa	Mr Gallacher
Ms Fazio	Mr Ryan

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Debate resumed from 2 March 2006.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [8.00 p.m.]: I regret that the Government has reneged on the recent agreement to adjourn this debate until Thursday and, instead, to ram it forward. But I can understand why the Government has done it: to distract attention from what is going on in New South Wales today. In probably the best contribution to this debate, the Hon. Don Harwin asked what difference wasting the time of the Parliament on the bill would make to the lives of the people who, right now, probably are sitting in a traffic jam in the M5 tunnel trying to get home. When they get to their homes in the western suburbs of Sydney tonight, tired from a long day of travel, the only thing they have to look forward to is another traffic jam in the M5 tunnel tomorrow.

The tunnel is probably the biggest transport planning disaster so far in the State. However, the cross-city tunnel is rapidly catching up and the Lane Cove tunnel is notorious for undermining and causing the collapse of a block of units above it. What difference will the bill make to the hundreds of thousands of people who get on the trains every day—modern day rattlers—not knowing if they will get to work on time?

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Point of order: The House is debating the Constitution Amendment (Pledge of Loyalty) Bill. So far the honourable member has said nothing about the bill. He is talking about the cross-city tunnel, which is not only way outside the leave of the bill but also quite out of order, given that that matter has been listed for debate in the House. On both those grounds I ask you to direct the honourable member to cease talking about the cross-city tunnel, or any other road or rail tunnel, or any other obvious red herrings that he wishes to raise to fill in his time because he cannot think of any solid argument against the bill.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: To the point of order: I can understand why the Hon. Jan Burnswoods would want to take this point of order. She knows the debate on the bill was rushed forward tonight to distract attention from issues that concern the people of New South Wales. The Parliament should debate issues that affect the lives of everybody in New South Wales today. I was using those issues as a preamble to my contribution to the debate.
The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! If the member is finished his preamble, perhaps he can move on to the bill.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I was going to refer to the woman who was sitting outside a hospital in her car on a drip because there were not enough beds, the Cronulla riots, law and order problems, and so forth, but I will move on. The bill will undermine a symbol and an institution—the flag and the monarchy—that are very important to the majority of Australians. Over the years those in the left of politics have attacked this symbol and institution continually. Often I think that such people hate Australia.

We must remember that this symbol is often the rallying point for people who have served the country in times of adversity. From my study of World War II I remember that leftist waterside workers refused to load ships for our troops heading off to New Guinea because they wanted better working conditions. I was in Vietnam during a mail strike when they would not allow us to send mail. I remember their tipping red paint on Sir Roden Cutler, VC, our most highly decorated Governor. I read Mr Paul Lynch's contribution to the debate. I do not know what it is about him, but for the past 10 years I have been in this place I have noticed that he walks around as though he has a permanently twisted bowel. He looks really sad.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: That's disgusting, Charlie.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: He is the one who mocks the symbols and institutions that are very important to us.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: That is absolutely low, Charlie, even for you.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: I stand by that because he sees his sole purpose in life as attacking the symbols of what is great. As the Hon. Don Harwin pointed out recently, the timing of the bill shows ultimate disrespect for our Queen, who is about to celebrate her eightieth birthday. I know that those opposite have different views, but the Queen has been an absolutely wonderful role model for a generation of Australians who had to conquer extreme adversity. She has been an inspiration for the lives of many of people.

My late grandmother was widowed at an early age. When Nan was about 50 I remember asking her about age, and Nan said she wanted to live to be 100 so she could get a telegram from the Queen. Over the years she endured a lot of sickness and ill health, but she was dogged and she hung in. In our bicentenary year she turned 100 and she got her telegram from the Queen. It was the most important thing in her life.

Her Majesty the Queen has been a wonderful role model for everything we stand for. With Her Majesty's eightieth birthday just a little under eight weeks away I think it is highly disrespectful to introduce such a bill as this. However, I have to say it is typical of the Left to put on the record a display of their contempt for the Queen, for the monarchy, and for everything they stand for. It is the monarchy and this system of government that has given us great stability over time.

Without doubt Australia is the greatest country in the world and we have a wonderful system of government. Pledges are symbolic but are also important. As the Hon. Don Harwin said, what difference will this bill make to the lives of Australians when they wake up tomorrow? It will not make any difference at all because what is on their minds is the traffic jams they have to face, the fear they have for their kids on the streets, the doubts they have about the public school system, and the concerns they have for their parents because of the state of aged care facilities. They are the matters that concern everyday Australians and they are the matters that we should be debating in this House.

I believe we should show a bit of respect and perhaps at least allow the Queen to celebrate her eightieth birthday in fine style. We could hold the debate later. I think it is a disgrace that the bill has been rushed into the House tonight to be used as an attack by a very small minority who, having been resoundingly defeated in their bid for a republic, are now trying to resurrect that debate.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [8.11 p.m.]: The Greens welcome the bill, which is a refreshing outbreak of commonsense in this place. I warmly congratulate Mr Paul Lynch on introducing the bill in the other place and on having it passed through the lower House and presented to this House for debate. While reading the member for Liverpool's second reading speech I was particularly struck by the point that a whole range of people who are not republicans should support the bill because it does not replace loyalty to the Queen with loyalty to a president. Rather, it replaces allegiance to a head of state who, at the moment, happens to be a hereditary monarch, with allegiance to Australia and the people of New South Wales.
The pledge itself is neither monarchist nor republican. The pledge is about democratic theory and about accepting that our real legitimacy comes from Australia and from the people of New South Wales, not from somebody who happens to be a head of state. I could not agree more strongly that our real legitimacy comes from the people. They are the ones who elect us, whose taxes are spent every day, and who ultimately have the power to remove us. We are here with their consent and we are responsible to them. It is a wonderful idea that we should pledge our loyalty to the people and not to a head of state, whether monarch or president.

Again I very much congratulate the member for Liverpool. I think the model he has introduced is absolutely outstanding. Although, as he said, one does not have to be a republican to support the bill—I am a republican—the Greens support Australia becoming a republic. I object to having to swear an oath to the Queen, partly because she is not an Australian and partly because I object to the elitism of hereditary monarchs. This aspect of the New South Wales Constitution is highlighted by section 12, which states

And whensoever the demise of His present Majesty (whom may God long preserve) or of any of His Successors to the Crown of the United Kingdom shall be notified by the Governor to the said Council and Assembly respectively, the Members of the said Council and Assembly shall, before they are permitted to sit and vote therein, take and subscribe the like oath of allegiance to the Successor for the time being to the said Crown …

This is an extraordinary situation. We should all be embarrassed that that section is still in our Constitution. It means that if Queen Elizabeth were to die, we would have to suspend our Parliament until King Charles was crowned and then all swear new oaths of allegiance to him.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Big deal!

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is a ludicrous situation and is profoundly out of step with modern Australia. It demeans us all because we are being forced to swear allegiance to someone who is not Australian and who has no qualifications for office other than having a birth certificate.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Oh, rubbish!

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is not rubbish. It most definitely is not rubbish at all. It is all about getting our parliamentary process into a fully democratic system. We are here for the people of New South Wales and clearly that is where our allegiance should lie. As the Constitution is set out at the moment, we are being forced to swear allegiance to someone who is entirely irrelevant to the vast majority of Australians.

I also acknowledge and support how proposed new section 12 of the Constitution retains the option to swear either an oath or an affirmation. This is entirely appropriate and inclusive, allowing members the option to swear before God or not, depending on their belief. I wish that our prayers at the beginning of each sitting day were as inclusive as that. The bill is an important step in saving our Parliament from anachronism and irrelevance. How Parliament manifests itself from the swearing in of members to its day-to-day functions is very relevant to how we are regarded by the wider community. This is one of the many areas that need to be cleaned up.

The bill is a commonsense, moderate proposal that any sensible member should support. Hopefully it will be an important step forward and in due course we will deal with other anachronisms in this place, such as our exclusive prayer, the use of the term "honourable" and indeed the monarchy itself. It is a very important step. I again congratulate Mr Paul Lynch on his consistent and considerable hard work in introducing the legislation. I also congratulate the many Government members who are very strongly committed to passing the bill and this very important change to how the New South Wales Legislative Council operates.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [8.16 p.m.]: Honourable members, the signs we are seeking to change by this legislation, or that this legislation is seeking to change, are not ours. I think that is the first thing we need to take into consideration. Our oath of allegiance does not belong to us, to be changed on some sort of party-political basis. It belongs to the people of New South Wales. Frankly, this bill is unbelievably arrogant in its intent. Without any attempt to consult the people of New South Wales and ask them what they want, essentially this is a partisan attempt to change an important sign or symbol of our constitution and to tell the people of New South Wales what they will have.

It may well be that the people overwhelmingly want to change the oath of allegiance that we swear, but I believe we should do it when they want it to be done, and not by the means that some people believe to be correct. The most disappointing aspect of the people who are sponsoring this change is that ultimately change is being sought on a partisan political basis. A sign or symbol which is changed entirely on a partisan basis is by definition divisive, and we should not continue with a process which ultimately divides us.

I accept that within the community there are many people who want this sign or symbol to change, and that is a topic that is worthy of reasonable discussion. But that discussion belongs in the community; it is not for us to make this decision in the first place, almost as if it were in private. I know that members opposite will say it is hardly private when it is being done in Parliament and when the bill has been listed for discussion for some time, But there has hardly been a significant number of submissions received about it. The simple problem is that most people probably do not believe it is worth making submissions on it because they know that the government of the day, with an overwhelming majority in another place, has already decided how it will be.

The bill comes to us in the guise of private members' business, but it is not. It is Government business introduced under the guise of private members' business, and, sadly, it has been subject to partisan political debate. If people want this sign to be respected and remembered as something that we all own and share, this is hardly an auspicious start for something so important. This sign, our flag, our anthem and other symbols of our nationhood do not belong to politicians; they belong to the people. We should not seek to change them unless the people have made that position clear to us.

Almost every speech in support of this bill largely reflected the personal opinions of those honourable members who were speaking. For example—and I do not mean to be disparaging—Ms Lee Rhiannon largely couched her contribution by stating that she found the bill offensive and she believed it needed to be changed. There was no evidence in her speech or in the many speeches of other honourable members who supported the bill that they had consulted the public widely and found an overwhelming community desire for it to be changed.

In the scheme of things I accept that our oath of allegiance is a small matter but it belongs to the people of New South Wales. Frankly, we are taking a sacred trust from them and using it as if it were our own. Worse still, we are using it as if it were a political plaything on which to score political points—and I scorn any attempt to do so. In many respects this bill is not really about a republic; it will not implement a republic; and there is no reason why a constitutional monarchy could not change its oath of allegiance to the form that has been put before the House. The issue of a republic has been raised by many members—sadly, probably not in its proper context. Since many honourable members raised the issue of a republic I will comment on it only briefly.

I am sure Opposition members will find my speech somewhat surprising, given that I am an enthusiastic supporter of Australia becoming a republic. I believe that that will occur in time. I believe the overwhelming majority of people already want that to happen. The only issues we have to consider are how and when. I am sure that will occur at some stage in the future. However, notwithstanding my allegiance and my desire for Australia to become a republic I wish to separate myself from the disparaging comments that have been made about Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Without doubt, regardless of whether one is a republican or a monarchist, or from which country one comes, no-one can deny that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has been an outstanding public servant for her country, our country and the Commonwealth. She has been in public office enduring intense scrutiny by the media and by people for more than 50 years. That scrutiny included not only what she does as a public official but also what occurs in her family.

On many occasions that scrutiny has probably been painful. The most amazing thing about it is that she has endured that scrutiny with enormous grace and she has come through with flying colours. She is committed to important values and to supporting those values in our community. Each year I appreciate listening to Her Majesty's Christmas message—it is not something all honourable members would do—not because I am a keen monarchist but because I accept she has been in office for a long time and she often has important and influential things to say. Overwhelmingly, her Christmas message has been one of tolerance, acceptance and nurturing good things in the community. It is not unimportant to acknowledge that, as a public official, she has lasted longer than many presidents and politicians. She is doing an outstanding job for her country.

Notwithstanding that, I believe it would be better if Australia's head of state were an Australian. I am sure there are Australians who could carry out that function in a similar fashion, with grace, and make us proud. Nevertheless, we should acknowledge that Her Majesty is our head of state. That issue was put to the people. The result might have been a disappointment to me and to others but the people have spoken. Overwhelmingly the people voted to support the status quo for a wide variety of reasons—certainly for reasons other than worrying about who our Prime Minister might be.

The people of Australia made that decision after great consideration and thought, and we should support and endorse their decision until they decide otherwise. When the people decide otherwise I will be the first to want to change our symbols to reflect that new reality. I say to Opposition members: if they want Australia to become a republic—and that should happen sooner rather than later—frankly, the worst way to achieve that is by being arrogant about making changes to signs and symbols and by trying to disguise our real circumstances and situation. If honourable members want to cover up and pretend they are not swearing an oath of allegiance to our head of state, Her Majesty the Queen, they will find that becoming a republic will become less and less relevant to the people if the symbols of our parliamentary constitutional monarchy are taken away.

The biggest load of nonsense I heard during this debate was that when we are sworn in we are swearing allegiance, as thought it were a personal allegiance, to Her Majesty the Queen. That is not true. We swear allegiance through the Queen to our democracy—to the people. We do not swear allegiance to the person who holds that office but to our democracy. As one studies the world's history one finds that it is a precious, and at times fragile, institution. One thing that would ensure our institution of democracy in Australia was not fragile would be for politicians to treat with respect its symbols and the decisions of Australians on that issue. If we treat with contempt decisions made by the Australian public with regard to the republic or our constitutional monarchy we will find that they treat this institution with a similar level of contempt.

We must stand up for our values when we say that we believe in democracy. We should not make changes that overwhelmingly have been rejected by a free and considered vote of the Australian people. My colleague the Hon. Don Harwin outlined the next most compelling reason—and a very compelling reason it was—not to pass this bill. It is an argument that is well worth further consideration. When I swear allegiance to Her Majesty or take an oath of office for this job, I do not want to be different from police, correctional officers, judges or members of the armed forces. They swear allegiance to our democracy through an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty. Frankly, for us to do something completely different separates us from the institution to which they swear allegiance and from what they do. I would prefer to be the last to make a unilateral change from that arrangement.

That is a compelling reason why we should take an oath of office that is similar to the oath that is taken by all other public servants in this State. That is a compelling reason why we should expect police to submit themselves, when implementing the law, to the will of this Parliament. That is a compelling reason as to why we want judges to carry out the laws of this Parliament and that is a compelling reason why we want correctional officers to carry out sentences provided by this Parliament. We all swear the same oath and we all work together for the same democratic community. If this bill were passed I for one would regret that we swore an oath of allegiance that is different from the oath of allegiance sworn by public servants. We would be setting ourselves aside as special and particular. Are they not serving Australia and its people through their offices?

By swearing a different oath of allegiance we would make ourselves different, as if they were doing something different for the people we serve. I do not believe that is a useful way forward and it is not something we should endorse. Sadly, I do not think a great deal of consideration has been given to this bill, and I do not mean to reflect badly on honourable members. Most honourable members have made up their minds; I do not think this debate will change their thoughts one way or another. I ask honourable members to consider the fact that the symbol they are seeking to change is not theirs; it belongs to the people of New South Wales. The people of New South Wales have not given us permission to change it and they have not signalled their intention that they want to do so. It certainly should not be changed when there is no consensus about what it should be changed from or to. Many people seem to think there is strong consensus about what it should be changed from, but what about what it should be changed to?

Why is the opinion of one member of the New South Wales Parliament, the honourable member for Liverpool, all that more compelling than the opinion of anyone else as to what form the oath of allegiance should take? I do not believe that should be the case. That is not because I do not respect the office that the honourable member for Liverpool holds, or that I do not respect the fact that he is a person seeking to serve his community as he sees fit. I am not seeking to make a partisan point on this, but the honourable member for Liverpool is but one member of this Parliament and I believe it would have been more appropriate, and the sentiment being expressed in the oath of allegiance would have been all the more compelling, if it had been examined by a committee of this Parliament that had received submissions—as was the case when one member of this Parliament raised the issue of this State's coat of arms. A committee that received submissions from members of the public examined that matter.

That has not been the case with this bill; the people of New South Wales have not endorsed it in that fashion. We are seeking to change a sacred trust we hold for the people of New South Wales and we are seeking to change it unilaterally through a vote of this Parliament without going through what I think is a very necessary process. It may well be that, having gone through the process, the result may not be much different but I believe it is the height of arrogance for us to be telling the public, through a partisan vote of this Chamber and the other Chamber, what an important and valuable symbol our oath of allegiance should be. Once that is done, every time we take the oath of allegiance we will be reminded of the fact that it was changed by a partisan vote as an item of government business, without the proper level of public consultation.

When something like this changes there ought to be great celebration, but there will not be great celebration; it will be something that is done in the dead of night, announced in a column square inch in the newspaper. Because we have chosen to do it this way it will mean the sad demise, rather than a change with great joy and celebration, of an important State symbol. We will merely be making a partisan change just to suit the specific and individual tastes of some members who simply do not respect what the overwhelming number of Australians respect. I cannot support this bill. I will not support this bill. I urge honourable members to delay its further passage at this time so that there can be further consensus on such an important matter. If there is to be a change in the oath of allegiance it should be one that is respected by us all; one to which we all feel bound and about which will feel ownership; a change that will be celebrated rather than scorned by at least 50 per cent of the community tomorrow morning, who will make it very clear that they do not feel included in this important symbol.

The Hon. JON JENKINS [8.32 p.m.]: I believe that a constitutional monarchy has probably served us well for hundreds of years. However, I also believe that its time has come. In the same vein, I believe that blind adherence to party policy, in spite of good governance, has also reached its use-by date. The important nature of the monarchy is important to many people. Its constitutional nature requires that when it is changed that occurs only by a referendum of the people, which would make it a unilateral change for all citizens of this State and this country. For those reasons I will move an amendment at the Committee stage that allows the swearer to choose the oath. As a mark of respect to the many people who have fought and died under this symbol, I will not support the bill if that amendment fails.

Mr IAN COHEN [8.33 p.m.]: I support the Constitution Amendment (Pledge of Loyalty) Bill and welcome its introduction by the Government. It is about time such a change was made. It is important that we recognise that as members of this institution we should be leaders, not followers, of a former colonial power. So often I find that people in this House debate issues from the point of view of what people might think and how popular they might be as a result of a particular decision.

The Hon. John Ryan: That is because we are monarchists.

Mr IAN COHEN: That might well be the case. I think we also have a situation in which this debate has been in a position of primacy in the general community for a long time. As we have seen from recent public referendums and their results, it needs some degree of explanation. I have never seen Her Majesty, the Queen of England, as Head of this State. I found the swearing in that I experienced when I first came to this Parliament to be just a little off centre or a little inappropriate. If we acknowledge the institutions of this State and this country we develop respect. One of those issues of respect is when the President of this House acknowledges the fact that we are meeting on Aboriginal land. I think that is something that is accepted now, if not by all. It is something that changes the culture of this establishment to a slight degree and recognises and respects others.

If those who respect Queen Elizabeth II of England as our leader want to retain that position or that mindset we respect their decision. Similarly—and I will deal with this issue later—a number of Greens in this House, and I include myself, have asked not to be addressed by the honorific. However, out of respect I am quite happy to use that title for those who require it. I believe that is a fair call. It is important to recognise that we are in a time of change. It is extremely important that we have pride in our own culture. It is time that we recognised just how strong our culture is, with its multicultural basis. We have moved out of home, so to speak. Our ties with England, culturally and economically, are significant, as are our ties with the United States of America and other countries. But it is time we stood up for ourselves and it is time we grew up as a nation.

This pride extends to our own culture, society and the environment in which we live—which I must say I see denigrated too often in this House. It is all part and parcel of the belief that it must be better elsewhere, that other countries and other leaderships, are somehow better than we are able to produce in this country. I think that is something we should step beyond. I believe it should be reflected in taking an oath to the people that we have the great privilege to represent—not a royal power in a far-off land. The pledge of allegiance to a monarch of the United Kingdom is irrelevant and insulting to some members of Parliament who do not see the monarchy as having any bearing on decisions of this Parliament. I really believe that.
This is not the first time that a pledge to royalty has been removed and it certainly will not be the last. Such pledges are a relic of our colonial past and should be relegated to history. I understand that the Western Australian Government is considering similar legislation to remove reference to the Crown from the oath of allegiance. Another example of dropping a pledge of loyalty to a monarch was the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act, which altered the pledge taken by new citizens. It now reads:

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

I believe this change is to be applauded. The New South Wales Parliament previously passed the State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Bill to require that State arms and symbols are used on government buildings, such as courthouses, rather than the British royal arms. I contend that those State arms and symbols are just as effective. Some hold great store in those types of symbols though I do not. In time those symbols will gain a certain resonance and respect—not the symbols themselves but the way in which the institutions, of which they are an emblem, act in providing service to the people and to the law of New South Wales.

I see a symbol for exactly what it is: a symbol. Flags may be used to represent peace or they may be used to take us to war. Symbols are neutral; it is a society's use of them that engenders respect for symbols or leads to their denigration. On 6 April 2004 the New South Wales Government announced major reforms involving the management of Crown lands. According to a media release, the Minister for Lands, the Hon. Tony Kelly, said that the changes mean that all lands held in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs, successors and agents—formerly known as Crown lands—will now be known and titled State land, held for and on behalf of the people of New South Wales. Minister Kelly said:

We're bringing the management of public land out of the nineteenth century, and into the twenty-first. We are moving away from the English imperial system. The term Crown Lands is a legacy of the Colonial Office philosophy imported from England to Australia in the early nineteenth century.

In 1933 Irish members of Parliament removed their oaths of allegiance to the Crown as a step towards Irish republicanism. If some members of Parliament feel strongly about wanting to continue to pledge allegiance to a monarch—as some quite obviously do—there is probably little to stop them from doing that. I understand that some members previously used their own forms of words and no action was taken against them. It would be sad, however, if members did not choose to pledge allegiance to the people of New South Wales, whom they represent. If anything, we should take this step much further. The Greens support removing the honorific when referring to members of Parliament. However, if people want to use the honorific I do not see any great harm in it; I simply choose not do so.

In 2003 the New South Wales Greens introduced a private member's bill that sought to replace Christian prayers in the upper House at the beginning of sitting days with a period of reflective silence. The Legislative Council voted 30 to seven against the bill. I hope that some day in the future sense will prevail and Parliament will drop the prayer, in the same way as it is now dropping the oath of allegiance to the monarch of England. Neither of these traditions has a place in a modern, multicultural, multi-faith Parliament.

The Hon. John Ryan: Ban Aboriginal smoking ceremonies.

Mr IAN COHEN: That comment is not relevant in any way. No-one is talking about banning such ceremonies. No-one is talking about being disrespectful. We are talking about what occurs in this House and in this Parliament. Perhaps the Hon. John Ryan would like to see some balance? Why do we not spend quite a deal of time at the beginning of each parliamentary day acknowledging all the different cultures and peoples that constitute Australian society, including the Aboriginal people? At the beginning of the parliamentary day the Deputy Leader of the Opposition often marks his respect for the Queen of England. I suggest it would take a very long time to complete such a process before we began the business of Parliament. We live in a multi-faith, multicultural society. As a person not of the Christian faith, I have always felt strange as I listened to others repeating prayers of that faith.

The Hon. Peter Breen: You can have Jewish prayers.

Mr IAN COHEN: No, thank you. We need a mark of respect that sits comfortably with all people and reflects the nature of modern Australian society. The trappings of British colonialism do not reflect the population of New South Wales today. The Hon. Don Harwin was horrified that this legislation should be passed just weeks before the Queen's eightieth birthday. He said that the Queen had given her whole life in service to this country. I truly do not feel that Australia figures greatly in the actions or thoughts of the British royal family. The fact that the monarch has a birthday looming should have no relevance to this debate. In many ways her service has been admirable. She has served her country and led her people well. Many look up to her and, as a member said earlier in the debate, enjoy listening to her Christmas message. That member and many other people choose to listen to that message but equally as many in our community choose not to do so.

The Hon. John Ryan: Understanding Islamic people was a theme of last year's message.

Mr IAN COHEN: That is an admirable sentiment. I listened to the Queen's message last time. But I know that many leaders in New South Wales and in Australia as a whole would express the same sentiment. I suggest that the Governor of New South Wales, Marie Bashir, who is of Lebanese extraction, is one such person. She would fill any void admirably—

The Hon. Rick Colless: She's the Queen's representative.

Mr IAN COHEN: And she may well be the representative of the people of New South Wales in the not too distant future. I would certainly support that move. It is irrelevant whom Marie Bashir represents and what her title is. What is relevant is the fact that she is a woman of magnificent stature who does a fantastic job for the people of New South Wales. That is what is important to me. I agree with the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans that the majority of Australians probably believe Australia should become a republic. Australians simply rejected the particular republican model that was presented at the 1999 referendum.

The debate surrounding the playing of God Save the Queen at the Commonwealth Games opening ceremony throws some light on this issue. Games organisers have decided not to play the royal anthem at the Commonwealth Games. That is surely a sign of the times. The Australian national anthem will be played, as it should be, at the Commonwealth Games that will be held in Australia in the very near future. I am pleased to participate in this debate and to speak in support of the Constitution Amendment (Pledge of Loyalty) Bill. Its time has come. I do not think we will suffer adversely by moving forward into the twenty-first century, proudly representing the people of New South Wales and Australia as a whole and tossing off some of the old colonial ties that historically have held Australia back.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [8.47 p.m.]: The Constitution Amendment (Pledge of Loyalty) Bill is a private member's bill sponsored by the honourable member for Liverpool, Paul Lynch, in the other place. Like Mr Lynch, when introducing the bill in this House the Hon. Peter Primrose made the important point that the bill is a declaration about where sovereignty actually resides in this Parliament. The Queen of England and Australia may be a sovereign but she is not the authority for government in New South Wales. Sovereign power in this State rests with the people, under both the Constitution and parliamentary tradition. The word "sovereign" is used to describe the entity or person who ultimately governs, and in New South Wales the people are sovereign.

I was surprised to hear the Hon. Don Harwin oppose the bill, although I compliment him on his thoughtful contribution and for taking the time to read what other members said about it in the other place. Some of them made frivolous comments about Queen Elizabeth II, as the Hon. John Ryan mentioned. But so far as I can ascertain there have not been any comments to that effect in this House—which is entirely appropriate. However, I must state for the record that the likely successor of Her Majesty is King Charles of England, and his Queen Consort, Camilla. In my opinion, that would change significantly the constitutional arrangements in Australia. The bill is one small aspect of those arrangements, which are not necessary and which are inconsistent with the sovereignty of the Australian people and the pledges honourable members take in this Parliament. Therefore, I support the bill and suggest that it ought to be treated on its merits without being confused with other issues, such as those relating to a republic.

I take issue with the Hon. Don Harwin saying that sovereignty in New South Wales is vested in Queen Elizabeth II. I believe that the honourable member is confusing head of state with sovereignty of the people of New South Wales. Since the passing of the Australia Act in 1986 any powers the Queen might have had as head of state were effectively revoked and, for more abundant caution, the New South Wales Parliament amended the Constitution Act in 1987 by adding section 35A, which provided that the Queen shall not exercise any powers or functions, except on the advice of the Executive Council. Of course, that also applies to the Queen's representative. The Queen or her representative is not in a position to make independent decisions about government in New South Wales and therefore sovereignty does not rest in the Queen or her representative.

By any definition the Queen of Australia in right of New South Wales is a mere figurehead. Honourable members should not pledge their loyalty to a figurehead sovereign but to the people of New South Wales, where the sovereign seat of power lies in our democratic system of government. The dictionary definition of "democracy" is government by the people. Democracy is a system of government in which the people are sovereign. The Macquarie Dictionary describes "democracy" as a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them or by their elected agents or representatives under a free electoral system. The Hon. David Clarke made a powerful contribution to the debate, asserting that the pledge of loyalty bill is the latest effort in the campaign by the Labor Party to turn our nation into a republic. I am not here to defend the Labor Party—

The Hon. Don Harwin: Yet!

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I am speechless! It is not a Labor Party bill and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of a republic. The Hon. David Clarke said that every State voted down the question in the republican referendum of 1999. If I can say just two things about that: As I recall Victoria voted in favour of the republican referendum—

The Hon. Don Harwin: No, it did not.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: Did not one jurisdiction vote in favour of it?

The Hon. John Ryan: On election night it looked like it was in front in Victoria but then it fell.

The Hon. PETER BREEN: I stand corrected on that. The other important point I want to make is that all surveys of the people of Australia suggest that a majority do support the idea of a republic. I attended the Constitutional Convention of 1998 in the lead-up to the referendum of 1999. The republic question was doomed, in my opinion, from the moment Malcolm Turnbull and the Australian Republican Movement decided that the issue of a popularly elected head of state should not be considered at the referendum. That is the reason the republic referendum was defeated so resoundingly, quite contrary and inconsistent with the polls about the number of people in Australia who support the issue of a republic.

Despite what other honourable members have said, including the Hon. Charlie Lynn, the majority of people do not support the monarchy in Australia: a majority support the idea of a republic. What form that republic should take is the vexing and difficult question, not whether Australia should be a republic. I am not anti-Queen and I am certainly not anti-British. As a person born in Australia before 1949 I was once a British subject. All people born before 1949 were British subjects. It was only the passing of the Citizenship Act in 1948 that established for the first time the notion of Australian citizenship.

The Oath of Allegiance in 1948, that is the Oath of Allegiance of citizens, was to His Majesty King George VI, his heirs and successors. In 1973 the Citizenship Act was amended to provide for an Oath of Allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, her heirs and successors. In 1993 the Citizenship Act was amended again to provide for a pledge of commitment, as opposed to an oath of allegiance, to the people of Australia. It said:

I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

It is the citizenship legislation that the bill seeks to follow. The explanatory note of the bill states:

A similar change was made in 1993 when the oath of allegiance for new Australian citizens was changed to a pledge of commitment under Commonwealth law.

This bill is entirely consistent with the development of citizenship in relation to the question of the oath of allegiance. It has been replaced in the citizenship legislation and it is entirely appropriate that it should be replaced in the situation of honourable members swearing a commitment to the people of New South Wales, who are the seat of sovereignty as opposed to the Queen of Australia and England.

I conclude by drawing a parallel between this bill and another bill that was passed by this Parliament in 2003, the State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Bill, which became law in 2004. That bill was also criticised as an attack on the monarchy as representing opposition to the established system of government in New South Wales and Australia and one that undermined our historic traditions. Nothing much has changed in the State of New South Wales as a result of that bill but there are small changes. For example, new government buildings that have been constructed since that bill was passed do not include the Royal Arms. Acts of Parliament that are published by the Government Printer no longer include the Royal Arms but the State Arms. There was also an inconsistency in the courts. The Supreme Court used to include the Royal Arms on its decisions and the District Court used to include the State Arms, so there was always some confusion about which Arms actually represented the people of New South Wales.

It is clear that the Royal Arms represent the British monarchy and the Queen of England. They have been around a lot longer than Australia has. Our State Arms have been around since 1906. Since the passing of the legislation I placed a motion on the notice paper to include the State Arms in this Chamber. It is with some regret that I have to say that that motion still remains on the notice paper and that the Royal Arms remains in this Chamber situated above the seat of the President. I again mean no disrespect to the Royal Arms, but the appropriate authority and seat of power in this State and in this Parliament belong with the people of New South Wales, and the business of the House should be carried out under the State Arms. I hope that in the near future that motion will be brought forward and we will have, in addition to the Royal Arms, the State Arms in this Chamber to represent the people of New South Wales and the basis of our authority in New South Wales.

The bill is in line with that legislation. It is not creeping republicanism; it is not republicanism by stealth. It is simply a development in the way in which we go about business in this State to represent the fact that sovereignty lies with the people of New South Wales and not with the head of a monarchy of another country. It is entirely appropriate that those historical symbols should gradually be removed. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [8.59 p.m.]: I will speak only briefly on the bill because most of the arguments have already been canvassed by my colleagues Ms Lee Rhiannon and Mr Ian Cohen, as well as by the Hon. Peter Breen. When I realised this debate was to come on tonight one of the first things I did was search on Google for "oath of allegiance". That immediately took me to Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia, which promptly defined:

An oath of allegiance is an oath whereby a subject or citizen acknowledges his duty of allegiance and swears loyalty to his monarch or country. In many modern oaths of allegiance, allegiance is sworn to the Constitution.

Interestingly, the encyclopaedia added a little historical context to oaths of allegiance, noting:

In feudal times a person would also swear allegiance to his feudal superiors. To this day the oath sworn by freemen of the City of London contains an oath of obedience to the Lord Mayor of London.

Now, I must say I am rather bemused by the thought of the freemen of London swearing obedience to Red Ken Livingstone! That in itself shows how anachronistic some of these oaths of allegiance and their formulation are. Wikipedia goes on to say:

Oaths of allegiance are commonly required of newly-naturalised citizens, members of the armed forces, and those assuming public (particularly parliamentary and judicial) office. Clergy in the Church of England are required to take an Oath of Supremacy acknowledging the authority of the British monarch.

I think that equates to an absolute triumph of Caesar over God!

The Hon. Don Harwin: It is the established church.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: It is an established church, but it is very much a reflection of the battles fought during the English Reformation. It is, I suggest, yet another relic of past and historical events. Wikipedia goes on to say:

In many Commonwealth realms all that is required is an oath to the monarch, and not the constitution or state. There have been moves in Canada and Australia to make the oath of allegiance sworn by new citizens refer to the country rather than the monarch. In Canada the oath now refers to both the country and Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, but in Australia references to the monarchy have been dropped. However, the oaths sworn by judges, Members of Parliament, etc., have not been changed. In New South Wales, there are plans for MPs and Ministers' oaths to be made to "Australia" rather than the Queen.

The upshot of the bill is that the oath of allegiance will be to the people of New South Wales as well as to Australia. Members will be aware that many people with whom I share many views in common are not great admirers of the United States of America. But I do find it very interesting to read the oath of allegiance that is sworn by those seeking naturalisation in the United States of America, because the United States does not beat about the bush. That oath reads:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same …

I could not have put it better myself than the lovely phrase "abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty". The point I make is that that oath of allegiance is a reflection of the historical era in which it was conceived, that is, the American War of Independence. It is a reflection of the events of 1776 in America. What is important is that New South Wales also moves in step with the times and recognises, as the Hon. Peter Breen pointed out, that times have changed, that we have the Australia Act and the various changes that resulted from that Act, for example, the end of appeals to the Privy Council.

As members of this Parliament are elected by the people of New South Wales, it is appropriate that we pledge our loyalty to the people of New South Wales and to Australia. It is that sentiment which should be embodied in our pledge. For anyone who does not know the origins of the name Queensland, might I offer this explanation. Queen Victoria was asked for suggestions as to what this new colony should be called. When Queen Victoria came up with the word Queensland, everybody thought it was atrocious but they were too embarrassed to tell Her Majesty so. That is how that remarkable symbol of royal egomania came to be known.

The Hon. Rick Colless: What about Victoria?

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Victoria is another example. Victoria and Queensland are almost as bad as Macquarie—that is, we have the words Macquarie or Lachlan littered all over the place. But that is another story. As I have said, it is time that our oath of allegiance was changed to bring it more into conformity with our modern circumstances.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [9.05 p.m.]: I have not given enormous consideration to this bill as it was devised by the Left of the Labor Party as a cheap, political point-scoring exercise, and one devoid of proper community consultation. Quite honestly, I have more pressing issues to take up my time, as do most of the people of New South Wales—the exception being the left wing of the Labor Party. Failing infrastructure, the provision of health services, hospital waiting lists, and children leaving our public schools in record numbers should, I think, be given more priority by those charged with governing this State.

From the outset might I say that in this debate we should not be debating the personalities involved. I have heard sneering references to the Queen and to Prince Charles and his consort Camilla. I have great pride in my culture—our culture. To Mr Ian Cohen I say, yes, I believe we have moved out of home: we did so with Federation in 1901 and the Australian Constitution and the Constitution Act of 1902. I am as proud as any Australian of our country and our achievements—achievements made under a stable system of government. To my mind, this is not about the monarchy but about the system of government that oversees stability and quality of life—but maybe that is because I have been educated in the public education system in New South Wales.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: You have forgotten all that the good teachers taught you.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I have not forgotten that all the teachers I had were branch members of the Australian Labor Party. To my mind, it is not about the monarchy but about the system of government that oversees that stability and quality of life—that is, a constitutional monarchy. I do not believe there has been any adequate argument put forward in support of the bill. I reinforce the proposition put by the Hon. Don Harwin in his speech about the British. He said:

Their greatest contribution has been their stable political system of constitutional monarchy. The British stand alone as a nation where, for over three centuries, there has been a non-violent transfer of power from one administration to the next. This political stability was the pre-condition for Britain being the richest and most technologically advanced nation on earth by the time the British settled New South Wales in the late eighteenth century. [This] year, we celebrate the sesquicentary of those institutions of responsible government that underpin the political system in our State. They have served us well and been the foundation for a great State within a great nation.

I would like to mention the contribution of the honourable member for Monaro, Mr Steven Whan, who had no compunction in supporting this bill. Australia, and therefore the people of his electorate, got it wrong he said—and these are his words—"because of the trickery in the way that John Howard ran the referendum". What an incredibly insulting—

The Hon. Rick Colless: And arrogant.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: —and arrogant proposition: that somehow the people of the Monaro had been duped, and that is how the republican referendum was defeated.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Shame!

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It is a shame that the honourable member for Monaro did not spend more time consulting with the Macedonian and Italian communities within his electorate. They respect our system of government and the quality of life it has provided them—free of civil turbulence—after fleeing countries in revolution and at war. They understand that it is our stable system of government that has provided them with prosperity and an opportunity that they otherwise would not have had. They are respectful of our prosperity and our nationhood. Debate on this bill is a shameful waste of the Parliament's time. The Hon. Don Harwin and the Hon. John Ryan raised the crucial point of our pledging loyalty different from that pledged by our police and correctional officers, but that is what happens when there is republicanism by stealth. Under our Constitution sovereignty is rested in an individual, a hereditary monarch who is a sovereign and who acts only on the advice of duly elected Ministers. If, at another referendum, Australians decide that Australia should be a republic, so be it. But until that time we should not play around to make cheap political points. I will not support a republic by stealth. We should have a full and honest debate and not fiddle around the edges.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [9.11 p.m.]: I have great pleasure in opposing the Constitution Amendment (Pledge of Loyalty) Bill. Left wingers like the honourable member for Liverpool, Mr Paul Lynch, in the other place, who dreamt up this bill, and his agent in this place, the Hon. Peter Primrose, and the Greens and their friends probably feel like they are choking on their words when they express allegiance through our country's head of state to Her Majesty. Fortunately, such people are in the minority in this State, and long may they remain so. In attempting to put forward the case in favour of the pledge of loyalty bill, left-wingers carry on about owing their allegiance, to quote the Hon. Peter Primrose, "to the people who elect us and whom we represent".

It is interesting to note that on the occasion of the throwing onto the scrapheap of hundreds of people in his electorate as a result of the Orange Grove debacle Mr Lynch was silent. He does not give a damn about those who elected him. He is interested only in left-wing ideology. One could not find more hypocritical legislation than this bill if one tried. It is yet another example of backdoor republicanism. As previous speakers have said, there are no grounds for support for the bill. Not one single elector anywhere in New South Wales has said to me, "I want you to go into that place and support the pledge of loyalty bill, Jenny." The bill represents an arrogant and out-of-touch Government. This is the second week of the parliamentary sittings for this session. Last week, the first sitting week of the session following the Christmas recess of the Parliament of New South Wales, the Government could find not one single bill to put before the House. It is struggling to do the same in the second sitting week. The bill—

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Point of order: The honourable member has misled the House deliberately. As she well knows, by longstanding practice the Opposition, the crossbench and the Government ensure that in the first week of sittings we deal with private members' business because two days of private members' business at the end of the previous session had been taken by Government business. It is outrageous that she should tell lies to this House when she knows well the longstanding agreement that her party and the crossbenchers insist on in this House.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! The member will return to the bill.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: The bill is on the agenda for tonight. Again, we have had a dearth of legislation.

The Hon. Don Harwin: Only because we had a suspension of standing orders.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: If we had not suspended standing orders to bring on debate on the bill, we would still be at dinner. The agenda reflects the priorities of the Government. The bill is part of the Government's slim legislative agenda, similar to its legislative agenda last year, and it is going down with the constituency like a lead balloon—or, should I say, like an apartment disappearing into the Lane Cove tunnel. Mr Ian Cohen, of the Greens, said that members of the House should be leaders and not followers. But on constitutional issues it is really important that legislators pay some heed to their electors. As I said earlier, no-one has asked for this constitutional change. If it really is all that important, then perhaps the people of New South Wales should have a constitutional referendum on the matter. I am not one of those who feel any inferiority about our constitutional system. I am one of those who cherish our country's history, and I embrace the many cultural changes that I have seen throughout my lifetime.

Nevertheless, we are at a point in our history when some of the basic tenets of our system of parliamentary democracy are even better appreciated because some of those very principles are under greater threat than they have been in recent decades. The Australian Labor Party is hung up on sovereignty and where our allegiance should lie. However, The Nationals absolutely support the current constitutional arrangements drawing on the history of our country. I note that Her Majesty the Queen will be in Sydney next week. Apart from in the caves that are filled with the bile and bitterness of the left wing of the Labor Party there is absolutely no clamouring by the people of this State for any change. As others have asked, "Why should members of this Parliament take a different oath of office from that taken by members of the police service, by our judicial officers and by those we expect to run our prisons?" No satisfactory answer has been given to that question in this debate. It will be interesting to note whether any members of the Labor Party attend any reception or other event for Her Majesty hosted by the Government of New South Wales during the royal visit. As a member of The Nationals in the Legislative Council of New South Wales I strongly oppose the bill, and I am happy to vote against it.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [9.18 p.m.]: I congratulate my colleague Mr Paul Lynch in the lower House on introducing this bill. Contrary to some of the very negative comments we heard, particularly from a couple of recent speakers, I draw attention to his speech when he introduced the bill in May 2004. Contrary to what has been implied, Paul Lynch did not attack or criticise anyone, nor did he make any negative comments: He made many very strong arguments and positive comments in support of the legislation.

One of the matters I have been thinking about as I have listened to some of the debate on the bill in this House and in the Parliament over the couple of years it has been debated in the other place is that I frequently attend citizenship ceremonies. The point was made by some earlier speakers that some years ago the oath or pledge taken at citizenship ceremonies was changed to the very simple oath, not an affirmation, of "From this time forward I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, whose laws I will uphold and obey." In my experience the people who choose to become Australian citizens take that oath or affirmation with great pride and great sincerity. They know exactly what they are saying and they do it with very strong convictions. What they are doing is pledging their loyalty to Australia and its people.

Essentially I see this bill as making a similar change in relation to the Parliament of New South Wales, both for members of the House and Ministers and members of the Executive Council. In some ways I find listening to some of the debate a little sad because it seems that so often we need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into modernising some of the things we do. I remember when the big issue under discussion here were the terribly radical changes introduced by Virginia Chadwick when she became President. She dared to suggest that we might get rid of such things as wigs and silver buckles on patent leather shoes. Judging by the way some people spoke then, it sounded like the end of the world. Similarly discussions about the anthem—other members have mentioned this—and giving people the choice of taking the affirmation rather than the oath have all been portrayed by some opponents as almost the end of the world, yet we have all managed to live with them.

We have witnessed a process of incremental change. Australia has taken an unusually long time as a former colony to cut the apron strings. We became a federation in 1901. I point out to the Hon. Melinda Pavey that our history has been going not all that long but it has taken us a long time to develop through those constitutional procedures. One of the other interesting things I found about this debate was the attempt to argue that this debate is a diversion. Apart from believing, as I said, that it is actually an important matter—honourable members will recall I gave citizenship ceremonies as an example—most people who take an oath or an affirmation of loyalty regard it as a very serious matter. It is also interesting to note that when the debate in the other place began in May 2004, it was alleged that it was a diversion. When the debate in the other place concluded in May 2005, it was alleged that it was a diversion. Now it is March 2006 and again some people are trying to allege that it is a diversion.

I will not speak at length on the bill but I will just point out, as a number of previous speakers have already, that we have gradually changed so many of the antiquated royal symbols that have essentially been hangovers from our colonial period. We have taken a long time to do it but we are gradually getting there.
The Hon. John Ryan: Point of order: The member has spoken disparagingly about the Queen, which is contrary to standing orders, when she referred to Her Majesty being a hangover. I am quite sure that that is disparaging and not an appropriate comment. I ask the member to withdraw it.

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: To the point of order: I actually said that it has taken us a long time to get rid of the antiquated hangovers of our colonial status.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members cannot make aspersions or intimations against Her Majesty except by way of substantive motion. However, to refer to the monarchy as a hangover is not casting an aspersion on the Queen. If the member said the Queen had a hangover, that may well have been an aspersion. But to refer to the actual position as being a hangover is not an aspersion on the Queen.

The Hon. John Ryan: Further to the point of order: That is not what she said. She said the Queen was a hangover, not the monarchy.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The comment was about the position, not the Queen herself.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: There is no standing order that says that by deliberative motion you can say something against the Queen. That is what the President said.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Nor is there anything in the standing orders about substantive motions about members of the other Chamber, but by convention that is how the House has dealt with aspersions or intimations against members of this or the other Chamber.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We are breaking new ground.

The PRESIDENT: No, we are not.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: May I simply say that my reading of standing order 91 (2)—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: No, you cannot.

The Hon. Peter Primrose: I have not taken the obvious point of order that a member may not refer to the Queen or Governor disrespectfully or for the purposes of influencing the House in its deliberations. A number of members opposite have repeatedly referred to the Queen to influence members to vote against this bill. I have not taken the obvious point of order, which is clearly set out in standing order 91. It refers to members referring to the Queen for the purposes of influencing the House in its deliberations. I believe that that specifically would be out of order. Members opposite have repeatedly praised the Queen for the purposes of trying to influence those who support the bill. Accordingly, I seek a ruling on that matter.

The PRESIDENT: Order! For clarification, standing order 91 (2) states:

A member may not refer to the Queen or the Governor disrespectfully in debate, or for the purposes of influencing the House in its deliberations.

I take that to apply to the Queen herself, rather than the position of Queen. Otherwise no member could speak to the bill. Therefore the Hon. Jan Burnswoods may continue her speech.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: Thank you, Madam President, for your wise ruling. You will probably remember the night that the Hon. Ian West took a point of order because the Hon. Patricia Forsythe said the Governor, Marie Bashir, was a wonderful person. The Hon. Ian West took that point of order precisely to point out that the Hon. Patricia Forsythe was trying to influence us. The fact remains that I did not refer to the Queen. Nevertheless, if the Hon. John Ryan wishes to live in fantasyland, he is perfectly entitled to do so.

I almost have a second wind. I had five seconds left of my speech, but as is so often the case, the Opposition has shot itself in the foot. I will make a few more points. It was interesting to examine the debate in the Legislative Assembly, as some members during this debate have said. I point out indeed that one of the interesting things about it was that the vote in favour of the bill was 56 to 33, and that those in favour included five of the then six Independent members of the lower House.

The Hon. John Ryan: They are all Labor stooges.
The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: The Hon. John Ryan is probably now reflecting on members of the lower House, which is what he just said I should not do under any circumstances. But we do not expect consistency from the Hon. John Ryan. I am sure the honourable member for Bligh, Clover Moore, would be very interested to hear that he regards her as a Labor stooge, but never mind. As I said in my opening remarks, I congratulate Paul Lynch on introducing the bill. I congratulate him also on the research he has done and, as I said earlier, on the positive and very generous way in which he made the arguments, contrary to what some of The Nationals and Liberal Party members did. I know they become a trifle incoherent as the night wears on, for whatever reason that may be. Contrary to what they have said, for most people our support of this bill has been a most positive—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The honourable member is casting aspersions on people on this side of the House. When she cannot win an argument, she infers that people who have a point of view different from hers may be intoxicated. That is an appalling allegation, and I request you to ask her to withdraw it.

The PRESIDENT: Order! A member should not imply that other members in the Chamber are intoxicated. I ask the member to withdraw the imputation.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS: Happily, Madam President, I withdraw that imputation. However, it is a pity that members opposite do not withdraw implications against or the straight-out statements that they sometimes make about not only members on my side of the House but also named individuals. It is interesting, for instance, that the Hon. Melinda Pavey should refer to me as "deadwood". I will not bother asking her to withdraw, because she and some of her colleagues continually refer to me and other women on this side of the House by most inappropriate names. I would not pay them the courtesy of asking them to withdraw, because it would not mean anything if they did.

In conclusion, I congratulate the Hon. Peter Primrose on his fine speech in introducing the bill into the House. As he pointed out, Henry VIII introduced the oath of allegiance, basically as an anti-parliamentary and anti-Catholic device. If one was not willing to take the oath, as a few famous people found out, one lost one's head. The oath of allegiance should not be considered as a model for this House or for the people of New South Wales, and I urge people to support the bill.

The Hon. JOHN TINGLE [9.32 p.m.]: I have some serious problems with the Constitution Amendment (Pledge of Loyalty) Bill, but not for the same reasons given by the majority of members who have spoken tonight. My concern is that I believe it misses its own point. I understand that many members of this House, and probably many other people, do not feel comfortable when swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen. They feel the oath is forced upon them and that it does not fit with their personal identity and attitudes. They consider that an oath to Australia would establish our Australian identity more strongly and would throw off what they consider to be the shackles of antiquated practices.

Just because something is old or antiquated does not make it wrong, but the point I would like to make is that the proponents of the bill object to having to make an oath of allegiance to the Queen. That is absolutely fair enough; if they feel uncomfortable in that way, that should be taken into account. I understand the motivation for introducing the bill, and it can be respected as being the point of view of some people in the community. However, I do not understand—and this is where the bill misses its own point—why, because members resent being forced to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen, they now seek to force people who would like to make such an oath to make an oath of allegiance to something else. When one appears in court or in certain other places, one is given the choice of making an oath or an affirmation.

I believe that the bill would be much more effective, and much more capable of my support, if the taking of an oath were optional. If one wished, one could swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen or an oath of allegiance to Australia. It would then be fascinating to see who would choose which oath.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.34 p.m.]: I was tempted not contribute to debate on the Constitution Amendment (Pledge of Loyalty) Bill. It is such an appalling bill and it makes people angry. I do not say "appalling" lightly. Whether one is a monarchist, a constitutional monarchist or a republican, the bill flies in the face of people making a decision. As stated in the objects of the bill, the bill exhorts us:

(a) to replace the oath of allegiance to the Queen and her successors taken by Members of Parliament with a pledge of loyalty to Australia and to the people of New South Wales.
The bill exhorts us to be answerable to the people, but what is not operational in this debate is a decision by the people. An elite group has made this decision without consulting the people. As honourable members know, I am a constitutional monarchist. I am not a monarchist; I do not believe in allegiance to the Queen alone. I believe that the constitution that is part of the monarchy is important. The referendum that was held on whether Australia should become a republic was a fair model of public opinion. Had the proposal been accepted I would have gladly supported it, because it would have been a decision by the people. Some of the arguments put up by members on this side of the House were wrong, because the referendum was decided on a false premise of removing a choice from the people. It was a scare campaign, and it destroyed the possibility of raising some further models.

Although I am a constitutional monarchist, I believe it is inevitable that Australia will become a republic. Of all the proposed models, that one was the best. Had the people accepted it I would have supported it. However, at the end of the day the people did not support it and we now have this bill to consider. But, dare I say, the bill did not come from the people. The bill does not result from a groundswell of public opinion that went through the towns, villages and cities of this State, with people championing it and supporting it. This elitist document is supported by the Left of the Labor Party, and dishonestly introduced into this House to change the attitude of this State in a secretive manner.

Given what I have said, I have no choice but to vote against the bill and exhort every sensible member of the House to vote against it. If this change is to be made, it should come from the people of New South Wales, it should not be snuck in through the back door of this House at 9.30 p.m. in the middle of a week, when it cannot be subject to public scrutiny. I cannot speak strongly enough against this hypocritical bill. It pretends to be about swearing an oath of allegiance to the people, but actually it has ignored the will of the people.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.37 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I strongly oppose the Constitutional Amendment (Pledge of Loyalty) Bill 2004. The objects of the bill are stated as:

(a) to replace the oath of allegiance to the Queen and her successors taken by Members of Parliament with a pledge of loyalty to Australia and to the people of New South Wales, and

(b) to replace the oath of allegiance, the oath of service to the Queen and the special Executive Councillor's oath taken by Members of Parliament when they become Ministers and members of the Executive Council with the pledge of loyalty and a single Executive Councillor's oath.

The bill will replace the oath of allegiance, which provides for the insertion of a member's name, and states:

I … do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.

If this bill is passed, that oath is to be replaced with the pledge of loyalty in proposed section 12 (2), which states:

Under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and to the people of New South Wales.

I am sure that those of us who support the current oath of allegiance would have no problems in stating those words as a pledge of loyalty. I have no problem with a pledge of loyalty; I simply want to retain the oath of allegiance. For that reason I have foreshadowed an amendment, which has been distributed on sheet C-005, that states:

12 No Member to sit or vote until oath of loyalty and allegiance taken

(1) A Member of the Legislative Council or the Legislative Assembly is not permitted to sit or vote in the House to which the Member has been elected until the Member has taken, before the Governor or other person authorised by the Governor for that purpose, the oath of loyalty and allegiance in the following form:

(a) the pledge of loyalty, and
(b) the oath of allegiance in the form prescribed by the Oaths Act 1900

I see that as a very simple solution to the dilemma faced by some honourable members—that we simply add the additional words to the pledge of loyalty. I believe that if the Government were of the view that this was an urgent matter, it would have been far better to have gone through the normal processes and have it discussed by the Standing Orders Committee of the Parliament with a view to reaching agreement among the representatives of all parties. However, the Labor Government, through Mr Lynch's private member's bill, is seeking to impose its will on the other parties in this Parliament instead of seeking their co-operation and goodwill. I have just received from Parliamentary Counsel an updated version of my amendment. It proposes what I originally intended, combining the oath and the pledge. This amendment appears on sheet C-005A. The oaths of loyalty and allegiance would read:

I … do swear that I will be loyal to Australia and the people of New South Wales and be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.

Of course, the option of taking an oath or affirmation would still apply. I prefer my amendment as outlined on sheet C-005A. I believe there are a number of important principles to be stated. One is that no change such as this should take place until the people vote for a republic. To me that is the most sincere position for members on both sides of the Parliament to take. There should be no changes to the forms and practices of the Parliament, or to other aspects of our society that involve recognition that we are a constitutional monarchy, until the people decide otherwise. In that event, as loyal members of the New South Wales Parliament, we would accept the will of the people.

A number of members have said that this is not back-door republicanism. I believe it is. I have no doubt about that. It has been proposed by republicans and supported by republicans, and that is the basis of it. I am also now confused as to whether this is a private member's bill or a Government bill, because of the Government's procedures tonight in allowing the bill to be debated on a day not set aside for private members' business. I am aware that the Labor Government sometimes uses a private member's bill so that if there is criticism it can say, in this case, "It is not a Government bill; it is Mr Lynch's bill." The Government cannot say that any longer. This has become a Government bill and the Government has to accept the public criticism.

The oath of allegiance is simple: it refers to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, who is the Queen of Australia. It is really an oath of loyalty to the Crown. It is a symbol of the authority under which we operate in our democracy. It is interesting to note that today we were given a very rushed briefing by the Government on a new set of bills that came hot off the presses. In order to circumvent the Federal Government's workplace legislation, the New South Wales Labor Government proposes to transfer all public servants. They will become employees of—wait for it—the Crown! We have recently had discussions about changing "Crown land" to "State land" and so on, and now it has all been reversed and the Crown has become the centrepiece of the Government's employment policy. That smacks of hypocrisy, on the one hand to remove the Crown, and on the other to use the Crown if it suits the Government's political agenda.

I also believe that there should be a conscience vote on the bill. We do not know the views of all Labor members. As honourable members know, members of the Labor Party have to vote according to the party's decision, and the party has obviously agreed to support the bill. Members of the Labor Party are not permitted a conscience vote. I would be surprised if the bill had the support of 100 per cent of Labor members. The bill envisages a change to the Constitution. I have received advice from the Clerk, who in turn had legal advice, that this is one part of the Constitution that can be changed by an Act of Parliament. If we could bring Sir Henry Parkes and others who drafted the Constitution into the House, they would agree that this matter should have been referred to the people by way of a referendum. It is part of the Constitution, but I believe the Government has used a loophole in order to change a major aspect of the source of authority of members of Parliament. I believe it is hypocritical.

The legislation does not really allow members to exercise their own consciences. As the Hon. John Tingle said, there are those among us who wish to continue to take the oath of allegiance. I give a personal commitment that, no matter what happens to the amendments, if this bill is passed and if I am re-elected in 2007 I will make the pledge according to law and then I will make the pledge of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II. One cannot be expelled from Parliament for pledging loyalty to the Queen of Australia. I pledge now to do that and I challenge every member who opposes the Government's legislation to do the same at the swearing-in of members in 2007.

The Hon. Peter Breen: Why vote for it if you are going to do it anyway?

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: If the amendment is lost and the bill is passed I will make the oath of allegiance and the pledge of loyalty to the people of Australia. I dare anyone to suggest that I could be charged with an offence for doing that, so long as Queen Elizabeth is Queen of Australia.

The Hon. Peter Breen: You are an anarchist. You are not acting according to the laws of the State.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: No. The bill does not state that you cannot say it. These are some of the conflicts that have been created by the bill. Other members have drawn attention to the fact that Queen Elizabeth's eightieth birthday is approaching. It seems insulting for the bill to be debated at this time. I believe it is dishonest and disloyal. I believe it is unconstitutional. I also believe the bill is absolutely unnecessary. Queen Elizabeth II has indicated previously, such as during the republican debate, that she is aware of her position and accepts the will of the people and of the Parliament. But I consider this bill to be an insult to Queen Elizabeth II, who is Queen of Australia. I believe it is an act of disloyalty when all members of Parliament have pledged their loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II. The oath states that we will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Queen. True allegiance involves defending the Queen of Australia, but this bill is disloyal to her.

I note that when Mr Lynch was attempting initially to drum up support for the bill he claimed that members of Parliament must swear allegiance to the long-dead Queen Victoria. That is completely dishonest. We are required to swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors. When a reigning monarch dies the words "Long live the Queen" or "Long live the King" are uttered. The hereditary royal line provides for immediate succession. I believe this bill goes against the will of the people because the citizens of New South Wales, more than those of any other State, voted overwhelmingly to reject the republican model at the Commonwealth referendum held on 6 November 1999. Some honourable members have claimed that the people would have accepted the republican model that provided for an elected president. The Coalition took a neutral stand during the referendum campaign while the Labor Party actively supported the republican cause. But the Coalition would have rejected the proposal for an elected president.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: The National Party did not take a neutral position; the National Party campaigned against it.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: My point is that the model that proposed an elected president would have had no hope of success because it would have been opposed politically. It is false to claim that the failure of the referendum was a mistake because the wrong model was proposed. The defeat would have been even greater if a different model had been used. Peter Costello spoke out strongly against the notion of an elected president and other prominent republicans would have also campaigned against that proposition, which would create dual sources of power vested in a president and a Prime Minister. That would have caused anarchy in Australia, as has occurred in other countries that simply replaced the monarchy with a president with reserve powers and so on. For that reason I believe the model will never be chosen.

This bill creates inconsistencies. Each opening of Parliament is followed by the Address-in-Reply. All members of Parliament, including those in the lower House, must report to Government House and reaffirm their loyalty to the Governor of New South Wales, as the representative of Queen Elizabeth II. The Governor of New South Wales also has the legal and constitutional power to dismiss the New South Wales Government and to call an election. This occurred in New South Wales in 1928 and federally in 1975. The legislation passed in Parliament does not become law until it is signed by the Governor, on behalf of Queen Elizabeth II. I know that is a symbolic action, but it is the law. This bill tampers with the entire parliamentary process. It is illogical and inconsistent to remove one piece of the puzzle—the pledge of loyalty—when the other pieces remain. If we are to become a republic we must change everything. We cannot make piecemeal changes, as this bill seeks to do. That will only cause confusion.

The bill would make members of Parliament pledge an oath of allegiance to the people of Australia. What will happen if there is a constitutional crisis in this country? That almost occurred in New South Wales in 1928. Who would be the source of authority then? According to this bill, members must obey the people of New South Wales. But how would they do that? Independents claim to represent not a political party but the people of their electorate. How do they physically do that? Our Constitution provides for a source of authority in the form of a constitutional monarchy. The Federal Constitution states that the Governor-General is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. In the event of major civil unrest, who would resolve the crisis? If the Premier was at fault, his authority was no longer recognised and he was not able to solve the dilemma, that responsibility would fall on the shoulders of the Governor.

The Hon. Peter Breen: The Governor can only act on the direction of the Executive Council.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: No. If there were a constitutional crisis the Governor would have the power to act. The Governor must solve constitutional problems; the Premier has no power to do so. This bill weakens the line of authority. If it is passed I hope and pray that we never regret it. I hope that those who support it will never have to say, "We made a major error in supporting this bill." I believe—Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes would also make this point if he were present—this issue is so important that the people of New South Wales should have their say. They have been ignored in this process.
There should be a referendum on this issue—perhaps it could be tied in with a State election to save money. We should ask the people. This bill is not urgent—I am sure even its advocates would admit that. In line with the pledge of loyalty that they have drafted, they should allow the people of New South Wales to express their views. The question would be simple. If the people of this State agreed with the proposition in the bill, so be it. We would have to accept the will of the electors of New South Wales. I challenge those who are committed to this bill to give the people of New South Wales their say. If the bill's supporters are sincere in their intentions they will adjourn the debate to allow the people of New South Wales to take part in a referendum. I move:

That this debate be now adjourned until the next sitting day.

The House divided.

Mr Clarke Mrs Forsythe Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Mr Jenkins

Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

Mr Ryan Mr Tingle Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Mr Breen Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Della Bosca Mr Donnelly Ms Griffin

Ms Hale Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Ms Rhiannon Ms Robertson Mr Roozendaal

Ms Sharpe Mr Tsang Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Ms Cusack	Mr Costa
Mr Gallacher	Ms Fazio

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion for adjournment of debate negatived.

The Hon. PATRICIA FORSYTHE [10.05 p.m.]: I am flattered at the suggestion that I wanted to speak in debate on the Constitution Amendment (Pledge of Loyalty) Bill and the Government did not want to adjourn it. As I listened to the debate I was reminded of a story some years ago when Jeff Kennett was Premier of Victoria and the Government was having difficulties in relation to hospitals and hospital closures. One morning Jeff Kennett announced that all taxis in Melbourne would be painted yellow. The media of the day immediately switched from real issues of concern in the community and was appropriately distracted by Jeff Kennett's stunt. This legislation—whether or not it is a private member's bill or government business—could be described as nothing other than a stunt.

If we were to walk down to Martin Place and tell the people of New South Wales that at 10.05 p.m. on 7 March, while they were focused on issues that really mattered to them—for example, whether they can get to work or school on time, whether they can get an operation in a public hospital, issues such as the quality of education, law and order, recovery from the drought or any of the other myriad issues that matter to them—we had just spent the past two hours debating whether we should have an oath of allegiance or pledge our loyalty to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II they would think we were stark raving mad. The community is concerned about genuine issues and this is not one of them.

In recent months, while this bill has been on the Notice Paper, I have not received a rush of emails, letters or telephone calls from people urging me to support it. I do not always agree with Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile but tonight he referred to one issue for which the Government has no real answer. He said that this bill ought to be as the consequence of the people of Australia voting for a republic and not as a result of something that precedes it. I might be one of the few people in this Chamber who can honestly say that I do not support this legislation. I am proud to say that I voted for a republic in the referendum—I believe there is a time and place for an Australian head of state—but that was not the view of the majority of people. In the electorate in which I live the majority of people hold the view that I hold.

The referendum was the correct way in which to address this issue. We must take into account, first, whether Australia should have an Australian head of state or, second, whether we owe loyalty and allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. Until such time as that changes, the very notion that our oath should not be to a head of state is illogical and makes no sense. That is the tradition on which we have built the government of Australia. It is one of which we can all be proud.

Notwithstanding the fact that I supported a republic because I supported that model of a republic—I would not necessarily support every model—notwithstanding that on any trip to Great Britain I am one of the first to line up to see if I can see Her Majesty, or notwithstanding that on any trip to Australia by Her Majesty I am happy to stand on the street and wave as she passes by, I am very proud of our institutions, of the role that we have played and of the stability of government that we have had. In no way does that detract from the fact that at the appropriate time I gave support to the model of a republic that was promoted. But mine was not the view of the community. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile was absolutely correct in saying that there is an order to the way in which we go about any change to a republic, and the first thing ought to be to determine whether we are to change the nature of the government. Determine that issue, and all else will follow.

There has been talk about the origins of this bill. I did some work on it last year. As I recall, the first person to promote this bill was former Premier the Hon. Bob Carr as long ago as about 1992. He did not get anywhere with it then, when he was trying to establish a framework in which his Government would operate. Opposition members and those who oppose a shift to a republic can be very proud of the fact that in 2006 we have still held the line on this issue. Notwithstanding the few examples given by the honourable member who introduced the bill, very few States and nations have an oath of allegiance to other than the head of state, and that is as it should be.

This debate is an extraordinary distraction from the real issues of concern to the people of New South Wales. At the end of tonight's sitting, at a time when we should be dealing with the real and pressing issues to do with the poor government of this State, the media will know we have spent our time debating this pledge of allegiance issue. All I can say is that the Government has missed the point about issues that really matter to our communities. Equally, I understand the Opposition will support the amendment to be moved by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, who at least to some extent has fallen for the Government's trap. We ought to vote the bill down as it is, without trying to amend it. To seek to amend it is to be caught in the trap set by the Government and it lends support to its suggestion that this bill is other than a distraction and ought to be dealt with seriously. One cannot fix bad legislation. However, I am aware the Opposition will not oppose the amendment. I think it would have been better to give a clear message that we oppose the bill, that it is a waste of our time, and that there are more important and pressing issues. Australia did not vote for a republic. Despite the views of republicans, that is the reality. This bill is out of place, and we should not give it support.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [10.14 p.m.]: I did not intend to speak on this bill, but having listened to the debate I feel compelled to put my views on the record. The front page of the bill reveals that it was introduced in 2004—I understand in May. So, although the bill has been on the business paper for nearly two years, all of a sudden the Government moves for the suspension of standing orders to bring on debate on the bill after the dinner adjournment on an evening when there is simply no other Government Business to deal with. The bill was introduced by a Government member, and the motion to suspend standing orders was moved by the Leader of the Government in this House, so the bill arguably has some standing as a government bill.

I want to address a few points made by honourable members during this debate. First, Mr Ian Cohen said it was time that Australia stood up for itself. I believe Australians have been standing up for themselves for a very long time. Think back to an event—which turned out to be a disaster—that put Australia on the map as a nation that can stand up for itself. I am referring to the Gallipoli event of 1915, when our soldiers set the benchmark for bravery. Ever since then, Australia has proved itself very capable of standing up for itself on the world stage. Whether it be as a member of the Commonwealth, as a monarchy, or as a republic is irrelevant. The fact is that Australia is very much an independent nation, as is established by its achievements in those various fields.
Mr Ian Cohen also said that he felt uncomfortable about Christian religious ceremonies. Quite frankly, what about all the other religious ceremonies that all members of this place are required to attend from time to time? I do not take offence to any religious ceremony, anywhere, in which I might be involved. It does not matter whether it is a Jewish, Islamic or Christian ceremony, an Aboriginal smoking ceremony, or whatever; I am not offended by it. That raises the issue of the multicultural nature of Australia. All members should be cognisant of the fact that there were some 12 different cultures in the First Fleet to Australia. So, from the time that the First Fleet landed in Australia, ours has been a multicultural society.

Think about the various cultures that have contributed to our society in that time. What about the contribution the Irish have made to Australia? What about the contribution the Italians have made to Australia? What about the contribution the Dutch have made to Australia? What about the contribution the Chinese have made to Australia? I come from a town called Inverell, where there is a Chinese family, the Fay family, who are fifth generation Australians. Quite a number of members of this House who are of Anglo-Saxon descent would not be fifth generation Australians, but many Chinese people are. They are a great part of our society. The Fays are one of the most highly respected families in Inverell, Glen Innes, Bundarra and elsewhere in northern New South Wales. What about the contribution the Greeks have made to Australia over that same period? We are a truly multicultural society. Australia has always been a member of the Commonwealth and we have always sworn allegiance to the Queen. What has been wrong with that? What has been wrong or gone wrong with the system that we have? The great pretenders of this House are the members of Country Labor. Not one member of Country Labor has stood up at the podium to comment on any of these issues or to speak in support of the bill. Why?

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: Because they're cowards.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: Exactly, because they are cowards. Because they know that the bill will not be supported in Griffith, Tamworth or anywhere else they purport to represent. The Hon. Christine Robertson shouted derogatory interjections at Opposition members who spoke against the bill. I suggested to her across the Chamber that she might like to step up to the plate to put her views on the record so that the people of Tamworth, where she lives, could hear what she has to say. But she declined. When she has been given the opportunity, she has bolted. Where is the Minister for Primary Industries? He is not putting his views on the public record because he is not game to do so.

Members of the group known as Country Labor know that if they support the bill they will be castigated in their local communities; they will be shot down in flames because their local communities do not support the bill. As has been said many times tonight, this bill is republicanism by stealth. People in the bush do not support it. We might ask: Where is the Hon. Amanda Fazio? I understand that on an overseas trip she had a meeting with members of the Royal Family, or something along those lines. Was the Hon. Amanda Fazio being a little hypercritical, or is she a monarchist, in which case she would have good reason to meet with members of the royal family. Would she support the bill? What is going on?

The Hon. Peter Primrose: Point of order: If the honourable member wishes to cast a slur against members who are not here he should do it in private rather than in public. The Hon. Amanda Fazio has been paired as a result of an agreed position between the Opposition and the Government. If the honourable member wishes to say anything further he should choose to say it to a member who is here rather than take the coward's way and say something about members who are not here to defend themselves.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the member that intimations against members of the Chamber are disorderly.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: The bill raises the question: What is so wrong with the political system we have at present? If something is wrong with our system we should step up to the plate and attempt to fix it. But just what is wrong with arguably the most stable political system in the world? As one member of the Chamber said to me earlier tonight, "If it ain't broke why are we trying to fix it?" There is nothing wrong with our political system at the moment and we do not need to fix it. As all members know and as was mentioned earlier, the Queen will be in Sydney next week. I wonder whether any members opposite who spoke in favour of the bill will next week attend any royal function to which they may have been invited during Her Majesty's visit. I wonder whether they will go if they are invited. I wonder whether the anti-monarchist, anarchist Republicans will attend a reception for the Queen.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Did you get an invite?
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: No, I have not been invited. But I wonder whether any member who spoke in support of the bill has been invited to such a function and, if so, whether he or she will attend. If any of them do attend I wonder whether they will take a copy of the bill to the Queen and say, "Your Majesty, we are sorry, but we have decided to toss you out of Australia. We do not want you any more. Thanks for coming, but buzz off."

The Hon. Jan Burnswoods: Point of order: Earlier we had a lengthy discussion on a point of order initiated by the Opposition in which the Hon. John Ryan and numerous other members of the Opposition took part. We debated the standing order that prevents people from referring to the Queen in debate in a negative way to sway debate. I suggest that apart from being quite tasteless the debate the Hon. Rick Colless is proffering is in breach of Standing Order No. 91.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I interpret Standing Order No. 91 as meaning references specifically to the person in the position. I cannot possibly interpret Standing Order No. 91 as meaning references to the position, because if that were the case this debate could not possibly proceed. However, I remind the member that he must not make imputations against other members of the Chamber, which he certainly is doing.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I will refrain from making any further imputations. In his poignant contribution Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile said that the Coalition took a neutral position during the republican debate some years ago and that it campaigned on a neutral position. That is not entirely correct. Members of the Liberal Party may well have done that, and they can speak for themselves, but The Nationals certainly campaigned quite vigorously against a republic.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: And won.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: And won.

The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner: As the Prime Minister said afterwards, "John Anderson is the one leader in this country who got it right."

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: That is right. I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner. Our position in the debate was supported overwhelmingly by the vast majority of people in Australia, and we are very proud of that. I am glad to have had the opportunity to put my views on this appalling legislation before the House. I strongly urge all members to vote against it.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [10.26 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions this evening and last week. However, I point out that this is Private Members' Business item No. 5 in the Order of Precedence. Many, if not most, of those who opposed the bill made reasonably thin arguments. I acknowledge that it has been a good debate, but any suggestion that the introduction of the bill and the timing of the debate should be regarded as a slur against the Queen is factually incorrect. The bill was introduced in the Legislative Assembly on 6 May 2004. I presented the bill in this place, and standing orders were suspended to allow the bill pass through all its remaining stages on Thursday 7 April 2005. Debate has resumed tonight as an item in the Order of Precedence. It is appropriate to point that out to honourable members who seek to suggest that debate on this bill, which has been before the Parliament for two years, has taken place at a time other than in accordance with the ordinary processes of this place. Members who have suggested that there are more critical items that we could debate as part of Private Members' Business—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The honourable member is misleading the House. This matter did not come up as a matter of precedence tonight; it was brought on by contingent motion moved by the Government.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have had to counsel the member on numerous occasions not to make debating points in the guise of a point of order.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of clarification: That was not a debating point at all.

The PRESIDENT: Order! When a member speaks about another member misleading the House—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He misled the House. He made an inaccurate comment to the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! A member is not in contravention of the standing orders if he or she misleads the House, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that.
The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: Obviously I have got under the skin of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, which is something I usually refrain from doing, given that he has thin skin. I am very tempted to read some of the motions of which notice has been given by members opposite that they believe should more appropriately be considered by this House and that are more worthy of the time of this House than this bill. But I will not do that. Instead, I simply say that I will leave it to the House to decide, as provided for under the Constitution of this House.

Under the constitutional arrangements applying to Parliament, the House will make the decision. I will leave it to members to decide whether the arguments advanced by me and my Labor colleagues and the Greens and others have been compelling, or whether they have been swayed by the views expressed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Hon. Rick Colless—and even, might I be so bold as to suggest, the Hon. Charlie Lynn. I will leave it to the constitutional arrangements that apply to this Parliament. Let us see who the House believes has put the better argument.

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

The House divided.

Mr Breen Dr Burgmann Mr Catanzariti Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Della Bosca Mr Donnelly Ms Griffin

Ms Hale Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Ms Rhiannon Ms Robertson Mr Roozendaal

Ms Sharpe Mr Tsang Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Mr Clarke Ms Cusack Mrs Forsythe Miss Gardiner Mr Gay

Mr Jenkins Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Ms Parker Mrs Pavey

Mr Ryan Mr Tingle Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Mr Costa	Mr Gallacher
Ms Fazio	Mr Pearce

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.41 p.m.]: I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [1], lines 5 to 19. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

12 No Member to sit or vote until oath of loyalty and allegiance taken

(1) A Member of the Legislative Council or the Legislative Assembly is not permitted to sit or vote in the House to which the Member has been elected until the Member has taken, before the Governor or other person authorised by the Governor for that purpose the oath of loyalty and allegiance in the following form:

I, do swear that I will be loyal to Australia and the people of New South Wales and be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her Heirs and Successors according to law.

So help me God

(2) Every person authorised by law to make an affirmation instead of taking an oath may make an affirmation instead of an oath under this section.

(3) The name of the current Sovereign, from time to time, may be substituted in the form of the pledge and oath set out in this section.

I do that because honourable members have said that they wish to have an oath that includes Australia and the people of Australia—and that is what my amendment provides. My amendment meets the wishes of members who feel strongly about that. I have no objection to adding those words to the traditional oath that has been taken by members since 1823, and that is very much part of the history of this House, until such time as the Australian people vote for a republic. Should that occur, subsequently all these forms of words would be changed by legislation and other means. If Australia were to become a republic there would need to be a massive number of changes to legislation, convention and culture.

Until that time, it is right and proper that we retain in our oath of allegiance the words "to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth". I know that Mr Lynch and others who support the bill want to include the words "to Australia and to the people of New South Wales" and my amendment provides for that. I hope all members support my amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile may take this opportunity to move and speak to his second amendment.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.43 p.m.]: I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 2:

No. 2 Page 1, Long Title. Omit "instead of". Insert instead "in addition to".

This amendment is consequential upon amendment No. 1 and it will lapse if my first amendment is defeated.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [10.43 p.m.]: I cannot support the amendments as they conflict with the intent and objects of the bill.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [10.44 p.m.]: This is a difficult issue. In her contribution to the second reading debate my colleague the Hon. Patricia Forsythe outlined some of the reasons why there is a case for not supporting the amendments. The Opposition sees the bill as a distraction, and trying to improve it in any way is a waste of time. Nevertheless, the amendments will bring the New South Wales oath of allegiance into line with those in other States; for example, Queensland has almost exactly the same words in its oath of allegiance. Frankly, it would be fair to say that many Opposition members in this House and the people in the community who support those members would find it very hard to vote against such an oath. However, after some consideration, the Opposition has decided to support the amendments. Sadly, I note that, given the voting pattern in Committee tonight, it is unlikely to succeed.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.46 p.m.]: The Government Whip indicated his personal point of view. I suspect that is probably a dishonest attitude because the Government is voting as a block.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [10.46 p.m.]: I am loath to say it again, but clearly I got under the skin of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on this. He does not grasp the point that this bill is item No. 5 in the Order of Precedence for Private Members' business. The lower House passed the bill and in this House I moved that it be read a second time. At this time I am speaking on my own behalf. I hope that honourable members who have listened to this debate—and I hope that there will be more debate on this point—will leave it to the House to decide whether the views I have espoused are persuasive or whether the views espoused by the Opposition are persuasive. I will leave it to the ordinary forms of the House to make the decision and judge which of us has made the better argument.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.47 p.m.]: The Hon. Peter Primrose was speaking from his personal capacity and he gave his personal opinion. The Committee has heard the Hon. Don Harwin state the position of the Opposition. It is only fair and honest for all members to hear the Government's position on this bill from the Leader of the Government.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.48 p.m.]: Hansard will, of course, diligently record the vote on this bill, but it probably will not record diligently, in the proceedings of the Committee, that the Leader of Government Business is in the Chamber and chose not to speak.

The Hon. Tony Kelly: No, he is not here!

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Well, the Leader of the House is present.

The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [10.49 p.m.]: I do not support the amendments. I congratulate the Hon. Peter Primrose on his courage and conviction.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [10.49 p.m.]: I was clear about the Government's position until the Hon. Peter Primrose began to represent this as though Government members had a conscience vote on this matter. In that regard I am concerned because I understand that Government members do not have a conscience vote. They took a position in caucus and are voting according to that decision. There is nothing wrong with that position, but Government members should not attempt to represent that they are making individual decisions this evening. Indeed, each of them is voting according to a vote in caucus. I defy them to deny that; I certainly assert that to be the case.

The bill is being debated during time that is normally set aside for Government Business. It has certainly been communicated to honourable members that, although this bill commenced as a private member's bill in another place, it is being dealt with as a matter of Government Business. The Government is sponsoring it and Government members are voting as a block. So let us not kid ourselves that the decision has not been made by the Government. The Government has made a decision, and I welcome clarification of that from members opposite. If there is a suggestion that people reading Hansard might be confused, it is the position that all Government members are bound by a caucus vote on this matter, and they are not making a conscience vote, although all of them might agree with the legislation. Nevertheless, caucus took a vote and Government members are voting as a block.

The Hon. PETER BREEN [10.51 p.m.]: I shall speak briefly against the amendment on the basis that there seems to be an inherent conflict in trying to amend a bill that provides for a pledge of loyalty to Australia and the people of New South Wales with an amendment that reinstates the current position, that is, swearing allegiance to the Queen. The second amendment makes it clear with an amendment to the long title, which I would have thought, by definition, places the amendment outside the leave of the bill. On that basis, I urge honourable members to oppose the amendment.

Question—That amendment No. 1 be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Clarke Ms Cusack Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Mr Jenkins

Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

Mr Ryan Mr Tingle Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Mr Breen Dr Burgmann Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Della Bosca Mr Donnelly

Ms Hale Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Ms Rhiannon Ms Robertson Mr Roozendaal

Ms Sharpe Mr Tsang Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Mrs Forsythe	Mr Costa
Mr Gallacher	Ms Fazio

Question resolved in the negative.

Amendment No. 1 negatived.

Amendment No. 2 lapsed.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment and report adopted.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE [11.00 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The House divided.

Mr Breen Ms Burnswoods Mr Catanzariti Dr Chesterfield-Evans Mr Cohen Mr Della Bosca Mr Donnelly Ms Griffin

Ms Hale Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly Mr Macdonald Mr Obeid Ms Rhiannon Ms Robertson Mr Roozendaal

Ms Sharpe Mr Tsang Dr Wong Tellers, Mr Primrose Mr West

Mr Clarke Ms Cusack Miss Gardiner Mr Gay Mr Jenkins

Mr Lynn Reverend Nile Ms Parker Mrs Pavey Mr Pearce

Mr Ryan Mr Tingle Tellers, Mr Colless Mr Harwin

Mr Costa	Mrs Forsythe
Ms Fazio	Mr Gallacher

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills 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 bills through all their remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.

Second readings ordered to stand as orders of the day.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Justice, Minister for Juvenile Justice, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [11.10 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE [11.10 p.m.]: On this date in 1917 Russian women went on strike for "bread and peace". With two million Russian soldiers dead in the Great War, the country was on the brink of revolution. Political leaders opposed the strike, but the women went ahead anyway. Four days later, the Czar abdicated and the provisional government gave women the right to vote. Tomorrow, International Women's Day, we honour the extraordinary achievements of ordinary women—ordinary women who made history, ordinary women who have struggled, and still struggle, for bread and peace. On International Women's Day we reaffirm that peace and prosperity are not possible without gender equality.

As the United Nations has recognised in its development goals for the new millennium, empowering women is a prerequisite for overcoming hunger, poverty and disease. This is because women and girls make up more than half the world's population and any progress that leaves half the world's population behind is no progress at all. It is also because women make up a large share of the labour force and play critical, although often undervalued, economic roles. Last but not least, it is because women are generally the primary guardians of the next generation.

Unless women's capacities are recognised and rewarded, their enormous potential contribution to economic and social development can never be fully realised. When women are poor, their children are poor and inter-generational cycles of poverty and disadvantage are perpetuated. When women are powerless, their children are vulnerable and the lives of most of their families are based on submission and dominance, rather than mutual affection, respect and support. When discrimination against women is reduced, the capacity and earning power of women increase.

At the same time, women tend to reinvest these gains in the welfare of their children and families, thus multiplying the benefits across entire communities. There can be no community capacity, no national development worth the name, unless women have control over their lives, which means genuine social and economic independence, an equal voice in political processes, and absolute personal security. Personal security is the right to live free from violence.

The United Nations has declared that gender-based violence is perhaps the most widespread and socially tolerated of human rights violations. Gender-based violence is predominately perpetuated by men on women and girls, with the result that, worldwide, an estimated one in five women will be a victim of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime. One in three will have been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused, usually by a family member or an acquaintance. More often than not, the perpetrators go unpunished.

Each year hundreds of thousands of women and children are trafficked and enslaved; millions more are subjected to harmful practices. Violence kills and disables as many women between the ages of 15 and 44 as cancer. Its toll on women's health surpasses that of traffic accidents and malaria combined. In Australia, as elsewhere, domestic violence is by far the most common form of violence. Data compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Institute of Criminology reveals that in 2002, 63,670 women reported assaults to police. In 2002, over 14,000 sexual assaults were reported to police—an increase of over 20 per cent since 1997. In 2003-2004, nearly 40 per cent of homicides involved domestic violence. However, as between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of domestic violence goes unreported, the extent of the problem goes well beyond these figures. In 2004 a Victorian Government study found that domestic violence is responsible for more ill health and premature death amongst women aged between 15 and 44 than any other cause.

The direct health costs of domestic violence alone are enormous, to say nothing of the economic cost of police and court resources and time lost to employers, or the horrendous social costs, including the intergenerational impact on the children who are so often the silent witnesses of domestic and family violence. The New South Wales Government is supporting a range of initiatives aimed at breaking this destructive, intergenerational cycle of violence. Of particular importance is the ongoing support for women's refuges, the rape crisis centre and the work done by the violence against women unit. Under the Community Solutions Program, innovative and integrated domestic and family violence programs have been established and are achieving excellent results for victims of domestic violence. In Wyong and Bankstown, domestic assault response teams are bringing together DOCS workers and police in an early intervention response that is providing more support services to families. At the same time women are being supported through legal proceedings ensuring that apprehended violence orders are implemented and maintained.

In the Manning and Great Lakes area the local women's refuge, Lyn's Place, sends women support workers out with police to domestic and family violence incidents. The Manning River project provides protection, hospital treatment, childcare and accompanied-court attendance. In 3½ years this service has supported 1,000 clients. The results are impressive. To date, 90 per cent of the clients of this service have been granted final apprehended violence orders, compared with 36 per cent of non-project clients. Police effectiveness has been impressive, with a 50 per cent reduction in repeat assaults. In the words of Marion Hosking, President of the Manning District Emergency Accommodation Committee, women who were once terrified of going to court now attend, confident that they will be supported for as long as it is necessary. On International Women's Day 2006 I hope that we can reflect on violence against women in the community and continue to work towards ongoing solutions that guarantee bread and peace to all women in New South Wales.

The Hon. JOHN RYAN [11.14 p.m.]: Tonight I wish to raise two maters concerning developments that are being sponsored in different parts of Sydney. Firstly, the State Government must halt its plans to rezone land in the south-west land release area until all local residents have access to accurate flood maps and details of proposed conservation zones. The New South Wales Government is now exhibiting the draft State environmental planning policy [SEPP] and related documents for the growth centres and inviting public comment until Friday 10 March 2006. The draft SEPP sets out the statutory plans and processes that will apply to growth centres and will specify the rules and conditions that apply to each of the different land areas. After the new SEPPs are gazetted there will more detailed planning of the individual precincts, including Bringelly, Bringelly North, Rossmore, North Catherine Fields, Catherine Fields, Austral, Leppington and Oran Park.

On Sunday afternoon more than 300 residents attended Rossmore Public School with State Liberal Leader Peter Debnam, Pat Farmer, the Hon. Charlie Lynn and me. The residents were very angry and confused—and they have every right to be. The State Government is expecting local residents and businesses to give their opinions about plans to rezone land in the south-west without giving the community proper information. The public has only until 10 March to respond to the plans that have been lodged with Camden Council and put on public display but not one of the important flood maps is accurate.

Planning staff at Camden Council have described the flood maps as "inaccurate" and "confusing". They are certainly out of date. Residents have been told that other land in the south west will be zoned as "scenic protection" or "reserved for conservation" but none of that land has been identified. The most important thing all the landholders want to know is how the new developments and zonings will affect their land, but the State Government is expecting them to sign off on these plans in a few days without giving them any detail as to what land will be in a green zone or what land will be in a flood zone.

This exercise has been dodgy from the start, and residents no longer trust the State Government. First, the Government locked local residents out of its workshops, then we had the green zones debacle, and now we have a set of dodgy flood maps. Many people feel that the flood maps are just a sneaky attempt to bring back the green zones by another name. The Government must scrap the 10 March deadline for the close of submissions and halt the process until we have proper maps and full information.

Tonight I also seek to raise a matter of concern that has been drawn to my attention by a colleague in the Liberal Party, Councillor Mark Coure. He and the Oatley community are outraged about a proposal to construct a Coles supermarket in Mulga Road Oatley. Last Saturday my Liberal colleague Mark Coure, who is a member of Kogarah Council, other members of the council and many hundreds of residents of Oatley attended a No Coles Rally at Oatley. It is clear that this development is neither needed nor wanted, as Oatley has the characteristic of being a local community village and the people of Oatley want to keep it that way.

The height and density of the proposed development is out of character with a small neighbourhood shopping village and the residential surrounds. On a previous occasion I have had the opportunity to inspect the site and I can certainly see that a shopping centre that has to have time limits on when large trucks can unload, as they will virtually take up the whole of the streets, will be a very difficult development to manage. Not one resident living in Oatley wishes to have the nature of their peaceful suburb dramatically altered with an explosion of traffic, trucks and trolleys. Many trucks a day would arrive to service the supermarket facility, including large semitrailers, which are completely inappropriate for the suburban streets servicing the area, and most inappropriate for Oatley. If this development is successful, it would destroy many small businesses that would be forced to go elsewhere or go broke.

I call on the State Government and Kogarah Council to acknowledge the concerns of Oatley residents to maintain the amenity of the local area. I commend the residents and urge them to maintain their rage to ensure that this inappropriate development does not take place in Mulga Road, and I congratulate the efforts of Councillor Mark Coure for Kogarah in opposing this development.

The Hon. JON JENKINS [11.18 p.m.]: Tonight I give a short eulogy for Ron Mathews. I met Ron Mathews for the first time in late 2003, when I was asked whether I would consider standing for election to this House. As soon as I met Ron I knew two things about him: first, that he was a very shrewd and intelligent man; and, second, that he was very ill. Although no-one else seemed to know, there were telltale signs that his illness was serious. I kept this to myself and it was a mark of the man that he told no-one other than his family and closest friends. Ron's involvement with the Outdoor Recreation Party started at a meeting at Nulla Creek near Kempsey, with a group from the New South Wales Four Wheel Drive Association in mid-1995. At that meeting the Hon. John Tingle, from the Shooters Party, advised the group that political representation was necessary to stem the influence of radical environmentalism and its growing effect on people's lives.

As a result of an ensuing meeting with Bob Carr organised by John, the Outdoor Recreation Party was officially formed on Christmas Eve 1995, with Ron Mathews as an original director and officeholder. Ron held office continuously from that date, during which time the Outdoor Recreation Party attracted many thousands of members. It is a mark of Ron's astuteness that the Outdoor Recreation Party went from creation to political success in a few years—probably the fastest of any political party in Australian history to go from de novo inception to parliamentary representation. Ron Mathews was a dedicated bushman and outdoor enthusiast. Ron believed people were part of the environment and should not be banished or ostracised. The author Leo Tolstoy, who is considered the greatest of modern philosophers, and Ron Mathews would probably have had much in common in that their understanding of man's place in nature was identical. Tolstoy said:

One of the first conditions of happiness is that the link between man and nature shall not be broken.

Ron's work on the National Park and Wildlife Service Advisory Council was truly amazing. Ron did so much to enhance the reputation of the four-wheel-drive community, both in the committee and within the broader National Parks and Wildlife Service. There is no greater testament to this than the recently signed memorandum of understanding II, which enshrines the community's link with nature. Ron Mathews is survived by his wife, Jenny, and their daughter, Lea, who shared him with us even during his final precious months. Everyone involved with our cause thanks them and shares their pain and loss. Ron, we will see you on the track somewhere!

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [11.22 p.m.]: On Saturday 4 February 2006 I represented the Premier, the Hon. Morris Iemma, at the National Servicemen's Association New South Wales Branch ceremony held at the Holsworthy army barracks. The dedication service commemorated the men who served in the 12th and 19th national service training battalions, which trained at Holsworthy between 1951 and 1959. It was a wonderful opportunity to meet with a number of Nashos. I wish to make particular reference to Ron Brown, who is the State president of the New South Wales branch of the association. Over the years, Ron, his executive and volunteers have dedicated an enormous amount of time and effort to ensuring that the contribution of national servicemen is recognised appropriately. The aim of the association is to seek recognition, repatriation and support for all Nashos who were conscripted to serve this country or to complete compulsory military training from 1951 to 1972.

The National Service Act 1951 legislated the conscription of males aged 18 and over on or after 1 November 1950 to participate in compulsory service for a period of no fewer than 176 days. The Act also required these men to remain on the reserve of the Commonwealth Military Forces for five years from their initial call-up. Between 1951 and 1959 more than 500,000 men were registered. In 1964 the Menzies Government concluded that the Australian armed forces were inadequate. This resulted in the implementation of the National Service Act 1964. This Act required 20-year-olds to serve in the armed forces for a continuous period of 24 months. The abolition of conscription came in December 1972 following the election of the Whitlam Labor Government.

Holsworthy army barracks plays a prominent role in Australian military history. It has been a military training area for more than 100 years. In the late 1880s Holsworthy was used by the military, including by volunteer soldiers, for training exercises and operations. In 1910 the British Army commander, Lord Kitchener, inspected the site and declared that the area suited a permanent military training area. Following Lord Kitchener's inspection and recommendation the area was officially gazetted and recognised as a military reserve. Military training not only included exercises in the use of weapons, tanks and artillery but also provided housing for soldiers and their families. Another aspect of the base not commonly known is that it housed a horse supply unit with its own veterinary hospital, and during both world wars prisoners were detained on the site.

Prior to World War I, Holsworthy was used by the artillery, Light Horse and engineer militia forces. Holsworthy became the main training camp for volunteers and recruits. Unfortunately, new recruits were ill-prepared. They were forced to participate in drills using broomsticks instead of guns and lived in appalling conditions during their training. Between 1914 and 1922 more than 6,000 men were detained in the German concentration camp. The concentration camp was the largest and most notorious prisoner-of-war [POW] camp in the country throughout the First World War. Men of Austro-Hungarian descent and native-born Australian men of German ancestry were detained without trial, and in many cases without any explanation for their detention. Family members were not informed of the detention of their loved-ones at the camp.

Conditions in the camp were atrocious. It was drastically overcrowded, too hot in summer and too cold in winter. Many of the prisoners were physically and mentally abused by the guards and, because of internal ethnic differences between the inmates, abuse of prisoners by other prisoners was rife. Because of the conditions riots sometimes broke out. While some prisoners tried to escape, others saw suicide as their only option. Prisoners constructed their own barracks, furniture, watchtowers and a railway line. The railway line played an important role in moving troops and horses to various military areas around the site.

At the start of the Second World War there was a huge increase in troop operations. Troop numbers exploded to approximately 40,000. The facilities at the site provided operational training to the troops before they were sent overseas. Following World War II National Service personnel took over part of the site for training. Two battalions of the Nashos trained at Holsworthy whilst a third was stationed at Bardia barracks at Ingleburn. When National Service training was abolished, the buildings were taken over by the cavalry, infantry and transport and engineer units. Today the site is still used by various military units. The School of Military Engineering and the Base Administration Support Centre are also located on the site. Holsworthy still plays a major role and has certainly come a long way since the days when the troops trained with broomsticks instead of guns. I conclude by reciting the national servicemen's ode:

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [11.26 p.m.]: I speak tonight about an issue of great importance to Western Sydney: the establishment of our own Australian Football League [AFL] team. Last year the Sydney Swans realised their dream of winning the AFL Grand Final. This historic win also fulfilled the vision of the then Victorian Football League [VFL] administrators back in the 1970s. The victory was a fitting tribute to the team's inspirational coach, Paul Roos, and to the courage, skill and teamwork of the players. The relocation of the then South Melbourne Swans to Sydney, which had well-established rugby union and league traditions, was a high-risk strategy. It was never going to be an easy task, and the move quickly attracted some questionable marketing techniques. These carpetbaggers knew nothing about football but lots about the culture of our eastern suburbs: the focus of their campaigns was based on tight shorts, Swanette cheerleaders and pink helicopters.

The eventual bankruptcy of its major backer almost led to the demise of the team. Fortunately, the club was able to engage a former VFL football champion and highly credentialed sports administrator, Kelvin Templeton, to get back to basics and focus on the future success of the team on the field. Kelvin Templeton's vision for the code in Sydney, his knowledge of the game, his empathy with players, his leadership and his outstanding management abilities led to the emergence of the Sydney Swans as the most successful sporting club in Australia. During this time Kelvin took a deep personal interest in the personal development of the young players who found themselves in a foreign city with loyalties divided between three other football codes. He established career plans and educational programs to prepare them for life beyond football and limit the opportunities for distractions. I know that Leo Barry might never have taken the most important mark in the history of the club if it had not been for the personal interest that Kelvin took in his football career when Leo was under serious consideration for trading a few years previously.

After the completion of Stadium Australia for the 2000 Olympic Games, Kelvin developed three theme games to attract Sydneysiders and their families to the game in Western Sydney. The first theme game was dedicated to the recognition of the indigenous nature of our game and the contribution of our indigenous people to its success. It included a display of Aboriginal culture through art, dance and storytelling, and the introduction of the Marn Grook trophy. The second theme game was dedicated to the spirit of Kokoda and involved a salute to our veterans, demonstrations and displays from our defence forces and a showcase of Papua New Guinea culture, with dance and sing-sing groups brought down from Papua New Guinea. The inaugural game attracted more than 40,000 people even though it had no bearing on the finals. The third theme was directed towards Western Sydney and encouraged people to get involved in their local communities. Pre-match entertainment, displays and demonstrations were designed to add value to the family outing, and it was a great success.

After Kelvin's departure as chief executive officer the Swans' commitment to the indigenous game was reduced to an insignificant level. They reneged on their commitment to an ongoing Kokoda memorial game and the Western Sydney theme was forgotten as they withdrew to their base in the eastern suburbs. Around the same time their most successful coach parted ways with the Swans and there were reports of shady negations to recruit a high-profile coach. When the Swans supporters got wind of this they mobilised in support of their local choice, Paul Roos. The Victorian coach who had reportedly been approached for the job resigned unexpectedly from his team but people power prevailed and the president of the Swans was forced to capitulate and accept the coach he did not want. Paul Roos went on to coach his team to a historic victory and vindicated the judgment of the punters. I find it ironic that the president received a gong in the latest Australia Day honours list—I think it should have gone to the punter who led the charge for the appointment of Paul Roos!

The achievement of the long-term goal of a grand final for Sydney offers a timely opportunity for the AFL to now look at the consolidation of the game in the wider Sydney area. Western Sydneysiders have been completely dudded by the AFL for years. The denial of live coverage on a Friday night has shown the level of contempt AFL administrators and television moguls, who mostly seem to live on the eastern side of the bridge, have for the punters. Loyal followers of the code have had to endure traffic snarls or inadequate public transport to get to the Sydney Cricket Ground for years. This has been somewhat ameliorated recently by a handful of games at Stadium Australia, but it is not good enough.

A recent proposal for other clubs to play more weekend games in Sydney is not the answer to the further development of the code in Sydney. The only satisfactory solution is for Western Sydney to have its own team. The planned upgrade of the Blacktown Olympic Park would provide an ideal venue for our own Western Suburbs AFL team. The ideal club to relocate to Sydney, or to play its home games here, would be the Western Bulldogs. It shares the same ethos as Western Sydney and would be readily accepted into the fold. Blind Freddie knows that Melbourne cannot continue to support 10 AFL clubs. Freddie also knows that Western Sydney is the economic engine room of New South Wales, the most culturally diverse region in Australia, and has the most people. To deny this region a home team would deny the code the opportunity to fulfil its potential as the greatest game in Australia.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.31 p.m.]: On 17 February eight people were arrested as a result of a demonstration, or rather, a "Dis-Memorial Service", on the day of Kerry Packer's taxpayer-funded State funeral. I have since received a letter from an organiser of the service. It reads in part:

We are writing to you in reference to the events at Sydney Opera House last Friday - 17 February. We remain concerned at the abuse of the ethos of such state memorials by Prime Minister John Howard concerning Kerry Packer. Like many ordinary tax-payers, we were offended by the proposed tax-payer funded service, & hence we organized the non-taxpayer funded 'Kerry Packer Dis-Memorial', outside the perimeter of the Opera House last Friday morning.

Having come to an agreement with the NSW police & Opera House security that we could have our 'service' near Macquarie St - a long way from the entrance to the Opera House - we, approximately 50 people, proceeded with our alternative, dis-celebration via speeches, music & comedy. After about 20 mins, the police came to us with a complaint: that we were too loud, so we became quieter; & then 10 mins later they complained that we were using 'offensive' language, of which they couldn't give specific examples. Then suddenly they reneged on their agreement, & began arresting anyone brave enough to argue with them.

The Greens support the right to demonstrate and speak one's mind. It is truly disturbing that these arrests, on dubious pretexts, took place. I predict the police will lose when the matter comes before the courts, but that is not the point. The point of the police action was to suppress the voice of public dissent, and they succeeded in doing that. There were 50 people at the dis-memorial service. Eight people were arrested. Most have been charged with offences under the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority Act and regulations, a piece of legislation that has always had the potential to repress dissent. The charges were a combination of failing to comply with a direction to leave an area, resisting and hindering, and using a public address [PA] system without authority.

I am told that at the demonstration the police forcibly confiscated the demonstrators' PA on the supposed pretext of offensive language, when no offensive words had been spoken. It was in the context of people being outraged at the police seizing the PA that the arrests started. People in attendance say that they were not requested by police to move—as is required under the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority Act, itself an entirely suspect and discredited piece of legislation. A television camera even filmed one person saying, "I'm moving, I'm moving", immediately before that person was arrested. It is utterly inappropriate and unreasonable to require members of the public participating in a legitimate and peaceful demonstration to "move on". Significantly, Justice Geoffrey Robertson, QC, the distinguished Australian human rights lawyer and first President of the United Nations war crimes tribunal in Sierra Leone, witnessed the arrests and has agreed to provide a witness statement.

Those arrested will appear at the Downing Centre Local Court on 14 March. There will be a gathering outside the court of people concerned about the rapid erosion of civil liberties in this country and in this State. These arrests were an attack on civil and political rights and freedoms. The Greens opposed the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority Act and the Redfem Waterloo Authority Act, which authorise each authority to establish a private security force, in the same way that the Greens opposed the terrorism detention-without-trial amendment legislation of 2005. The Greens are always accused of scaremongering and exaggeration when we warn of the gradual erosion of civil liberties and suspension of law. But I know first-hand how these laws are used to repress legitimate democratic activity. As I recounted to the Sydney Harbour foreshore inquiry in 2005, I had my name taken for handing out leaflets at Circular Quay to ferry commuters. The fact that the threat to have me forcibly removed or arrested came to nothing is no doubt attributable to my being a member of Parliament rather than to any acknowledgement of the importance of free speech and the right to assembly.

It is obvious now that our fears are well founded in light of the arrest of people who were peacefully demonstrating against the gross misuse of taxpayers' money to stage a State funeral for one of Australia's richest men. You may or may not agree that Packer deserved a State funeral—the Greens say that he did not; he was a bullying billionaire businessman rather than a community-minded philanthropist—but you must agree that citizens of Australia have a right to publicly protest about the use and misuse of taxpayers' money.

The Hon. JAN BURNSWOODS [11.35 p.m.]: Tomorrow is International Women's Day, and I will be joining some 900 other women and girls at the traditional UNIFEM breakfast. It is always an inspiring occasion, with a guest speaker from a country or a person that is a recipient of aid raised by UNIFEM. The breakfast has a very large number of representatives from schools, with tables of schoolgirls from years 8 to 12. All sorts of women from a whole variety of sectors of the community will attend. There are always inspiring speeches. One I particularly remember from last year was given by Sandra Nori, the Minister for Women, who spoke very passionately about the abortion issue. She then saw it developing as a series of moves to take away the right of choice from women. How right she proved to be, and how fortunate it is that some of her fears have been proved to be unfounded due in part to the alliance of women across party boundaries in Canberra.

International Women's Day has a very long and proud history. So many battles have been won and so many gains have been made. On the other hand, as we know, there is still a long way to go. Focusing again on Canberra, the Howard Government's WorkChoices legislation will impact most substantially on lower paid workers and women in particular, who are overrepresented amongst lower paid workers, casual and part-time workers and so on. The other major issue receiving so much concern and attention at the moment—again, largely the responsibility of the Federal Government—is the parlous situation in the provision of childcare, both the increasing cost of childcare and the increasing shortage of places for women trying to juggle work and family responsibilities. Many must often feel that not very much has changed. There have been many gains, for example, in the parliaments of Australia, particularly from some parties more than others. I pay tribute to the slow but steady increase in women from the Labor Party. Unfortunately, the Coalition parties lag behind in most States and in Canberra. Nevertheless, a lot has been gained.
Unfortunately, some of the old prejudices and stereotypes continue and, even more unfortunately, sometimes they are expressed by women. On a small negative note I draw attention to and very much regret the article by Elizabeth Farrelly in the Sydney Morning Herald last week, a very tendentious article relating to Redfern and planning announcements. She described the local member of Parliament at the Minister's media conference, whom she did not bother to name, as a "stiletto-heeled blonde" who "was like the Minister's nodding dog". I was astounded when I read the article and I was even more astounded when I spoke to Kristina Keneally, the member for Heffron, the local member concerned. Not only are the descriptions absolutely appalling, prejudiced and stereotyped but Kristina Keneally spoke at the press conference, answered a question and was duly reported in at least part of the print media and on radio. Many of the other things said in the article were just as inaccurate. But to end of a positive note, I wish everyone a happy International Women's Day.

[Time for debate expired.]

Motion agreed to.