The President (The Hon. Peter Thomas Primrose) took the chair at 2.30 p.m.

The President read the Prayers.

The PRESIDENT: I acknowledge the Gadigal clan of the Eora nation and its elders and thank them for their custodianship of this land.

The President reported messages from His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor intimating assent to the following bills:

Barangaroo Delivery Authority Bill 2009
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Children's Employment) Bill 2009
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment Bill 2009
Parking Space Levy Bill 2009

The PRESIDENT: I report the receipt of the following communication from the Official Secretary to His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor to the Clerk of the Parliaments:

27 March 2009 Office of the Governor
Sydney 2000

On behalf of His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor, I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 25 March 2009, enclosing from the President, in accordance with Standing Order 161 of the Legislative Council, a copy of the Protest made by certain members of the Legislative Council against the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Amendment (Search Powers) Bill 2009, as entered in the Minutes of Proceedings of the House on 25 March 2009.

Yours sincerely
Brian L Davies LVO
Official Secretary

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to the resolution of 12 March 2009, documents relating to an order for papers regarding the CBD Metro Rail received on 26 March 2009 from the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of the documents.

The Clerk tabled a return identifying those of the documents that are claimed to be privileged and should not be tabled or made public. The Clerk advised that pursuant to standing orders the documents are available for inspection by members of the Legislative Council only.

Petition asking the House to acknowledge the economic and social importance of the Kings Highway and to prioritise its upgrade, received from the Hon. Melinda Pavey.
Private Members' Business item No. 157 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by Ms Lee Rhiannon.

Business of the House Notices of Motions Nos 1 to 4 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

Dr JOHN KAYE [2.42 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Member's Business item No. 186 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to further orders for papers regarding Tillegra Dam, be called on forthwith.

This motion relates to papers that were in front of the Minister for Planning when she declared Tillegra Dam to be critical infrastructure. That declaration has a huge impact on the way in which the matter will be determined. The community is deeply concerned about the rate at which the proposal is advancing given that the Government has not provided any justification for the Minister's declaration. This matter is urgent because the Minister for Water, Phillip Costa, has been in the Hunter making it clear that he is pushing ahead with the dam as fast as he can. Underlying that decision is the declaration of the dam as critical infrastructure. It is important, therefore, that there be some transparency in respect of the critical infrastructure declaration.

The Greens ask the House to support this Standing Order 52 motion. I have on a number of occasions attempted to get this information under Standing Order 44. On each occasion the motion was rejected on the voice of the Government Whip. This is a matter of simple transparency and it is urgent because if this motion is not agreed to, the Tillegra Dam proposal will be determined without the community knowing on what grounds the Minister for Planning made the determination that it would be critical infrastructure. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [2.44 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the motion. This matter should be debated now. The Hon. John Kaye has provided reasons for urgency and the local community deserves to know what has been going on. The member for Upper Hunter has also been pursuing this issue. It now falls to this House, through this motion, to find out exactly where the Government intends to go and why it is pursuing an approach that denies information to a community. The community is simply after information that the Government has in its possession and that it has kept secret. For that reason the Opposition supports the motion.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.


Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Police, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [2.50 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The Western Lands Amendment Bill 2008 is the culmination of a thorough review of the operation of the Western Lands Act carried out in consultation with all relevant stakeholders and interested parties.

The Western Division of New South Wales makes up over 40 per cent of the area of the State. It is that part of the State situated to the west of a line running from the Victorian border near Balranald to Mungindi in the north. It is a diverse semi-arid landscape which is typified by low average rainfall and extremely high average summer temperatures. It is sparsely populated, with few towns and cities and there are limited land use opportunities.

The majority of this Division is Crown leasehold lands administered under the Western Lands Act 1901. This legislation, which underpins the management of this Division of the State, has been amended and modernised over the years since it was first enacted. The most recent of those amendments occurred in 2002.

The amendments to the Western Lands Act in 2002 gave effect to various proposals arising from the Western Lands Review undertaken by a team led by the Hon. John Kerin between 1998 and 2000. These amendments incorporated provisions to: formally establish the road and access network as it currently exists through Western Lands leases; replace the outdated rent system as it applied at that time to leases with a more equitable rental system; introduce modern objects into the Act; facilitate the establishment of a broadly based Western Lands Advisory Council to advise on matters affecting the Western Division; and remove overly restrictive provisions and provide for greater efficiency and flexibility in dealings with, and management of, Western Lands leases.

Section 3B of the Western Lands Act, which was introduced in 2002, required the Minister administering the Act to conduct a formal review after 5 years to determine whether the policy objectives of the Act remain relevant and whether the Act's provisions remain appropriate for securing those objectives.

The statutory review of the Act has been undertaken in consultation with the Western Lands Advisory Council, which is representative of the diverse interests in the Western Division. As part of the review process, members of the Western Lands Advisory Council were encouraged to consult with individuals and organisations they represent to identify issues they wished to have included in the review. The general public were also invited to comment through advertisements in national and local newspapers.

In June 2008, the final report on the review of the Western Lands Act was tabled in both Houses of Parliament. The Western Lands Amendment Bill 2008 gives effect to the recommendations of the report. The review found that the policy objectives of the Western Lands Act remain generally valid.

The review found, however, that there is a need to amend the Western Lands Act in a number of ways, including: to enable the creation of an easement along the length of the dog proof fence which prevents wild dogs from entering New South Wales; to strengthen the boundary fencing provisions as they apply to Western Lands leases; to provide greater flexibility in the term of appointment of members to the Western Lands Advisory Council and to make provision for the appointment to the Council of a nominee of the Minister for Mineral Resources; to provide clarity that the objects of the Act include matters relating to both indigenous and non-indigenous cultural heritage and accommodate new land uses and opportunities in the Western Division; and to make further provision to effect the creation of a legal road and access network for the Western Division across all land parcels.

The bill addresses the recommendations for reform found in the review.

The dog proof fence is approximately 600 kilometres in length and is located on parts of the State borders separating New South Wales from Queensland and South Australia. This fence was originally constructed as a rabbit proof fence but now serves to prevent wild dogs, including dingoes, from entering New South Wales and killing stock and wildlife. Over $1.5 million of landholder and public monies are spent annually in maintaining the fence. This work is coordinated by the Wild Dog Destruction Board. Whilst the fence has been in existence for many years, and the activities of the Wild Dog Destruction Board in maintaining the fence are generally covered by the Wild Dog Destruction Act, the bill proposes a power for the Minister to create an easement along the fenced portion of the New South Wales-Queensland and New South Wales-South Australia State boundaries generally up to 100 metres wide, although up to a maximum of 200 metres wide where necessary and specified in a regulation.

Within the Sturt National Park, the relevant easement or right of way may be granted by the Minister administering the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 subject to the terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate following consultation with the Minister administering the Western Lands Act 1901. The easement or right of way may be varied or revoked, again following such consultation. The intention is that the easement will be created in respect of the whole of the fenced area across all land tenures. This will guarantee access to the fence by the Board for upkeep and maintenance purposes into the future. The easement will be created in favour of the Wild Dog Destruction Board.

Because the Wild Dog Destruction Board already has a right to access the fence for maintenance and related purposes, compensation will not be payable where the land affected is leased under the Western Lands Act. Compensation will be determined in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991, however, where a small number of freehold land parcels are affected by the creation of the fencing easement.

The more recent introduction of exotic breeds of sheep into the Western Division has highlighted the need to strengthen the boundary fencing provisions of the Western Lands Act as they apply to Western Lands leases. If any of these breeds of sheep mix with traditional merino or other wool-producing sheep, the wool fibre is contaminated and devalued. This is an untenable situation given the robust nature of these exotic breeds, their capacity to roam and the resultant conflict which is occurring between neighbouring producers. Whilst provisions currently exist in the Western Lands Act which require lessees to fence the boundaries of their properties, the provisions do not allow for the lessee to be directed to upgrade the fence beyond the standard of fencing which applied when the lease was first granted. The bill proposes that these provisions be strengthened to enable the Western Lands Commissioner to set standards of fencing and to enforce an upgrade of a fence so as to ensure that stock are properly contained within property boundaries. These proposals were strongly supported by Western Division pastoralists and the Western Lands Advisory Council during the recent review of the Western Lands Act.

The bill will make it clear that the Western Lands Commissioner can give directions relating to the standard of fencing required to be maintained to contain stock within the boundaries of any leased land. The bill also allows the Commissioner to apportion costs of complying with a fencing order between the adjoining landholders. In some circumstances, it may be appropriate for stock to be fenced within a defined part of a leased property. Accordingly, the bill will provide the Commissioner with power to specify fencing standards within any part of the leased land.

These measures will allow fencing disputes to be resolved in a more efficient manner and will facilitate the construction of fencing appropriate to the containment of exotic breeds of sheep and other animals. The orders made by the Western Lands Commissioner under the proposed provisions will be subject to the same appeal process as currently exist for a decision of the Commissioner. There may be an appeal first to the local land board and then to the Land and Environment Court, which will operate as a rehearing of the matter.

The current membership of the Western Lands Advisory Council is considered representative of all interests in the Western Division, with the exception of mining interests. As such, the review supported an amendment which would allow for the appointment to the Council of a nominee of my colleague, the Minister for Mineral Resources. It also supported an amendment to the term of appointment of members to the Council. The current term of appointment of members is for a period of three years. This provision is somewhat limiting and provision for appointment for a term of up to three years would provide greater flexibility and continuity of the Council. The bill proposes amendments to effect these changes.

The objects of the Western lands Act are considered generally current and relevant. Accordingly, the review proposed that the objects remain unchanged except to the extent that may be necessary to accommodate new land use opportunities in the Western Division; and to clarify that the scope of the objects as they relate to the social, economic and environmental interests of the State have regard to both indigenous and non-indigenous cultural heritage. The bill will amend the objects of the Act by inserting reference to facilitating new land uses and development opportunities for land in the Western Division and the indigenous and non-indigenous cultural heritage of the Western Division.

The Western Lands Act has been amended over time to seek to address the changing needs and more contemporary requirements of the Western Division. The recent proposal to construct a large wind farm at Silverton, near Broken Hill, has highlighted a need for legislative provisions to ensure that large-scale developments, such as this wind farm, can be validly accommodated on Western Division leasehold land.

Whilst the review of the Western Lands Act identified a need to amend the Act to accommodate such developments, this proposal has already been substantially progressed through the Western and Crown Lands Amendment (Special Purpose Leases) Act 2008, which was assented to in June this year.

That Act provides that a Crown Lands Act lease in the form of a special purpose lease may be granted in the Western Division. Where the land proposed to be leased is already held under a Western Lands lease, the consent of any current lessee must be obtained prior to the grant of any special purposes lease.

The aims of the Western and Crown Lands Amendment (Special Purpose Leases) Act 2008 are facilitated by the provision in the bill that allows for a plan describing the site of a special purpose lease to be a registered plan of description under the Conveyancing Act 1919, rather than a plan of subdivision, as may otherwise be the case. There is no need for the technical requirements that apply to a plan of subdivision to apply to a plan of a special purpose lease.

A key component of the changes to the Western Lands Act in 2002 was legislative reform to facilitate the creation of a system of public roads linking cities, towns and villages and giving access to places of significant public interest, and to provide a legal means of access to land-locked properties. This was achieved by inserting provisions to enable the creation of a legal road and access network in the form of public roads and rights of way.

The 2002 amendments enable the withdrawal of any land from a Western Lands lease which is being used as a public road without compensation, and for the dedication of that land as public road, maintained by the Roads and Traffic Authority and by shire councils in the Western Division. The 2002 amendments, however, did not make provision for formally establishing existing roads where they traverse land other than Western Lands leases including freehold land, national parks, nature reserves, State forests and commons.

The Western Lands Commissioner will monitor progress in establishing the legal road network of the Western Division using the existing mechanisms. These mechanisms include those introduced in 2002 and the power of the Minister for Lands to create public roads over freehold land by acquiring the land under Part 12 of the Roads Act 1993 and dedicating the land so acquired as a public road under part 2 of that Act. The amendments proposed in the bill set out that the option of acquisition under the roads Act is available in order to clarify that the option applies. If experience shows that there is a need for road or easement creation that cannot be met using existing powers consideration will be given to further reform.

In addition to these amendments proposed as a result of the review of the Western Lands Act, the bill proposes a number of minor amendments to the Act to simplify and modernise its provisions. These include rationalisation of the two local land board schemes under the Crown Lands Act 1989 and the Western Lands Act 1901 into a single scheme under the Crown Lands Act applying throughout the State.

The bill also proposes a number of amendments to other Acts which are consequential to, or complementary with, the amendments proposed to the Western Lands Act. Of particular significance are proposed amendments to the Conveyancing Act 1919, the Crown Lands Act 1989, the Dividing Fences Act 1991 and the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

I have already discussed the amendments to the Conveyancing Act which are designed to accommodate special purpose leases introduced by the Western and Crown Lands Amendment (Special Purpose Leases) Act 2008.

The principal amendments to the Crown Lands Act 1989 will have the effect that provisions in that Act for the establishment of local land boards for each land district will apply in the Western Division. They will also define the Western Division by reference to a deposited plan recorded in the office of the Registrar General.

The amendments to the Dividing Fences Act 1991 require local land boards to have regard to certain orders under the Western Lands Act when dealing with fencing disputes. and preclude a Local Court from dealing with matters affecting land subject to a Western Lands lease otherwise than in relation to enforcement of orders.

The amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 will provide the power that I have already outlined for the Minister administering that Act to grant easements or rights of way in favour of the Wild Dog Destruction Board for the purpose of repair and maintenance of the dog proof fence following consultation with the Minister responsible for the Western Lands Act. This will ensure that easements may be created for this purpose along the whole of the fenced portion of the New South Wales-Queensland and New South Wales-South Australia State boundaries.

In conclusion, the amendments to the Western Lands Act proposed in the bill will make an important contribution to the modernisation of the legislative framework governing the management and use of land in the Western Division of the State. They will help to secure a sustainable and productive future for the Division and its residents.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [2.50 p.m.]: The Western Division of New South Wales comprises more than 40 per cent of the area of the State. The majority of this division is Crown leasehold land administered under the Western Lands Act 1901, which underpins the management of this division. The bill is the culmination of a statutory review of the operation of the Western Lands Act pursuant to section 3B of the Act, which requires the Minister for Lands to conduct a formal review every five years to determine whether the policy objectives of the Act remain relevant.

The Western Lands Amendment Bill 2008 gives effect to recommendations of this final report on the review of the Western Lands Act, which was tabled in both Houses of Parliament in June 2008. The review found there was a need to amend the Western Lands Act in a number of ways, including to enable the creation of an easement along the length of the dog-proof fence; to strengthen the boundary fencing provisions as they apply to Western Lands leases; to provide greater flexibility in the term of appointment of members to the Western Lands Advisory Council; and to make provision for the appointment on the Western Lands Advisory Council of a nominee of the Minister for Mineral Resources.

The review also found it necessary to amend the Act to provide clarity to ensure that the objects of the Act include matters relating to both indigenous and non-indigenous cultural heritage and accommodate new land uses and opportunities in the Western Division, and to make further provision to effect the creation of a legal road and access network for the Western Division across all land parcels. One of the side issues to this matter was the Silverton wind farm, which was the subject of separate legislation last year. The bill will ensure that this project is facilitated and that other future different land uses may be facilitated in the Western Division.

The Western Lands Scheme is familiar to me. I do not like acknowledging this, but I recall that when I was a young solicitor—about 30 years ago—one of the first difficult things to be thrown on my desk was a case involving a mortgage that related to a loan that was to be secured over land held under the Western Lands Act. I remember that no-one in the office had any idea how to handle the case so I, as the youngest solicitor in the firm, got to work on the matter and, as a result, for about three months I was the resident expert on the Western Lands.

The amendments will further modernise the operation of the land use and tenure system for much of western New South Wales following an extensive review and consultation process. Accordingly, they will not be opposed by the Opposition. Some provisions, however, have caused some concern. The fencing provisions that are designed particularly to help protect existing merino stock from exotic stock that has been introduced by some farmers will create some problems because the fencing standards will impose additional obligations potentially on farmers who are already struggling because of many years of drought and changes in the market. Some unwanted costs and additional disputes may result. The fencing issue also raises concerns for some because much of the land in this area is in a national park, and no provision is made for similar fencing in any national park areas. It seems the Government has effectively exempted itself from obligations it intends to impose on individuals and owners of properties in the Western Division. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH [2.54 p.m.]: I support the Western Lands Amendment Bill 2008. As many of my colleagues would know, the Western Division of New South Wales makes up over 40 per cent of the area of the State and covers some 32.5 million hectares. It is characterised by low average rainfall and extremely high summer temperatures. It is sparsely populated with very few towns, with limited opportunities for land use diversification. Almost all of the land comprises Western Lands leases granted under the Western Lands Act 1901 and these leases can generally only be used for the purpose for which they were granted, unless a change in use is approved. Other Crown land parcels located within the Western Division are administered under the Crown Lands Act.

The Western Lands Act 1901 is the principal Act governing the administration and management of land in the Western Division. It is commonly regarded as one of the earliest pieces of natural resource management legislation within New South Wales. It was enacted in response to recommendations made by the Royal Commission into the Western Division in the early 1900s because of the severe impacts that overgrazing, rabbits and drought were having on the fragile rangeland landscape at that time. To ensure that the Western Division is utilised within its capabilities and remains ecologically sustainable the Act has been amended many times so that it remains modern and relevant.

Amendments made to the Western Lands Act in 2002 introduced a number of changes including two new modern objects: section 2 (e), which states "to ensure land in the Western Division is used in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development," and section 2 (f) "to promote the social, economic and environmental interests of the Western Division". These objects were included to ensure that the fragile environment of the western rangelands would be protected whilst allowing a range of different activities to occur on these lands and allowing landholders the opportunity to diversify into other enterprises if approved by the commissioner. Retention of these objects is considered important and consistent with contemporary natural resource legislation and Government policy generally.

The review found that the policy objectives of the Act remain generally valid. The bill proposes minor amendments to the objects of the Act so that section 2 (f) can be expanded to provide clarity, so that the subsection includes matters related to the interests of indigenous and non-indigenous cultural heritage. It also proposes that the objects make reference to facilitating new land uses and developing opportunities for land in the Western Division. These amendments will assist in achieving sustainable management of lands in the Western Division whilst facilitating appropriate new land uses.

Protection of the various landscapes within the Western Division is currently provided for in section 18D of the Western Lands Act. The commissioner has the power to direct a lessee, through orders and notices, to protect the leased land in regard to overstocking, to use the land for a specified purpose and, if necessary, to take measures to prevent soil erosion or other damage to the land. These provisions remain unchanged and are seen as an important mechanism to ensure leased lands in the Western Division are managed sustainably. The commissioner is able to control and monitor land use activities through the purpose and lease conditions attached to all Western Lands leases and the controls imposed on cultivation through consent conditions.

Departmental staff inspect properties and leases regularly to ensure compliance under the Act, particularly when an application for a change of land use, lease transfer or any other proposed activity is considered. Land condition is monitored through a program of regular inspections and the establishment of photo points that enable the land condition to be regularly assessed and compared over time. If any non-compliance is identified, the commissioner may issue an order to remediate the lands affected. When an application is received for proposed alternative activities or land uses the Western Lands Commissioner must consider the likely impacts of the proposal under part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. All the current environment protection provisions of the Western Lands Act have been retained. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [2.59 p.m.]: I support the Western Lands Amendment Bill 2008, which provides for the creation of easements to maintain the dog-proof fence along certain sections of the New South Wales-Queensland and the New South Wales-South Australia borders. It also provides for an increase in the membership of the Western Lands Advisory Council from 14 to 15 and it clarifies the powers that may be exercised with respect to fencing conditions and the creation of public roads over freehold land in the Western Division. The bill also facilitates the granting of special purpose leases to allow the development of new investment opportunities in the Western Division and, in particular, the large-scale wind farm at Silverton.

It must be noted in this debate that two fine members of The Nationals capably represent the whole of the Western Division of New South Wales—the member for Murray-Darling and the member for Barwon—both of whom made definitive speeches in the other place on this bill. The Western Division comprises more than 40 per cent of New South Wales, the majority of which is Crown land held by primary producers under lease and is administered by the Western Lands Act 1901. The Western Lands Act requires that a review be undertaken every five years to determine that the policy settings for the west remain relevant and appropriate. The most recent review was tabled in Parliament in June last year. This review recommended a number of changes, which are the basis of this bill. The Pastoralists Association of West Darling monitored that review and the president of that association, Mr Robert Seekamp, must be acknowledged for his input to that process.

In his contribution in the other place the member for Murray-Darling identified that public roads were an ongoing issue in the Western Lands and that the implementation of a proper network of designated roads throughout the west is supported by western landowners. There has been much fanfare in the various debates about the changes to the creation of public roads provided for in this bill, but the major change occurred in the 2002 amendment to the Act, which allows for the creation of public roads through Western Lands leasehold land. I discussed at some length during that debate issues surrounding problems with roads in the west and although the capacity to dedicate public roads in the Western Division has existed since the proclamation of the amendment in 2002, little has changed to overcome those problems.

One issue that was not addressed in 2002 was creating roads over freehold land and other non-Western Lands lease land, such as national parks, State forests, nature reserves and commons. New section 35QA will allow the Minister to create public roads over freehold land by acquiring and dedicating the land as a public road under the Roads Act 1912. Wild dogs are a continuing problem in western New South Wales, as they are in many areas of New South Wales, so the introduction of access easements for these areas will help control the stock losses from wild dogs in the west. Some graziers, particularly those whose land adjoins national parks, have lost up to 1,000 sheep in one night as a result of wild dog attacks, and although the amendments to the bill do not allow for the creation of easements on national park boundaries, the bill amends the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 to allow for the granting of similar easements under that Act.

As anyone with western New South Wales experience would know, the dog fence was built more than 100 years ago to prevent dingoes and wild dogs living in the deep interior areas of Australia from attacking sheep flocks and cattle herds in the pastoral regions of New South Wales. The maintenance of this fence is an ongoing project—a work in progress—that will continue forever. Damage is continually being done to the fence by other animals such as kangaroos and wombats. The easement provided for by this bill will facilitate the maintenance of that dog fence under the Wild Dog Destruction Act 1921, along the borders of New South Wales and South Australia in particular.

The bill also provides for a refining of fencing arrangements between landholder lessees in the Western Division of New South Wales. Under the Dividing Fences Act it is normal for each landholder to bear 50 per cent of the cost of fence construction, reconstruction or regular maintenance where there is a similar agricultural undertaking on each side of the fence. When there are two merino breeders on each holding there is a certain standard of fence that will keep the two flocks apart, and the cost of the fencing is shared. In the case of one landholder running, for example, sheep and the neighbour running some type of exotic livestock—for example, goats, camels, alpaca or deer, which all require a more expensive standard of fencing—it is the responsibility of the landholder introducing the stock requiring the more expensive fencing to pay the additional costs.

In western New South Wales the introduction of South African sheep breeds, such as Dorper, has complicated the situation as Dorper sheep are more aggressive wanderers than merinos and therefore require a more expensive standard of fencing than do merinos, even though they are both regarded as sheep under the Dividing Fences Act. The bill will allow the Western Lands Commissioner to determine where this differential fencing should be constructed, the type of fencing that should be constructed and how the cost of the fencing should be apportioned.

The member for Barwon raised in the other place the issue of the Western Lands Commissioner making an order on New South Wales National Parks to do the same thing. In many areas of the west the 10-year-plus drought has put a hold on most fencing maintenance so there is a great deal of catch-up fencing to be done. National Parks has made many purchases of extensive areas of the west during that time—one of the most notable and most recent, of course, being Toorale Station, which is downstream from Bourke. So we must ask: What is the fencing status of these parks? Are their boundaries fenced appropriately to keep adjoining landowners' stock out, and are they fenced appropriately to keep their animals, both native and feral, from invading the properties of adjoining landowners?

National Parks has a very poor record when it comes to fence maintenance. Sometimes National Parks provides half the cost of materials—for example, after fires raging through a park have decimated the local area. The response of the Parliamentary Secretary to the inquiry of the member the Barwon was innocuous. He said that any dispute between departments will be resolved administratively. We all know what that means: it will get buried in the bureaucracy! It has long been a source of confusion for the people of New South Wales as to why there is one set of rules for the people of New South Wales and a different set of rules for Government departments.

There has also been much fanfare about this legislation providing for the establishment of the wind farm at Silverton, which is located on Western Lands lease land. But in reality this happened under the Western and Crown Lands Amendment (Special Purposes Leases) Act 2008, which provides for the establishment of special purpose leases on which the wind farm development will occur. All that happens in this bill is that that allowance is noted in the objects of the Western Lands Act. This fanfare is simply a rerun of last year's fanfare. Despite the shortcomings of the comments by some Government members, the bill will improve the lifestyle and viability of those in the west. Therefore, I offer my support and reiterate that of the Coalition for the legislation.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [3.07 p.m.]: I support the Western Lands Amendment Bill 2008. I highlight the important role that the Western Lands Commissioner, Geoff Woods, has played in conducting this review into the operation of the Western Lands Act, and in the recommendations for reform made in the review report, which was tabled in both Houses of Parliament in June 2008, and note his key role in the sustainable management of the Western Division. The Western Lands Amendment Bill 2008 is a result of this thorough review, which has involved consultation with the Western Lands Advisory Council and the general public. The Western Lands Commissioner fulfilled a crucial role in ensuring that the review captured all issues relevant to the operation of the Western Lands Act and the concerns of Western Division stakeholders. The proposed amendments will now provide additional powers and provisions to assist the commissioner to manage these lands in a more equitable and sustainable way, particularly in regard to boundary fencing through powers to issue orders, and wild dog management through the creation of an easement along the length of the dog-proof fence to facilitate access to, and maintenance of, the fence.

The role of the Western Lands Commissioner has changed significantly since the appointment of the first commissioner, Colin McMaster, in 1902. This has been essential to reflect the changing practices in the agricultural industry and the expectations of the wider community for sustainable natural resource management within the fragile rangelands of the Western Division. The commissioner and his staff administer and manage Western Lands leases and other Crown lands through the provisions and powers provided in the Western Lands and Crown Lands Acts. There are other more specialised agencies such as catchment management authorities and the Department of Water and Energy, which administer native vegetation and water management legislation. The commissioner remains actively involved in these matters of natural resource management and makes representations on behalf of the Western Division when required.

Under the provisions of the Western Lands Act the commissioner exercises a range of powers in regard to natural resource management, including issuing orders to de-stock, rehabilitate lands, provide access, and protect the land from soil erosion or other damage. He may also grant approval to a range of activities such as cultivation, lease transfers, alteration of lease purpose and conditions, subdivision and acquisitions. Under the proposed amendments in the bill the commissioner will also have the power from time to time to set conditions by order as to fencing in relation to a Western Lands lease and to apportion the costs of complying with a fencing order between adjoining landowners.

The Wild Dog Destruction Board is chaired by the Western Lands Commissioner. As the report into the review highlighted, wild dog management is an important issue in the Western Division and therefore an easement along the length of the dog-proof fence is proposed to facilitate access to, and maintenance of, the fence. The commissioner represents the interests of the Western Division in a number of ways. He is a key member of the Western Lands Advisory Council, the Lightning Ridge Mining Board and the Silverton and Tibooburra village committees. He is also an active member of the Western Division Shires Association, the Darling River Floodplain Management Committee, the Far West District Emergency Management Committee, the Unincorporated Roads Network Reference Group, the Western Region Coordination Group, the Willandra Lakes World Heritage Area Advisory Committee, the Hudson Pear Taskforce, the New South Wales Prickle Bushes Working Group, and the Defeating the Weeds Menace Working Group.

The commissioner is regularly invited to attend the meetings of the Western and Lower Murray-Darling Catchment Management Authorities, the New South Wales Farmers Association, and the Pastoralists Association of West Darling. It is recognised that it is crucial for the commissioner to continue to represent the Western Division and participate in these groups to facilitate information exchanges and discussion on activities that could have potential impacts on the sustainable use of Western Division lands and on landholders and their leases. From time to time the commissioner sends updates to every Western Lands lessee via the Western Division Newsletter to keep landholders informed as to the activities being undertaken by the commissioner and the Department of Lands. The important amendments found in this bill are the result of extensive consultation with all affected stakeholders in the Western Division, and the role of the commissioner in coordinating the review has been essential to this reform process. I commend the bill to the House.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.13 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I indicate our support for the Western Lands Amendment Bill 2008. The object of the bill is to amend the Western Lands Act 1901 to implement the recommendations of the review of the Act tabled in Parliament in June 2008. This is part of the five-year review of legislation that is required to be undertaken and in respect of which a report is to be tabled in each House of the Parliament. I am sure members will agree that we admire the residents and farmers who live in the Western Division of New South Wales, which is a most difficult part of the State in which to reside. When I have visited towns in the Western Division—such as Cobar, Wilcannia, Bourke, Broken Hill, Finley and others—I have noted how high the temperatures can get and how dry it is in that region. So I congratulate all those who live in the Western Division for playing their part in decentralisation; otherwise the population would be crowded onto the coastal strip of New South Wales.

The legislation clarifies that the objects of the Act include matters relating to both indigenous and non-indigenous cultural heritage, and accommodate new land uses and opportunities in the Western Division. It is important that we acknowledge our indigenous cultural heritage. Given the current plans to construct the large wind farm at Silverton, near Broken Hill, legislative provisions are needed to ensure that large-scale developments such as the wind farm can be accommodated validly on Western Division leasehold land. The bill provides for the creation of easements to maintain the dog-proof fences erected as part of the Wild Dog Destruction Act 1921 along parts of the New South Wales-Queensland and New South Wales-South Australia borders, which are designed to prevent wild dogs entering New South Wales. This is very important. I understand that the fences are more than 600 kilometres in length. They were constructed originally as rabbit-proof fences but they now serve to prevent wild dogs, including dingoes, from entering New South Wales and killing stock and wildlife.

The recent introduction of exotic breeds of sheep into the Western Division has highlighted the need to strengthen the boundary fencing provisions of the Western Lands Act as they apply to Western Lands leases. If any of these breeds of sheep mix with the traditional merino or other wool-producing sheep, the wool fibre is contaminated and devalued. As other speakers in this debate have said, given the drought and the current global economic situation some of the fences may not be in a good state of repair because of the lack of finance. The Government may need to examine the issue to see whether some financial assistance should be provided to farmers to ensure that the fences are maintained so they are able to perform their role in protecting the Western Division. We are pleased to support the bill.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [3.17 p.m.]: I support the Western Lands Amendment Bill 2008. I will outline how the bill will assist with a number of issues relating to boundary fences and the disputes that arise between leaseholders in the Western Division. These issues were raised in the debate in the other place. I note that several speakers in today's debate have raised them also. The potential for fencing disputes has increased in recent times due to the current trend towards diversification of land use to include exotic breeds of sheep in areas traditionally used for merino wool production. As many of my colleagues who have followed the debate on this bill will be aware, exotic animal breeds have the potential to contaminate the standard of the wool fibre of merino sheep and to devalue the wool produced. This issue has also been the subject of examination as part of the review of the principal Act. In recognition of the importance of the issue to the people of the Western Division, it is worthwhile considering again aspects of the bill relating to fencing.

Proposed sections 18A and 18B provide a modernised set of powers for the Western Lands Commissioner that will empower the commissioner to deal with and resolve fencing disputes in an equitable manner and, as far as practicable, in a way that is satisfactory to all parties. Under proposed section 18A the commissioner may from time to time order in writing that certain boundaries or any part of any leased land be fenced in an appropriate manner. These provisions will allow fencing standards to be set from time to time as the needs of lessees may require. For example, in situations where a landowner has begun to keep an exotic breed of animal, that landowner may be ordered to improve the standard of fencing on the relevant boundaries to ensure that unwanted contamination does not occur. The procedures and experience of the Western Lands Commissioner will ensure that affected lessees and landowners will be consulted and that all relevant matters are considered in the decision-making of the commissioner.

The proposed provisions to which I have referred allow for the apportionment of the cost of complying with a fencing order between lessees and landowners. This mechanism will be employed to ensure, to the maximum extent that is appropriate in all relevant circumstances, that the lessee with the benefit of exotic stock is responsible for any additional cost of fencing required as a result of the need to enclose the exotic breed. The proposed provisions are flexible enough to allow the commissioner to order that an area that is located within the boundaries of leased land be fenced. This means that in an appropriate case there will be no need to fence the whole of a leased area when it is practically necessary only for a smaller area to be enclosed for stock to be contained effectively. The existing provisions allow orders to be made about boundary fencing but not internal fencing. The practical application of this amendment will save time and money in many cases, with an order by the commissioner for fencing to be erected in the most practical and convenient location.

New section 18B will allow an adjoining landowner to claim fencing costs from their neighbour where an order of the commissioner provides for an apportionment of such costs. Where a person has paid more than their share of the cost of erecting the fence, in accordance with an order of the commissioner, they may commence proceedings in an appropriate court to recover the unpaid share as a debt. The powers of the commissioner, as amplified by the bill, are consistent with the provisions of the Dividing Fences Act 1991. The Dividing Fences Act allows a Western Lands lessee to seek a contribution for fencing costs from his or her neighbour. The Dividing Fences Act generally allows a person to claim a contribution for half the cost of a sufficient dividing fence. In a situation where a lessee has introduced an exotic breed to an area, the definition of a sufficient dividing fence under that Act means that the additional cost of fencing required to enclose the exotic breed will generally be the responsibility of the lessee who has introduced the exotic breed. In this manner the amendments proposed to the principal Act and to the Dividing Fences Act will integrate the operations of both Acts.

The amendments to both Acts operating together will allow a lessee and other landowners to obtain an appropriate contribution from their neighbour for the cost of erecting a dividing fence. The amendments preserve the current appeal mechanism regarding a decision of the commissioner in relation to fencing. If a lessee or landowner is not satisfied with the order of the commissioner relating to fencing there may be an appeal to the local land board and the local land board will be empowered to hear the matter. There is also provision for an appeal from the decision of the local land board to the Land and Environment Court, which will operate as a rehearing of the matter. I hope that my speech has cleared up some of the issues raised earlier in the debate. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.22 p.m.]: The Greens do not oppose the Western Lands Amendment Bill 2008. The Western Lands Act was due for a five-yearly review last year. This resulted in the preparation and exhibition of an issues paper and the tabling of a final report in mid June 2008. The bill gives effect to the recommendations that emerged from the review process. It has several elements but the major changes relate to fencing. Proposed section 153E of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 will allow the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, after consultation with the Minister for Lands, to grant an easement over any land for the purpose of repair and maintenance of dog-proof fences. These fences run for hundreds of kilometres within New South Wales, so upkeep is no simple matter. The bill will allow the Minister to create easements of up to 200 metres around the fences for the purposes of accessing fences for upkeep.

In regard to sections of fence within the land parcels of graziers or other landholders, new section 35UE requires that freehold and leasehold landholders be given notice of creation or extinguishment of easements along the fence that traverses their landholding. Freehold landowners are entitled to compensation under the just terms compensation provisions for an easement change on their lands. In regard to fencing within properties and between adjoining properties, proposed section 18A makes it clear that the Western Lands Commissioner can, by order, set conditions as to fencing, allowing the commissioner to apportion costs of complying with fencing requirements for landholders. Orders can be made in relation to internal as well as boundary fencing. This is in response to disputes between landholders about the intermingling of different breeds of ovines, particularly between merinos and other breeds now being farmed, such as the South African Dorper.

Another issue is the spread of ovine disease. Graziers can get into disputes about rogue sheep wandering around and potentially fraternizing. For sheep farmers this is an important issue as they put a lot of work into breeding for the best fleece. Therefore, the amendments in relation to responsibility for fencing and the standards of fencing are designed to ensure that graziers act responsibly and do the right thing by their neighbours. The commissioner or local land board will be able to make an order, including an order for money, in respect of fencing under the Dividing Fences Act. Landholders can appeal to the local land board against any decision they consider to be unfair, and can appeal a decision of the local land board to the Land and Environment Court thereafter. In addition to the existing provisions under section 35Q of the Roads Act 1993, which allows land to be acquired for a road on leasehold land, the provision is extended to freehold land.

The proposed amendment to section 8B of the Act will place an extra person on the Western Lands Advisory Council, so its membership will increase from 14 to 15. The extra person will be a representative of the Minister for Mineral Resources. The Greens remain concerned that mining—in particular coalmining—is coming into conflict with food production in areas such as the Liverpool Plains and into conflict with water needs in areas such as the Cadia mine near Orange, and the same thing could happen in the western region. However, the Greens note that those involved with the review did not oppose the inclusion of a representative of the Minister for Mineral Resources on the Western Lands Advisory Council, and we do not propose to move an amendment to that provision. The Greens remind members that more coalmining equals more greenhouse gases; therefore, we do not want any new coalmines in New South Wales—or anywhere else for that matter.

Last year the Greens supported the special lease provision in the Western and Crown Lands Amendment (Special Purpose Leases) Act 2008, which allows the Government or leaseholders to enter into special leases with other parties for wind farms, such as the wind farm that is being developed by Epuron at Silverton. If it is found that there is potential for geothermal energy in New South Wales, special leases can be negotiated for that purpose as well. The Greens support new, green industries and jobs in the western region. Climate change will result in some agricultural activities in western New South Wales being unviable, as south-eastern Australia becomes hotter and drier. Orchardists in South Australia are leaving trees to die, as there is simply not enough water to keep them alive. It is time to invest in new solar and wind energy infrastructure, to investigate the potential of biochar, and to move towards the transformation of those agricultural economies.

The Greens have one concern with the bill. It is proposed that the statutory three-year term for appointees to the Western Lands Advisory Council be replaced with a term of "up to three years". The Greens do not support this, as it will allow the Government to remove from the Western Lands Advisory Council anyone who falls foul of the Government before his or her term is up. We do not see why this amendment is necessary. An appointed person should stay on the council unless they do not attend meetings, are engaging in some kind of misconduct, or need to leave for personal reasons. If a vacancy arises before the end of someone's three-year term, because of a genuine reason such as those I have outlined, a replacement should be co-opted onto the council. There is also an amendment to the objects of the Act to reflect new uses contemplated by the special purpose lease provisions of the principal Act that was passed in 2008. The Greens note that there is no planning instrument covering the unincorporated parts of the Western Lands Division but that one may be developed in the future, and that leasehold remains the de facto model for fragile rangelands in the far west. The Greens believe this is a sensible arrangement.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.28 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their support for the Western Lands Amendment Bill 2008. However, the Hon. Greg Pearce expressed concern as to the possible imposition of additional costs arising from new fencing standards. The recent introduction of exotic breeds of sheep within the Western Division has highlighted the need to strengthen the boundary fencing provisions that apply to Western Lands leases within the Western Division of New South Wales.

Whilst the provisions that currently exist require lessees to fence the boundaries of their properties, they do not allow the Western Lands Commissioner to direct a lessee to upgrade the fence beyond the standard of fencing that applied when the lease was first granted. The proposed amendment will allow the commissioner to set standards of fencing and to issue an order for a fencing upgrade to ensure that stock are properly contained within property boundaries. The commissioner also will be able to apportion costs of complying with a fencing order between adjoining landholders. It may be appropriate for stock to be fenced within a defined part of a leased property. As a result, the commissioner will have the power to specify the fencing standard required within any part of the leased land. These provisions contained in the bill are strongly supported by the Western Lands Advisory Council and the Western Division lessees.

As to the second issue raised by the Hon. Greg Pearce in relation to fencing of national parks, there is no provision for national parks to be fenced. As the review of the Act did not recommend that the fencing provision of the Act should be expanded to cover national park land, there is no provision for the department administering national parks to contribute to fencing. However, the department may voluntarily contribute to fencing. In an appropriate case the department may accept the jurisdiction and decision of the Western Lands Commissioner. The Hon. Rick Colless referred to wind farms. The aims of the Western Lands and Crown Lands (Special Purposes Leases) Act 2008 are facilitated by the provision in the bill that allows for a plan describing the site of a special purpose lease to be a registered plan under the Conveyancing Act 1919, but not a plan of subdivision, as may otherwise be the case. There will be no need for a subdivision certificate to be provided with the plan when it is lodged with the Registrar General.

A special purpose lease and the plan identifying the site of the lease will not subdivide the land of the Western Lands lessee. This amendment is introduced as a result of the implementation of the wind farm project at Silverton. With the benefit of the proposed amendments the plans required for the project and other special purpose leases may be registered with less expense and without unnecessary formality. Ms Sylvia Hale, on behalf of the Greens, indicated that the Western Lands Advisory Council term of up to three years was questionable. The introduction of flexible terms for members of the Western Lands Advisory Council allows staggered terms for members to preserve continuity and expertise on the council. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

Motion by the Hon. Henry Tsang agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

Motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 143 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the bushfires in Victoria, be called on forthwith.

Motion by the Hon. Michael Veitch agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 143 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

Debate resumed from 11 March 2009.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [3.35 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Michael Veitch and offer my condolences to the families and communities affected by the devastating bushfires on 7 February this year. This day will be remembered as one of the most vicious in the country's history since European settlement. Kinglake, Marysville, Strathewen, St Andrews, Flowerdale, Humevale, Steels Creek, Callignee—two months ago these were towns on maps and places that many of us have never visited and possibly never even heard of. They are now the well-known names of communities that the nation has united with in mourning. Like so many other Australians, I heard and read the forecasts of bushfires in many parts of Victoria on the days leading up to Saturday 7 February 2009. We understood that the prevailing conditions of record high temperatures, high winds, low humidity and dry conditions in the bush following years of drought provided a very serious risk of bushfire and we hoped that the risk would pass without loss of property or life. Our understanding could not possibly prepare us for what was to happen on that terrible day. The words of journalist Gary Hughes give us some insight. He wrote:

They warn you it comes fast. But the word "fast" doesn't come anywhere near describing it. It comes at you like a runaway train. One minute you are preparing. The next you are fighting for your home. Then you are fighting for your life. But it is not minutes that come between. It's more like seconds. The firestorm moves faster than you can think, let alone react. For 25 years we had lived on our hilltop in St Andrews, in the hills northeast of Melbourne. You prepare like they tell you every summer. You clear. You slash. You prime your fire pump. For 25 years fires were something that you watched in the distance. Until Saturday.

The devastating Victorian bushfires touched the hearts of every Australian in every corner of our great nation. Communities were ripped apart in an instant. Thousands of homes, businesses and schools were destroyed. Economically and financially it was a truly devastating event. But, whereas bricks and mortar can and will be rebuilt, we cannot bring back that most precious of commodities, human life. We now know that the number of lost lives has thankfully been downgraded. Nearly 200 brave Australians lost their lives in the fires. Each one is irreplaceable and each one is mourned in the hearts of all Australians. It is important that we stop to acknowledge that among the victims were some of the most vulnerable in our society: the elderly, the very young, and the geographically isolated. Their loss fills us with particular sadness.

The members of the New South Wales Parliament have an obligation to articulate and convey the heartfelt sympathy and solidarity that our respective communities have for the people of Victoria and to help rally the support of our communities in helping to rebuild those towns and lives shattered by the bushfires. It clearly demonstrates the character of the Australian people that in times of need we are able to unite and put aside our differences, as evidenced by speeches of previous speakers to this important motion. We can disregard our mundane, day-to-day concerns, roll up our sleeves and pitch in. Even in the midst of a global economic downturn where people face the prospect of a global recession and ever-growing economic and job insecurity, millions of Australians have dug deep to give what they can.

In my local area of Bankstown, the mayor, Councillor Tania Mihailuk, presented the Red Cross with a donation of just under $27,500. The money was a combination of almost $14,500 raised by council staff through a pay deduction scheme, and a donation from council, endorsed by the mayor and councillors. The Padstow branch of the Australian Red Cross Society accepted the donation on behalf of the society. The Padstow branch has been collecting donations through its opportunity shop since the appeal began and had already collected thousands of dollars before receiving the donation from Bankstown council. Yagoona Lions Club had bucket collections in local shopping centres and raised $12,000 for the appeal. I was one of the Yagoona Lions members collecting donations and I was heartened by people's willingness to donate. People of all ethnic and religious backgrounds came forward to make donations—pensioners, children, people with very little English but enough to understand that we were collecting for the victims of the bushfires—all gave as much as they could. In fact, when they knew we were going to be at a shopping centre many people tracked us down to make their donations. Many people had already given through other appeals, through their banks and via pay deductions but they still wanted to give what cash they had on them that day.

I place on the record my deep admiration for the men and women of the Country Fire Authority and all the other emergency personnel involved. I commend our Government's quick response and involvement and I acknowledge the efforts of members of the New South Wales State Emergency Service, the New South Wales Rural Fire Service, paramedics from the New South Wales Ambulance Service and the New South Wales Police Force who also sent officers and crews to Victoria to help their Victorian colleagues both in fighting the bushfires and in the rebuilding program.

Like members of the Country Fire Authority, members of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service are everyday, local people who, as volunteers, answer the call to fight a fire at any time of the day or night and then front up for work the next day. They kiss their families goodbye, knowing full well that they may not come back. Many of us know people from our respective communities who left the security of their homes and families to fight the fires or to help out and give aid where needed. I also thank the volunteers' families and employers. Without their support our firefighters would not have been able to respond so swiftly and effectively.

I acknowledge that the New South Wales commitment included the following deployments: 3,652 personnel from 932 brigades from the New South Wales Rural Fire Service; 392 personnel from the New South Wales Fire Brigades; 337 personnel from the Department of Environment and Climate Change; 26 personnel from the State Emergency Service; 166 personnel from Forests NSW; and 136 personnel from the Ambulance Service of New South Wales. In all, emergency services from New South Wales have deployed more than 4,600 volunteers and staff. As well as personnel, New South Wales also provided hundreds of tankers, pumpers, support vehicles and one of its heavy-duty air cranes.

Every single one of those personnel has our gratitude, and I know that they have the gratitude of my local community for the important and selfless work they undertake. I am sure I speak for all members of my community when I express my admiration for these volunteers. The spirit of selflessness that I witnessed in my local community was replicated across the State. From the mining communities in the far west of New South Wales through to Bondi in the heart of Sydney, hearts and wallets opened for the people of Victoria. I pay special tribute to the efforts of farming communities throughout New South Wales, whose kinship with the affected rural towns created a unique empathy. Some have donated fodder; some still affected by drought have promised time and labour to help farming properties affected by fire. I know that the New South Wales Government, through the Department of Primary Industries, is doing everything it can to assist farming communities in Victoria.

The search for answers has begun—the search for answers as to how so many lives could be lost and how so many homes and so much property could now lay in ashes, and how we can stop such devastation from ever occurring again. The search for answers is imperative; the search for blame is futile. There is no doubt that the inquiries that have been established will lead us to question current policies, practices and regulations in bushfire-prone areas and will lead us to change many of them in the hope that the devastation of Black Saturday is never repeated.

Since the devastation of Saturday 7 February many of those affected have begun to rebuild their lives. We have witnessed their pain and trauma, captured by the ever-present television cameras, as they have returned to the ruins of their homes, streets, villages and communities. We know the scars of disaster etched on the faces of our fellow Australians will take some time to heal. We want them to know that New South Wales will continue to provide whatever support they need from us to help complete their recovery. I support the motion.

Mr IAN COHEN [3.45 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I offer my deepest condolences to the victims of the Victorian bushfire tragedy. I acknowledge the sincerity and maturity with which members of this House have spoken on this motion. I know members are keen to debate the substantive causes of the Victorian bushfires but I do not think a condolence motion is the appropriate place and we should focus on expressing our solidarity with our Victorian counterparts—as the Hon. Duncan Gay stated, letting the victims know that we are thinking of them.

For all Australians the Victorian bushfires have represented weeks of dread and sadness. On behalf of the New South Wales Greens I offer my deepest condolences to those who have lost someone dear to them in the fires, those who have lost their homes and those who have lost their livelihoods. We cannot begin to comprehend the pain they must be experiencing. Those who escaped the fires became refugees in their own country. Dazed and shocked, many fled their homes with nothing but the clothes on their backs. But they found sanctuary in nearby towns, where people summoned all their resources to help their neighbours.

The humanitarian relief response was extraordinary: it was swift and we could not have asked for better. People are talking about the way so many rose to the occasion. It is a comfort to those affected and to the rest of us looking on that the best of humanity has been on display. We are all different from one another, yet we have a shared humanity. During the past two weeks many people have been busy—unstoppable—responding to the fires and the aftermath. Some have not had time yet even to stop, take a break and come to terms with the enormity of the tragedy. I recognise and commend the superlative efforts of those who have worked so hard to support those affected by the fires.

The word "hero" has been used a great deal in the past couple of weeks. In the case of the Victorian bushfires the word was not overused, yet few who are so named would ever describe themselves as heroes. I have heard it said that the essence of heroism is taking responsibility in a situation—a definition that sits well with what we have seen in these past days. So many responded with courage, calm and authority and made a real difference to others' lives. On the day now known as Black Saturday the fire danger index ranged from 200 to 300 or 400 in official announcements. A fire danger index of 50 is considered to be extreme fire weather—almost so extreme that it is no longer practicable to fight a fire. The fire danger index was said to have been 140 during Ash Wednesday. It is difficult to understand something of this magnitude that we have never faced before.

Coincidentally, I was to give some talks in Melbourne on that Saturday and I have never experienced in my life the hot winds coming from the fire areas across Melbourne: they were heavy, ferocious winds and their heat was like that from a blow torch as one breathed in. I have never experienced anything quite like that before. I can only imagine what it must have been like for people at and around the fire front. At this time so many of us have questions we want answered. In grief and shock we are trying to understand and we are seeking information from all quarters. Who could ever have imagined so many lives taken so swiftly and with so little warning? But the people of Victoria are undeterred. Already many are saying they are determined to rebuild and regenerate: regenerate their homes, the landscape and, I expect, themselves. The least that needs to be built is homes and infrastructure, the basics of living. But communities need to be built too, and communities need a vision—one that can lead them away from their pain.

The best service that we the parliamentarians and people of Australia can offer to the community affected is to listen to their vision so that we can inspire some hope and assist in their regeneration. Members have reflected on their local communities' efforts. I also proudly experienced that heartfelt energy in my home community of Byron shire. I participated in the Byron to Bush fundraiser at the Beach Hotel. The tens of thousand of dollars raised went to fire victims—both people and animals.

I commend all New South Wales personnel from the police, the State Emergency Services, the fire services, Forests NSW, the Ambulance Service and the National Parks and Wildlife Service who went to the assistance of people in need in Victoria. These included many from the northern regions of New South Wales. The event will be etched in the psyche of the people of Australia. In fact, it is recognised throughout the world as a tragic event. It was so devastating that it is absolutely appropriate that we spend time in this House today acknowledging the effect it has had on the people of Victoria.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.51 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I am pleased to support the condolence motion by the Hon. Mick Veitch and support the amendment moved by the Hon. Michael Gallacher about the 300 New South Wales police officers who travelled to Victoria. All Australians were shocked by the tragedy of Black Saturday, 7 February 2009, when a series of bushfires raged across Victoria resulting in Australia's highest ever loss of life from bushfire. The original death toll was said to be 210, but in the past day or so the number has been revised down to 173 men, women and children, including an Australian Capital Territory firefighter. That discrepancy indicates the problems that forensic authorities have had in identifying the human remains because of the enormous heat generated by the fire.

The bushfires destroyed whole towns and villages and at least 2,000 homes were destroyed in towns such as Marysville, Kinglake, Flowerdale, Steels Creek and Wandong. More than 3,500 buildings were destroyed. Farmlands and forests have been devastated and churches, schools and community halls have been destroyed. More than 7,500 persons from many families were rendered homeless. They first sought emergency accommodation in tents and halls. Our prayers of sympathy and condolences go out to those who have suffered and lost everything and others who have lost loved ones. We know that with God's help these families will recover: they will continue to strive and rebuild. Their tenacity was demonstrated by the Australian flag flying over the devastated town of Marysville, beside a burnt out house—a sign of defiance in the face of destruction.

Victoria has experienced previous bushfire devastation, even back in 1851, when 10 times the area of Black Saturday on 7 February 2009 was destroyed during temperatures of 47 degrees, whilst London froze with exceptional snowfalls. So much for global warming! The high death toll put heavy pressure on all agencies from firefighters, paramedics, police officers, and army reservists, particularly those doing the forensic work. A temporary morgue was established at the Coronial Services Centre at South Bank, Melbourne, which was capable of holding up to 300 bodies. The Victorian Coroner compared it to a similar facility established after the July 2005 Islamic terrorist London bus and train bombings. By the morning of 10 February 2009 101 bodies had been transported to the temporary morgue, but there were still many unidentified bodies.

The Director of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine stated that it may be impossible to identify some of the remains because of the high temperature of the fires: some fires may have been burning at temperatures of 1,200 degrees centigrade. Therefore, many of the people caught in the fire might have been burnt to ash and might be lying amongst the burnt out remains of houses. More than 150 forensic investigators were involved in searching for human remains in towns such as Marysville.

As a result of this massive loss of life and bushfire destruction Prime Minister Rudd called for a day of mourning on 22 February 2009 and arranged for a national memorial service to be held in the Rod Laver Arena in Melbourne. The service was very moving and church and community leaders took part. Mr Rudd, Mr Turnbull, the Victorian Premier, the Governor-General and Princess Anne, who represented the Queen of Australia, Queen Elizabeth II, all inspected the damaged towns. Mr Rudd described the bushfires as "an appalling tragedy for Victoria. Hell in all its fury has visited the good people of Victoria." As members know, Queen Elizabeth II sent a message stating that she "was shocked and saddened to learn of the terrible toll being exacted by the fires this weekend" and she "sent heartfelt condolences to the families of all those who have died and deep sympathy to the many that have lost their homes in this disaster". She also expressed admiration for the firefighters and other emergency personnel. We salute the bravery and tenacity of the 4,000 volunteer firefighters of the Country Fire Authority and the firefighters from New South Wales, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania, Western Australian and even New Zealand and the United States of America.

The people of Australia are to be admired for their generous response to the bushfire appeals—the Red Cross and the Salvation Army—as well as the Victorian and Federal Government packages of emergency assistance. I do not normally advertise when I make a donation, and I have made very large donations over the years—up to $30,000—but on this occasion I did say that I had donated $2,000. I did so as an incentive for other people to be generous and to support the appeals, especially the Salvation Army appeal. The bushfires had a big impact on children. More than 28 schools were affected by the destruction and more than 7,000 children were impacted as a result of not having school and religious instruction.

Every family that suffered tells a moving story. I mentioned the Liesfield family in an adjournment speech. Guesthouse operator Elizabeth Liesfield sent visitors away as soon as there was a hint of the fires threatening Marysville, but she stayed with her husband Rod and two sons James and Matthew, aged 14 and 13 respectively, as the flames approached, hoping to save their guesthouse. Her trucker husband went outside to check on the fire and their car when an explosion threw him onto his back and he was badly burned and was eventually taken to hospital. Sadly, Elizabeth, James and Matthew stayed inside their home and did not have a chance. When the fireball hit they died together. This bushfire tragedy has reached across the world. Because the family came from the United Kingdom, a memorial service was held on 20 February in the Knighton Evangelical Church, Leicester, where Elizabeth had been an active member and youth leader before immigrating to Australia. Elizabeth's mother, Ann Partridge, read from the Bible and said:

We have been overwhelmed by the love and support we have had. Thank you all for coming today to thank and praise God for the lives of Elizabeth, James and Matthew and to pray for Rod at this time.

We cannot avoid asking the question: Why such a tragic loss of life? Many in the bushfire region have been critical. One Healesville resident, Valma Owen, told of a two-year campaign to get the Yarra Ranges Shire Council to review its regulations on clearing bush. In a letter she sent to the council last November 2008 she stated:

The Council creates laws forcing those of us who live in the rural areas into a threatened state over which we have no control. The value of a human life over a tree needs to be seriously questioned … many of the residents believe the Council had adopted an overly green agenda and that residents are now saying 'we are going to cut our trees down and you can all go to hell'. They won't even let us cut native grass without a $60 permit.

Another Healesville resident, Scott Gentle, who is the former manager of Timber Communities Australia, said he wished his warnings to a Victorian parliamentary committee 18 months ago had been heeded. In 2007 Mr Gentle told the Victorian parliamentary bushfire inquiry that governments had wound down preventative bushfire practices in national parks and rural communities when it was not necessary. He said in 2007 that a bushfire in Healesville would make Ash Wednesday look like a picnic. After the Black Saturday fire in February 2009 Mr Gentle said:

I wish they had paid a lot more attention to what I said in 2007. The Victorian Government must review what goes on in the construction of houses, bush clearing and vegetation. So must the Council. It is a Council gone mad when they do not let people mow their lawns.

We all remember the farmer who cleared the trees around his house that saved it from the bushfire and was fined $50,000 by the council. He asked for a refund after Black Saturday but the council refused. David Packham, OAM, an honorary senior research fellow at Monash University School of Geography and Environmental Studies, said:

I have been a bushfire scientist for more than 50 years, dealing with all aspects of bushfires, from prescribed burning and serving as supervisor of fire weather service for Australia.

He said that it became clear that this disaster was about to happen when the weather bureau issued an accurate fire weather forecast on 4 February, which prompted him to raise the alarm to residents. The science is simple. A fire disaster of this nature requires three factors: dry windy weather, drought conditions and a source of ignition. The only controllable factor in this deadly triangle is the fuel—that is, dead leaves, bark and grass—that becomes the gas that feeds 50-metre high flames that roar through the bush sounding like jet engines.

We must learn from Victoria's bushfire disaster and ensure Black Saturday is never repeated in New South Wales—and I hope nowhere else in Australia, including Victoria. I support the motion before the House and the Hon. Michael Gallacher's amendment about the efforts of 300 New South Wales police officers.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I direct my question to the Attorney General. Does the Attorney recall his comments in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday regarding legislation against outlaw motorcycle gangs? Why has the Attorney General chosen not to have a role in the declaration of organisations for the purposes of control orders? Will he indicate to the House what weaknesses he has found in the South Australian legislation resulting from the responsibility for declaration resting with the Attorney General in that jurisdiction?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The question asks for an opinion.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: No, it does not ask for an opinion.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am very well qualified to give opinions.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: He is known for them. He charges a fortune for them, but don't worry, they are a lot cheaper now that he is a Minister.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Leader of the Opposition is very wise to ask for an opinion.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: I have asked for his opinion a few times. They were always good.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Did you pay my bill?

The Hon. John Della Bosca: I think I did eventually.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I will check that out. The regime we have proposed, I believe, is an effective one, which balances the interests of law enforcement and civil liberties. It is important to recognise that the South Australian regime has a number of different stages. The regime we have in place has a role for the Attorney General, albeit a somewhat different role to that in South Australia. We believe it will be effective and in due course we will have an opportunity to debate the legislation.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Energy. What action has the Government taken in response to the power outage in the Sydney central business district yesterday afternoon?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: As members are no doubt aware, there was a major power interruption in Sydney yesterday afternoon, which affected supply to parts of the central business district, the eastern suburbs and the inner city.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Where were you?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: At my desk, working for the people of New South Wales to get it back on. On behalf of the New South Wales Government, I apologise to everyone affected by this interruption and I also thank community members for the patience yesterday afternoon. Despite some media reports the city continues to be fully powered and it does, in fact, have backup. The city network has additional back-up capacity built into it. EnergyAustralia has taken extra steps to protect the electricity network by redirecting power from other parts of the network to provide additional support to the central business district.

EnergyAustralia advises that yesterday afternoon at 4.40 p.m. a fault occurred on one of four major cables. I am advised that the 10-kilometre long cables at the heart of yesterday's incident are around 40 years old. EnergyAustralia inspected them in February and again on 4 March. They are due to be replaced in the next five to 10 years. It could cost more than $100 million to replace the cables over that stretch from Lane Cove to the city. As a result of the failure of one cable, all four cables automatically shut down as a precaution, which is exactly what the electricity network is designed to do. We do not want a repeat of what happened in Auckland, when the entire system went into meltdown in a similar situation—and the effects were felt for months.

I am advised by EnergyAustralia that yesterday's situation was a highly unusual fault, because it affected both the normal supply as well as the back-up. As a result, the power interruption affected 70,000 homes and businesses in parts of the central business district and the eastern suburbs. Within 20 minutes, EnergyAustralia and other agencies began providing information to the public via the media. EnergyAustralia advises that crews were immediately sent to three key locations—at Surry Hills, the city's north and Lane Cove—to begin systematically analysing the network to isolate the location and nature of the fault. Before any cables were reconnected workers needed to be certain it was safe to do so—we are talking about major voltage cables here, not suburban wiring gone wrong.

About 6.00 p.m., EnergyAustralia identified that only one cable was affected by a fault. Then, and only then, was it safe to start reconnecting power via the other three cables. To start before a proper assessment was made would have risked public safety and the destruction of vital cable infrastructure that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars to replace. I can report that power was restored at 6.23 p.m. to parts of Surry Hills, and 12 minutes later—at 6.35 p.m.—power was restored to all areas. The response that followed this unexpected power outage was efficient and well planned. Specialist EnergyAustralia crews worked overnight to test and retest the cable at three separate locations in the central business district and in Lane Cove.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why don't you apologise?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I did, as the member would know if he had been listening earlier. I will say sorry any time that members like. It was a regrettable incident. By this afternoon they had pinpointed the location of the fault to west of the overseas passenger terminal. The three remaining cables that are in service are able to supply full power to the central business district and surrounding areas. I am advised that EnergyAustralia will work tirelessly and systematically until the cable is fully repaired and back in service. I am also advised that EnergyAustralia has submitted a $1.13 billion capital works program over approximately 10 years and is working with the Australian Energy Regulator to finalise its funding. As part of this program we are already spending $200 million to build a new substation at city north and install new cables to further enhance central business district reliability. I note the Opposition is quick to change tack on energy. [Time expired.]

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister further elucidate his answer?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: One of EnergyAustralia's key projects includes a major underground link in Sydney city's electricity supply—a $60 million, 1.7 kilometre tunnel under the city, which will form the backbone of power supply to the northern part of the central business district and areas such as Barangaroo. On 22 July 2008 this project was criticised by shadow Treasurer, Mike Baird, on Channel 10 during an interview about the tunnel. The shadow Treasurer said that this project was not needed, and that EnergyAustralia should instead pursue demand management for the project. That was the Opposition's position on 22 July last year when we were doing the necessary upgrade works. What a hypocritical Opposition! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has not read the script. On 22 July the Opposition would not do that upgrade. What a shameful Opposition!

EnergyAustralia will work tirelessly until this cable is fully repaired and back in service. The Sydney CityGrid project, which I was talking about, will include a combination of new and upgraded cable tunnels, substations and electricity cables powering the network. Finally, I have instructed the Director General of the Department of Water and Energy, under clause 22 of the Act, to write to EnergyAustralia to conduct an inquiry into this incident. A preliminary report into the cause of the fault and EnergyAustralia's response are due by the end of this week, to be followed by a full report within four to six weeks. I am always happy to say sorry, Charlie.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Does the Minister recall his statement on radio station 2GB this morning that he was on radio at the time of the blackout yesterday and made some earlier commentary to a couple of radios just after 5.00 p.m.? Why were media monitors unable to track down any of these interviews? Will the Minister indicate to the House on which radio stations these interviews took place? Why did the Minister decide to spend this morning naming and shaming a Blue Mountains bakery rather than explaining to the people of Sydney why the central business district and nearby suburbs were put into darkness for two hours yesterday?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am glad that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is back as my shadow Minister. I could not have written that better if I wanted to have a good time answering a question. Between 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock I was doing a series of radio interviews relating to Name and Shame. I was doing my best to put out press releases—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Which radio station?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Radio Nova is one that I can remember. Now whether they ran that or not is absolutely irrelevant. The plain fact of the matter is that from 5.00 p.m. onwards—bad luck—I was talking on the radio station. EnergyAustralia, who had been apprised of the facts in its media division, was doing interviews right across New South Wales precisely at that time, so it was already running this incident. When I was asked by Nova I pointed out what I knew about the interview at about 5.20 p.m. last night. That is my role. The EnergyAustralia media department did a competent job of getting information out and so did the Roads and Traffic Authority and the police. All of them went to work straightaway. This was an unfortunate incident derived from a power cable and system that were designed not to do an Auckland-style meltdown. The operation to locate that cable and isolate it—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Where were you?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I was in my office.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: You were hiding?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I do not hide. That is absolute nonsense.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Radio 2GB wanted you, radio 2UE wanted you, channel 9 wanted you and you weren't returning their calls.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Radio 2GB did not ring my office. In fact, radio 2GB was talking to me about other issues. That is how far off beam the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is.
Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is directed to the Minister for Regional Development. Can the Minister confirm information contained in the New South Wales Department of State and Regional Development Business Update article entitled "Tillegra Dam to create jobs and investment in the Hunter" issued on 30 March that 200 jobs will be created during the construction of the Tillegra Dam?

The Hon. Tony Kelly: Point of order: The Minister for Regional Development is in the other House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member has 20 seconds in which to rephrase his question.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I direct the question that I just asked to the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I undertake to pass the question on to the relevant Minister.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General. What is the latest information on what the Government is doing to support local councils in their fight against crime?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I thank the honourable member for this important question. The Government is committed to helping New South Wales communities target crime hot spots in their local areas to deter offenders and ultimately improve safety for local residents. This financial year we have set aside $1.6 million to support New South Wales councils with their local crime-fighting projects. From these funds, the New South Wales Government awards grants to councils that have had a crime prevention plan endorsed by the Government.

In the past 12 months I have approved the crime prevention plans of 15 councils across the State and grants of $1.25 million have been approved. Last Friday I was in Wollongong with local member, Noreen Hay, to present Wollongong City Council with a $50,000 grant for a project to curb anti-social behaviour in the city's parks. Council aims to deter criminal activity in parks by improving lighting and redesigning areas where people congregate to drink alcohol. After examining crime data and conducting safety audits of some of the city's main parks, McCabe Park in the central business district will receive a makeover. Council will install additional spotlights, remove the ageing pergolas that line the walkway and trim foliage to remove blind spots. All of these improvements aim to make the park safer for the benefit of the local community.

Tamworth Regional Council has also been the worthy recipient of a New South Wales Government grant to improve the amenity of its Coledale estate. Last month I met with the member for Tamworth, Peter Draper, to present a $50,000 grant to Mayor James Treloar for council to kick-start its innovative Coledale Cares project, which was developed in consultation with the police and local community. Council's program aims to discourage criminal activity in Coledale and make its public areas more vibrant and appealing to the community. It aims to achieve a 5 per cent reduction in malicious damage and assault over the next 12 months through improvements to lighting and landscaping because opportunistic crime is often committed in poorly lit areas where offenders feel they are less likely to be seen. With this grant, council will conduct a lighting audit of streets, parks and other public spaces in Coledale. It will also install additional lights and will increase the wattage of some existing lights.

The Government is very pleased to be able to support such important local initiatives. Other grants awarded for crime prevention projects this year include: $40,000 for Coffs Harbour City Council's NightRider, which targets alcohol-related offences such as malicious damage to property and alcohol-related non-domestic violence assault, and $50,000 was awarded to Great Lakes Council for its Safeguard Your Home project aimed at reducing break and enter-dwelling offences. Council will conduct home security audits for victims of break and enter and those living in identified hotspot locations.

Kempsey Shire Council received two grants. One was for $40,000 for its Knowledge Equals Power project, which will engage women and inform them of changes in the law regarding domestic violence. The program will also engage local agencies to provide a clear referral procedure for victims of domestic violence. The second grant of $20,000 was for Kempsey Shire Council's midnight basketball program, which aims to engage at-risk youth in after-hours activities. Other councils to receive grants this year are Penrith, Nambucca and Lismore. All of these councils worked with their communities to develop very worthy projects for reducing crime hot spots in their local areas. The Rees Government will continue to help local communities fight crime at the grassroots level.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Corrective Services. Is the Minister aware of ongoing police investigations after a violent offender allegedly raped a 16-year-old boy as a result of overcrowding in a juvenile detention centre following the closure of Keelong Juvenile Detention Centre? Is the Minister aware of the increased rate of sexual assaults in the State's prisons due to the growing population, minimum standard sentencing and younger prisoners being transferred from juvenile detention centres to adult prisons? In particular, is the Minister aware that factors such as trauma, shame and fear lead to the underreporting of sexual assaults? Given that the actual extent of sexual assaults is still unknown, what policies will be established to encourage inmate victims to report such crimes to authorities and reduce the incidence of rape in our State's prisons?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: The matter is more properly dealt with by the Minister for Juvenile Justice and, as his representative in this House, I will undertake to get an answer for the member.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs. Is he aware that Port Moresby is regarded as one of the most dangerous cities in our region? Is he also aware that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has a longstanding travel alert on its website warning Australians of the dangers they face when travelling to Port Moresby? Is the Minister aware of recent media reports that there have been 80 drive-by shootings in Sydney this year? Is he also aware there have been no drive-by shootings in Port Moresby in that time? What action is the Minister taking or has he taken to ensure that the Papua New Guinea National Government does not publish a travel alert for Sydney to warn Papua New Guinea citizens of the dangers they face in any planned visit to our once peaceful city?

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: Mr President, members opposite would be well aware that on 12 March you gave a detailed ruling on the nature and formation of questions. The question is outside the purview of the Minister. It relates to matters under the control of the Commonwealth and therefore it should be ruled out of order.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: The Government almost on a daily basis, especially during Federal election campaigns, seems to wander across this area and blur the lines. It is up to the Minister how he answers the question.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: To the point of order: Those of us in Australia who read the daily newspapers are aware of the dangers posed by drive-by shootings. That is why they have travel alerts to warn people—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Standing Order 64 (1) provides that questions may be put to Ministers relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected. I fail to see how matters relating to a foreign government would come under the purview of a Minister in this House. The question is out of order.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Police. What is the latest information on Government action to support police in their crackdown on outlaw motorcycle gangs?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Gangs have no place in our community. As the Premier has made very clear, the Government will support our Police Force in its fight to eradicate those gangs. The dedicated members of the New South Wales Police Force deserve our gratitude, respect and support for their tireless efforts. They certainly have the support of the New South Wales Government. That is why on 27 March I joined the Premier to announce the establishment of Strike Force Raptor to specifically target outlaw motorcycle gangs. We immediately deployed an additional 75 police officers to the gangs squad. Strike Force Raptor is a force of 125 experienced and well-trained police officers dedicated to investigating criminal gangs and providing an immediate response to bikie violence. The Government is committed to supporting our police with the powers they need in the longer term to dismantle criminal bikie gangs once and for all.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Some of these bikies don't even ride bikes.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: That is true. Cabinet yesterday approved the development of new laws. Today members opposite have been continually asking what is in those laws. If the Leader of the Opposition will be quiet, I will tell him. Cabinet yesterday approved the development of new laws designed to break up criminal gangs. The Premier reported in the other place that the bill is in advanced stages of drafting. We are determined to get these laws right. The new laws will include new powers for police to apply to the Supreme Court for a declaration for up to three years that a gang is a "declared criminal organisation". Declared gang members who hold licences or registration certificates—

The Hon. Michael Veitch: Point of order: Mr President, I am unable to hear the Minister's very important response over the interjections of members opposite.

The PRESIDENT: Order! All members, including the Hon. Catherine Cusack, will cease interjecting.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Declared gang members who hold licences or registration certificates for high-risk industries could have those licences immediately revoked. We do not want members of outlaw motorcycle clubs running our pubs and clubs where they can sell their drugs and bash the patrons. We do not want them operating as tow truck drivers or vehicle smash repairers so they can run their stolen car re-birthing operations. We do not want them being pawnbrokers so they can buy their mates' stolen goods. And we certainly do not want them being security guards or having firearms licences.

We will also give police new organised crime search warrants to deal with gang crime. Organised crime search warrants, if granted by the Supreme Court, will be on the basis of reasonable suspicion, not reasonable belief as is the case with other search warrants. But because these criminals will commit their crimes at any time of the day or night, and because police investigations into organised crime are highly dynamic, police will be able to apply for organised crime search warrants by phone at any time of the day or night. These new warrants recognise that organised criminals act as a group and that evidence of a crime could be found at any of their premises or with any of their members. I am very pleased to hear that the Leader of the Opposition supports the Government's proposals, and I look forward to that support when the bill comes before the Parliament.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister for Health a question without notice. Is it a fact that Commissioner Peter Garling, as a result of his extensive inquiry into New South Wales hospitals, recommended the creation of a clinical innovative and enhancement agency and that the Government has accepted that recommendation? Is it a fact that this was the first of Commissioner Garling's four pillars to reform and empower clinicians and doctors who had been sidelined from hospital efficiency and management? When will the agency be established? What is the Minister's timetable to meet the urgent need for such an agency?

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I bet this one surprised you.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: All questions are a surprise to me; I have a very short memory. The Premier and I announced a series of health initiatives worth $485 million over four years to improve patient care and safety in the State's public hospital system. Caring Together: The Health Action Plan for New South Wales is the Government's response to the Garling report, the most wide-ranging inquiry ever undertaken into acute care services in New South Wales. The Government has accepted 134 of the 139 recommendations in the Garling report, including those referred to in the member's question. Yesterday's announcement was the first of three stages. The focus of Caring Together: The Health Action Plan for New South Wales is building on the great tradition of our health system and promoting a stronger culture where the care and treatment of the patient is at the centre of everything we do.

Clinicians have told us how to improve the safety and quality of care of patients, and we have listened. The Garling report showed that we must ensure patients not only get the best clinical treatment in our hospitals but also get the best care. While patients will continue to be admitted under the care of a senior and experienced doctor, the role of a senior nurse or midwife will be radically changed to focus on patient care rather than paperwork. These senior staff will be known as nurse-in-charge or midwife-in-charge and will play a greater role in clinical care by ensuring all staff, including doctors, nurses and allied health workers, are appropriately and effectively operating as a team focused on the patient. They will have the authority to act decisively in the best interests of the patient, ensuring safety, compassion and care.

One of the most important recommendations of Commissioner Garling is what he describes as the four pillars of reform. One of the pillars of reform, as Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has pointed out, is an agency, which we will guarantee and about which we have accepted the recommendations regarding statutory independence. The agency, which will comprise clinicians, will base its operations on the existing work of the various clinical networks currently operating within and alongside the health system. It will focus on continuous improvement and working with clinicians to continually improve both standards of care and clinical innovation.

One of the most important things about health care in New South Wales—and it is something that all of us in public affairs from time to time need to remind ourselves—is that in an agency like health the reason most people are involved can be attributed to two things which are not focused on in public debate. The first is the level of altruism. That is particularly true, I think, of many of the people in the health system. It is also true of other agencies within government, but it is certainly true of the health system. That is something I discovered during the time I spend going around to hospitals talking to the doctors, nurses, allied health workers and healthcare workers. Those of us in public affairs often undervalue that level of altruism, and often, sadly, the community undervalues it also. But it is something this response intends to value. The second thing—it is possibly an altruistic instinct as well, but obviously there is a level of self-interest—is that doctors, nurses and allied health workers are continually attracted to the public system in Australia. It is not unique across the world, but it is probably very close to being unique.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: In spite of this Government.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: No, you are wrong about that. They are attracted to the public system in Australia because of its excellence. Doctors, nurses and allied health workers, whether they are toilet cleaners or professors of medicine, want to work where things are excellent. They want to work with their mentors and peers to do the best they can with the best science. The pillars that the Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has talked about will reinforce that level of excellence. [Time expired.]

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Minister a supplementary question. Will the Minister indicate the timetable for the agencies? Will it take one month, six months or twelve months?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It certainly will not be six months. The Government hit the ground running yesterday. The recommendations around the formation of a statutory basis for all pillars of reform start today. Discussions with senior clinicians, and more generally throughout the system, have begun and will continue over the next few months. I would expect the new bodies to be active and to follow their mandates within a matter of months.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: "Months" is a long time! It is simple: 12 months is 12 months and 14 months is 14 months.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Hon. Michael Gallacher laughs and again demonstrates the Opposition's level of ignorance in the health debate. I should not blame him because he does not know much more about it than the shadow Minister for Health does. The agencies and networks that will deliver this reform—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Is 24 months a few months?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: No, it is not. A few months is more than two—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: How many? Four months? Six months? You said, "a few months".

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The member can continue to have a disorderly conversation with me across the table if he wishes, but I said a few months because everybody knows what a few months means. The discussions around the formulation of these bodies has commenced and will produce the results the Government has spoken about well before the sustainable health care plan is published in six months time.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. Why did the Deputy Police Commissioner decide not to activate the emergency response alert system last night to disseminate information to the public when the power outage occurred when on 23 December 2007 the Minister said in relation to the then newly installed emergency response loudspeakers:

Experience shows getting timely, accurate information to the community is crucial during an emergency and the speaker system throughout the CBD is one of the ways we will communicate with the public.

…

It is important people understand what is happening."

Please explain to the House why the Minister's statements are at odds with the decision of the Deputy Police Commissioner?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the Hon. Melinda Pavey for her question. Whilst Deputy Commissioner Dave Owens is a police officer, yesterday he was undertaking his duties under the Emergency Services Act as the State Emergency Operations Controller [SEOC], who is under the Minister for Emergency Services in the other place. However, I will make some comments on the issue. Yesterday, at approximately 4.40 p.m. a significant power outage occurred affecting the central business district [CBD], East Sydney and other inner eastern suburbs. EnergyAustralia advised last night that around 70,000 homes and businesses were affected during the afternoon peak. The New South Wales Government apologises to people who were inconvenienced by yesterday's blackout.

Geoff Lilliss, Acting Chief Executive Officer of EnergyAustralia, advised that this was a highly unusual fault because it affected both our normal supply as well as the backup. He further advised that the four 132,000 volt cables automatically shut down as a precaution—which is what they are supposed to do. Police, emergency services, EnergyAustralia and the Roads and Traffic Authority acted quickly. There was a plan in place and it was implemented. Last night the Roads and Traffic Authority's traffic management control alerted police that traffic lights across the central business district were out. Police responded soon after by deploying officers to around 14 major traffic lights at intersections within the central business district. The police traffic coordinator and the Roads and Traffic Authority moved speedily to implement the traffic management plan. Police and fire brigades also responded as quickly as they could to dozens of calls from people caught in lifts and trapped at intersections.

Around 5.20 p.m. Deputy Commissioner Dave Owens, acting as the State Emergency Operations Controller, issued an SMS message to 2,462 recipients—people who are building wardens across the central business district. Building wardens in buildings over three storeys high, from memory, who are responsible for disseminating information to the occupants of their buildings. From 5.06 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. various government agencies frequently issued statements to the public and to the media by way of interviews and by notices lodged on websites. These statements confirmed the power outage and that EnergyAustralia, police, fire brigades and the Roads and Traffic Authority were working to resolve these issues. For instance, at 5.06 p.m. the New South Wales Fire Brigade issued a statement on radio followed by half-hourly updates.

In events such as last night the police, the fire brigade, the Roads and Traffic Authority and emergency services rely on a range of communication channels. I understand that because of the loss of power 17 of the 49 speakers that make up the public address system of the Sydney emergency warning system in the central business district were last night inoperable. The Premier has made it clear that this is unacceptable. This morning he asked the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet to immediately review the capacity of the public address system in Sydney's central business district.

In addition, the Government is working on the development of a capability to provide landline and SMS messages to individuals and timely warnings to the general public in times of emergency. This is being discussed with the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments. I am advised that discussion on the development of an expanded SMS system is planned for the next Council of Australian Governments [COAG] meeting in April.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Health. What action is the Government taking to support and resource senior nurses in our public hospitals?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the Hon. Tony Catanzariti for his question. Members would be aware that the Government has announced a series of major health initiatives worth $485 million over four years to improve patient care and safety in the State's public hospitals. Caring Together: The Health Action Plan for New South Wales is the Government's response to the Garling report—the most wide-ranging inquiry into acute care services ever undertaken in New South Wales. The Government has accepted 134 of the 139 recommendations, and it is consulting further about another three. The action plan is the first of a three-stage response to ensure our excellent public health system can better respond to the challenges of a growing and ageing community.

Caring Together is the prescription of doctors, nurses, allied health personnel and the community. I met with clinicians and health staff around the State and 12,000 people provided me with their feedback about the Garling report recommendations. They told me to place the patient at the centre of everything hospitals do. They want nurses back on the ward nursing. The Government is investing in 500 clinical support officers to give senior nurses the opportunity to devote maximum attention to patients rather than to paperwork.

Each ward will now have a nurse in charge, or midwife in charge, and each ward will have a large sign or photograph displayed so that patients, families and clinicians know their point of contact for that ward. The nurse in charge will act decisively in the interests of patients and play a greater role in clinical care by ensuring all staff are operating effectively as a team and focused on the patient. They will ensure safe and compassionate care so staff recognise signs and respond immediately if a patient's condition deteriorates. They will supervise the work of more junior staff to improve patient safety and training in the workplace. They will also monitor hygiene practices to ensure ward cleanliness and high levels of infection control. The plan will include clinical initiative nurses for emergency departments, male and female wards where possible, more clinical pharmacists, executive medical directors in every major hospital and hospital network, and more specialists for outer metropolitan and rural areas.

[Interruption]

Members opposite should listen to this. In contrast, the Opposition's plan, and only plan, is to more than double the number of area health services—from 8 to 20. Its plan includes nothing for patients. The Opposition's plan is precisely what Commissioner Garling said we should not do. Commissioner Garling's recommendation 134 is crystal clear, but apparently Mr Barry O'Farrell and Mrs Jillian Skinner cannot understand it. He said:

I recommend that … there be no … alterations to the current area health service governance structure.

The Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Minister have ignored the most comprehensive review of health services in the history of this State. New South Wales used to have 17 areas, but we cut them back and directed those funds into services. That fact was recognised by the commissioner. We know exactly what it costs to run more areas. The Opposition's policy of 20 areas and 20 boards, even with honorary board members, will cost an extra $84 million every year. To allow each of them to run its own accounting, payroll and procurement operations—which area health services do—will not solve the creditor problem; it will cost an additional $26 million every year. The Opposition says that its policy does not come with any extra funding. It does not come with any extra services for patients either. That is $300 million that Jillian Skinner and Barry O'Farrell will spend on bureaucrats—20 area health services, 20 sets of support staff, 20 offices, 20 chief executives— [Time expired.]

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I will not tarry with the House's courtesies. The Opposition does not understand, it cannot count or it does not know what it is doing. It used to like playing political football, now it is scoring fiscal own goals. That is a fiscal own goal—$300 million in health funds going straight into the pockets of bureaucrats. That is Opposition policy. It does not have another policy. It does not have anything for patients or for doctors, nurses or allied health workers. It wants to put $300 million into bureaucracy. That is a great policy! The cost of Barry's bureaucracy and Jillian's own goal is worth 3,500 registered nurses. Instead, they want to spend it on more bureaucrats. Their plan is centred on bureaucracy, politics and populism. It is not about the patients. Our policy is about the patients and supporting and resourcing the doctors, nurses and allied health workers to do their job. Their policy is about paying people in suits a big salary. That is all their party has ever been about and all it will ever be about.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Mineral Resources. How has the Minister responded to community concerns about the proposed expansion of Barrick Gold's Lake Cowal goldmine to extract a further 53 million tonnes of ore from the open-cut pit, to increase Barrick Gold's water usage to over five gigalitres per year and to add another 11 years to the life of the mine? Has his department undertaken any long-term analysis of the Lake Cowal goldmine to compare the benefits of the mine to the negative costs of the mine on the water levels in drought-stricken central western New South Wales, on landholders who depend on that water to continue farming, and on the surrounding ecosystem, which is home to tens of thousands of migratory birds and which has special significance to the Wiradjuri people of the area? If so, will he make his analysis publicly available?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I understand that Barrick Gold has an expansion plan that will secure the many jobs—I believe 200 to 300—associated with its mine. Barrick Gold is a very significant local employer. Those jobs are critical to the local community, particularly in this time of global financial crisis. Even Malcolm Turnbull recently backed jobs, jobs, jobs.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: He will need a job soon.

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: He might be looking for a job soon, that's for sure. Any expansion plans for the mine will have to go through the appropriate planning processes. I am sure that the issues raised by Ms Lee Rhiannon will be properly dealt with within the framework of the very stringent planning laws of our State. I am sure that Barrick Gold will pay attention to and propose the appropriate mitigation of any issues that may impact the environment. I understand that in the past Barrick Gold has bought water on the market. As the member would know, mining across our State uses about 62 gigalitres litres of water annually compared to around 6,000 gigalitres used for consumption purposes—industrial, town supply and all the other uses. So mining uses of the order of 1 per cent of all water used in New South Wales. The member is scaremongering. Barrick Gold has solid support within the community, and I am sure the environmental issues the member has raised will be attended to in the appropriate way and that scientific-based reports and assessments will be duly considered in the context of any expansion.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Health. Last week in answer to a question the Minister told the Chamber, "Surgical services could not continue indefinitely at the Bulli Hospital site." Will the Minister confirm that cutting orthopaedic and ophthalmic surgery from Bulli Hospital is the beginning of his plan to axe all surgical services from the hospital? Why did he axe orthopaedic and ophthalmic surgery from Bulli Hospital before conducting the statewide hospital review that he recently announced? Is a decision to axe the surgery from Bulli Hospital before the statewide hospital review indicative of his plan to close Bulli Hospital regardless of the outcomes of the review?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The Opposition has given up political football and own goals and now it is into scare tactics. There is no intention to close Bulli Hospital. Bulli Hospital currently performs low-risk, primarily day-only elective surgery in a number of specialities. Late last year the Parliamentary Secretary for Health, Dr Andrew McDonald, reviewed the area's plans for the coordination and consolidation of surgical services at Bulli Hospital. Dr McDonald looked at the issue in detail and noted in his findings that elective surgery needs to be consolidated across the Illawarra region and that surgical services could not continue indefinitely at the Bulli Hospital site. After consultation with local doctors it was agreed that ear, nose and throat day surgery procedures would continue at Bulli Hospital and that orthopaedic and ophthalmic surgery would be transferred to Shellharbour Hospital. Surgical services across the Illawarra's southern hospital network will be maintained as a result of these recently announced changes. There will be no impact on our patients, and there will be no impact on surgical waiting lists. There will be a more efficient use of our valuable health resources. Bulli Hospital plays an important role in providing health care for the community of the Illawarra. I reiterate my opening remark: There is no intention to close Bulli Hospital.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Corrective Services. What action is the Government taking to provide chaplaincy support in New South Wales prisons?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: The successful rehabilitation of prisoners involves many different factors, such as the provision of educational and vocational training and drug and alcohol programs. In addition to these initiatives, it is important that the Department of Corrective Services makes provision for the spiritual and moral wellbeing of inmates. I am sure that members of the House would acknowledge the amazing men and women who work in prisons as chaplains. Indeed, chaplains provide support for not only inmates but also other people within the correctional system, such as staff and their families. Chaplains work in correctional centres across the State, with 34 full-time chaplains, and 46 voluntary chaplains currently providing pastoral care for inmates and staff. Chaplains have been appointed for the various Christian faith denominations, as well as for the Islamic, Buddhist and Jewish faiths.

Chaplains provide a range of support services, including assistance to inmates to help them adjust to correctional centre life, pastoral care to inmates and staff, counselling and general support, and conducting worship services within correctional centres. The Department of Corrective Services ensures that correctional centres offer a wide range of worship experiences with services conducted at least fortnightly. Services are conducted at least weekly in major correctional centres. For example, in 2007 more than 1,000 inmates attended a service of worship each week.

Chaplains have also actively promoted the need for support for offenders in the community by speaking at churches, community groups and service clubs. Today I inform the House of an important chaplaincy program that has been established by the Department of Corrective Services. In March 2008 a three-year community chaplaincy pilot was launched. The pilot, which operates in the lower Hunter Valley and is entitled the Home for Good Program, aims to successfully integrate offenders into society and give them a new start on their release from prison. Under the program, chaplains case manage offenders not only in isolation but with their families, providing them with a broad range of support services. Volunteers in the program also work with community offender services staff and personnel from support agencies such as the Salvation Army, Mission Australia and the Community Restorative Centre. Such a coordinated program involving a range of agencies is, hopefully, the type of targeted approach that will result in successful rehabilitation.

The Home for Good Program has been working with offenders who have just been released from prison and have settled in the Hunter region. The program's headquarters, based at the Uniting Church at Broadmeadow near Newcastle, also serves as a drop-in centre for offenders and their families. The people involved in the program are committed to helping these inmates turn their lives around and giving them an opportunity to contribute positively to the community in the future. The program has been established for an initial period of three years, and its outcomes will be fully reviewed at the expiration of that time. If this review highlights that the program is fulfilling its objectives, the Department of Corrective Services will look to rollout the program to other areas across the State.

These developments build on Labor's long commitment to enabling such services to be provided within the New South Wales corrections system. In November 2001 the then Minister for Corrective Services, the Hon. John Watkins, moved to acknowledge the important work of chaplains in prison in a memorandum of understanding agreed to between the Department of Corrective Services and the Civil Chaplaincies Advisory Committee. This emphasised the independent role played by chaplains within the prison system, which the Government takes seriously. That is why we have properly acknowledged the role of chaplains through the Crimes (Administration and Sentences) Regulation 2008, and this allows for the spiritual wealth of inmates with the provision of chapels and accredited chaplaincy services endorsed by the Civil Chaplaincies Advisory Committee in all correctional centres.

Mr IAN COHEN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of the book Good Health in the 21st Century by Dr Carole Hungerford, a doctor from Bathurst, in which she argues that prevention of disease begins with soils capable of growing nutrient rich food and food chains that carry the nutrients to consumers? Dr Hungerford claims that modern farming practices and depleted soils contribute to immune system compromise and she argues that healthy farming practices could cut the health budget by as much as 70 per cent. Has the Minister discussed the issue of healthy soils and healthy food production with the Minister for Primary Industries? Would the Minister for Health agree that farming practices and food processing could be developed with the intention of creating a preventative health model to avert the many diseases ravaging the health of the people of New South Wales and clogging up the health system?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the member very much for his question, the intent of which is to open up for consideration the issue of better preventative health and its impact on the health budget. I appreciate the member's interest in such an important matter. I do not dispute the science behind his question, but I am not qualified to judge it based on what he has put to the House so far. It is said that we are what we eat, and I suppose the things we eat used to be soil so it would seem to make some inherent sense.

Mr Ian Cohen makes the point that we need to encourage people to follow much healthier diets and to pursue a healthier lifestyle, and that affects a variety of industries. I am not aware of the publication he referred to in his question and I do not know of Dr Hungerford. I undertake to find out a bit more about Dr Hungerford and either come back and report to the House on the matter or talk to Mr Ian Cohen privately to see if we can utilise any of these otherwise excellent ideas.

The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Further to my recent question about maternity services at Murwillumbah hospital, does the Minister understand that the subsequent announcement by the North Coast Area Health Service to downgrade the services has worsened an already difficult situation? Is the Minister aware that local doctors have called for the Federal Government to take over New South Wales public hospitals? Can the Minister explain why he did not provide an opportunity for local doctors to speak with him before the announcement was made by the area health service? Is the Murwillumbah hospital a victim of the Minister's decision to defer until stage two the Government's response to Mr Garling's recommendations on maternity services? Will the Minister please agree to the request from the Murwillumbah doctors to meet with them, and will he do that as quickly as possible?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the member for her very good question. I have attempted to make it a hallmark of my approach to the Health portfolio to meet doctors and nurses in their situations as required. I certainly have not declined a meeting with the Murwillumbah doctors and I will be happy to meet with them. Customarily, and I believe very sensibly, it is not the best approach for a Minister to impose ministerial political decisions on clinical practice, especially when it is clinical practice obviously affecting the safety of mothers and babies. One of the issues in the Garling report that the member refers to relates to maternity services and we have referred that issue for further consultation.

Maternity services are very important to the community, and there are many issues in regard to maternity-related services where there have been changes in clinical practices. I believe many of those changes are positive changes that are very much supported by the community; for example, there is almost a consensus not only among midwives and obstetricians but among many people in the community that more birthing services can be provided by midwives. However, it is important to note—and clinicians have made this observation when attempting to explain obstetrics to a layperson such as myself—that one in 500 births will require high-level obstetric intervention with the assistance of an anaesthetist and obstetric specialists. Therefore, although from both the mother's and the baby's point of view a midwife can very safely and satisfactorily deliver babies, policymakers must ensure that the clinical specialists—the midwives, the obstetricians and the hospital system—can identify those mothers and babies who may or will require high-level obstetric intervention.

That is one of the fundamental problems we are grappling with and why I have referred those aspects of Commissioner Garling's recommendations relating to maternity services for further consultation. We will not be mucking around with it; it is very important that we make sure that this issue is addressed properly because it is a critical area of service over which the community is very appropriately and keenly sensitised. A considerable amount of great work is going on in NSW Health between obstetricians and midwives to develop models of care that are appropriate, safe for patients and sustainable within the system, and I want to ensure that they can be delivered in a way that has satisfactory outcomes. Of course, we are actively working through advice that we get from time to time about individual services. The Murwillumbah service has caused some degree of local concern, but concerns have been expressed also in other services, and when we have made changes to those services similar to those at Murwillumbah the patient satisfaction has been overwhelming. [Time expired.]

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: I direct my question to the Minister for Health. Will the Minister tell the House what action the Government has taken to better resource our hospital emergency departments?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: One of the biggest challenges faced by our public hospitals is the increasing number of people requiring admission. A number of hospitals have introduced clinical initiative nurses in their emergency departments to improve and fast-track patient care. Those appointments have been so successful that as part of the New South Wales Government's "Caring Together: The Health Action Plan for NSW"—its response to the Garling report—it is expanding these positions to all major metropolitan and regional hospitals. It has agreed to do that, with a further 30 clinical initiative nurses to be appointed at a cost of almost $15 million over four years. The new clinical initiative nurses will improve communication with patients and their families in the waiting room. They can organise an X-ray so the results are available when the patient is seen by a doctor and organise pain relief or a reassessment of priority for a patient if their condition changes while waiting. The result is a reduction in waiting times for patients in the emergency department. Patients are able to get treatment started with minimal delays and are also kept informed and comfortable while waiting for further treatment and review.

In addition, new protocols will also fast-track patients from the emergency department into the wards. Traditionally, a patient cannot be taken to a hospital ward until a specialist has accepted the patient into their care and responsibility. Commissioner Garling recommended that when a patient has been assessed as ready for admission, the medical officer in charge of the emergency department should be able to arrange it. A number of hospitals have developed local protocols, and they are working well. It is now time to expand this arrangement, and this measure is consistent with Commissioner Garling's recommendations. It will occur with the help of the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation and the Emergency Care Taskforce.

This initiative is being driven by the doctors themselves; this is their prescription. I thank them for their innovative and productive approach. There is tremendous cooperation among these professional groups and a determination to ensure that we achieve consistency as a State, with each hospital agreeing on protocols so this improvement can be implemented smoothly and safely. The focus of the New South Wales Government's Caring Together health action plan is to promote a culture in hospitals whereby the care and treatment of the patient is at the centre of everything we do. As the Garling report points out, New South Wales has one of the better public health care systems in the developed world, but we need to meet the challenges of the future, including a growing and ageing population. This Government is taking action. It is providing more money for doctors and nurses—the front-line staff—to do their great work even better. In contrast, the Opposition's plan is to more than double the number of area health services from 8 to 20.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Here we go again!

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Members opposite will hear it a lot. They have not even done the numbers on the back of an envelope. How many more clinical initiative nurses they could have, and how much faster, more efficiently and safely they could get people through emergency departments if they were not wasting $300 million on more bureaucrats.

If honourable members have further questions, I suggest they place them on notice.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: On Thursday 26 March the Hon. David Clarke—in between stitching up deals in Sutherland with his mate the Hon. Marie Ficarra—asked me a question without notice about the Quakers Hill police station. The New South Wales Police Force has advised me that the claims in the member's question were wrong. Members of the Opposition should check their facts before jumping to their feet. I am advised that an officer was on duty at the times stated at Quakers Hill police station on 26 March.

Questions without notice concluded.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio tabled, on behalf of the Chair, a report entitled "Legislation Review Digest No. 4 of 2009", dated 31 March 2009.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Amanda Fazio.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, on behalf of the Chair, tabled Report No. 6/54, entitled "Review of the 2007-08 Annual Report of the Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption: Incorporating the Transcript of Evidence, Indicative Questions Taken on Notice and Minutes of Proceedings", dated March 2009.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, on behalf of the Chair, also tabled Report No. 7/54, entitled "Review of special reports tabled in 2008 by the Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption: Incorporating the Transcript of Evidence, Indicative Questions Taken on Notice and Minutes of Proceedings", dated March 2009.

Ordered to be printed on motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.06 p.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the reports.

Report No. 6/54 deals with a number of matters. Of particular interest is the issue of corrupt conduct that retiring inspector Mr Graham Kelly raised with the committee and in his report. The former inspector argued that if the definition were to be amended, the commission's resources could be better directed to enable it to focus on serious and systematic corruption. Mr Kelly proposed a more stringent initial test for complaints to minimise the number of trivial and unsubstantiated complaints that the commission receives and assesses. The committee will investigate that issue further. The committee also intends to conduct a review of the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 2009. Those reviews will provide the committee with an opportunity to examine some of these issues in greater detail.

Report No. 7/54 raises a number of very important matters that affect members of this House. Part 1 of the report addresses the issues raised by the Breen report. Members will remember the matters affecting the Hon. Peter Breen, MLC. They are addressed in two sections of the report. The committee will follow up some of those matters. Section B of part 1 addresses issues arising out of the Breen report in relation to the Independent Commission Against Corruption—namely, the commission's handling of parliamentary privilege, the commission's application for a search warrant in the Breen investigation, and its matrix management structure. The committee has spent a great deal of time investigating these matters. I commend the reports because some of these matters obviously affect members of this House.

Debate adjourned on motion by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Bills received from the Legislative Assembly.

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

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

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

Message received from the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the Legislative Council's amendment.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Police, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [5.07 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

This bill marks another important step forward in our strategy to promote renewable biofuels in New South Wales.

The Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Act 2007 introduced the first mandate of its kind in Australia, and fulfilled a commitment in February 2007 that a re-elected Labor Government would introduce a mandate requiring 2 per cent of the total volume of sales of petrol in New South Wales to be ethanol.

That 2 per cent mandate has been successfully implemented. Between the commencement of the mandate in October 2007 and December 2008, over one billion litres of E10 was sold in New South Wales.

This bill now delivers on the second part of our election promise—that the 2 per cent mandate was the first step towards a 10 per cent ethanol mandate by 2011.

However, to retain the option of ethanol-free petrol for older vehicles, boats, ultralight aircraft and small engines that may not be able to use ethanol-blend fuel, the 10 per cent mandate will apply only to regular grade unleaded petrol, commonly known as ULP.

I am pleased to advise that BP has recently confirmed that it guarantees its E10 petrol for use in any vehicle manufactured post-1986, that has been designed for ULP, irrespective of the vehicle manufacturer's recommendation regarding ethanol content. BP are to be congratulated for so clearly demonstrating its confidence in its ethanol-blend petrol.

Premium grade unleaded petrol of 95 RON or higher will continue to be available without ethanol for those who cannot use it.

This will mean a small additional cost per litre for some users, but just like those who use E10, motorists who change to premium unleaded petrol will enjoy a higher octane, cleaner burning fuel.

This bill goes beyond that commitment to ethanol and introduces, again for the first time in Australia, a biodiesel mandate.

Just as Henry Ford's T Models were designed to run on ethanol, Rudolf Diesel demonstrated his new compression ignition engine at the World Exhibition in Paris running on peanut oil. In 1911 he wrote:

The engine can be fed with vegetable oils and would help considerably in the development of agriculture in the countries that use it.

The biodiesel mandate will be initially set at 2 per cent, but will be increased to 5 per cent in 2012. 5 per cent is the maximum biodiesel content currently covered by most vehicle warranties, and the Federal Government has recently amended the diesel fuel standard to permit up to 5 percent biodiesel in all diesel fuel.

The global economic crisis has taken some of the attention away from some of the important issues that our biofuels mandates are designed to address peak oil ongoing instability in the Middle East and the importance of energy security.

We have recently seen the price of oil fall dramatically, but that fall is certain to be short-lived. The impact of the crisis on the development of further difficult-to-extract oil reserves will last longer, and will mean the next oil rice shock will be even higher.

The temporary low price of oil makes it even more important that farsighted governments support the development of alternative fuels now, to ensure fuel security in the future.

This bill is another example of the foresight of the Rees Government, looking beyond the present low oil price and criticism that current first generation biofuels may be less than perfect.

We recognise that the establishment of a sustainable first generation base now will provide us with the essential base from which to develop a vibrant second generation renewable fuel industry.

The level of first generation biofuels that we are now mandating will be sustainable in the future, because it is all integrated with food production. The primary feedstock at Manildra's Nowra ethanol plant is waste starch from its gluten plant.

The primary feedstocks at Biodiesel Industries Australia's plant in the Hunter Valley are waste cooking oil and tallow.

The proposed National Biofuels Group soy plant at Port Kembla will produce not only biodiesel, but also soy meal to replace the hundreds of thousands of tonnes that are imported annually for poultry food.

The Dalby Biorefinery that recently opened in Queensland uses sorghum to produce ethanol and high-protein distillers grain livestock food.

The distiller's grain is so valuable as a livestock food that the production was all presold even before the ethanol was.

This shows how biofuels plants are often integrated with food production.

Benefits of ethanol

There are a number of benefits that can flow from a greater uptake of biofuels.

1—Regional development

A number of proposed biofuel plants are currently on the drawing board across the State, although the ability of companies to deliver projects has been impeded by the global economic crisis. This bill demonstrates our commitment to the New South Wales biofuels industry, and will assist these projects to secure funding.

Biofuels production facilities in regional New South Wales will support hundreds of jobs. Second generation biofuels will add enormous value to regional agriculture and forestry industries, and algae have the potential to capture the carbon dioxide emitted by coal-fired power stations, while producing high quality biodiesel and stock food.

First generation biofuels provide new, stable domestic grain markets for farmers and produce high-quality stock food for the livestock, poultry, and aquaculture industries. With the development of second generation technologies, new energy crops will offer sustainable agricultural potential in marginal farmlands.

This is yet another example of the Rees Government's commitment to generate jobs in the regions and country areas.

2—Environment

Replacing all ULP with E10 will reduce the total greenhouse emissions from all petrol engine vehicles by about 2 per cent. Replacing 5 per cent of our diesel with biodiesel could reduce the total greenhouse emissions from diesel fuelled vehicles by around 1.3 per cent. The proposed mandates will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 450,000 tonnes per year, equivalent to taking 1900 buses and trucks, and 77,000 light vehicles off the road.

Biofuels burn cleaner than petroleum fuels, reducing toxic emissions, especially carbon monoxide and particulates. Fine particles are a major cause of illness and death and are responsible for 97 per cent of the health impacts of emissions from vehicles.

Federal Government trials have recently demonstrated that E10 petrol will reduce fine particle emissions from petrol-engine vehicles by 33 per cent. B5 biodiesel will reduce particle emissions from diesel-engine vehicles by 4 per cent. These reductions will produce health benefits of approximately of $22 million per annum in the Sydney basin.

3—Price of petrol

Throughout last year's petrol price peak, motorists enjoyed savings of about 3 cents per litre on the price of E1 0 relative to unleaded petrol.

Not only did motorists using E 10 enjoy lower prices, but I am pleased today to advise the House that the competition from E10 seems also to have forced down the price of regular unleaded. Before the commencement of the ethanol mandate in 2007, Sydney had the highest average unleaded petrol price of any State capital, about two and a half cents per litre higher than the average of the other mainland capitals.

Now, our prices have fallen to be cheaper than either Melbourne or Adelaide. Our prices have fallen by 2 cents per litre compared to the average.

Even at the current low oil price, E10 remains 2 to 3 cents a litre cheaper than unleaded petrol.

4—Balance of Payments and Energy Security issues

We need domestically produced fuel to improve our Balance of Payments and increase our energy security. Local oil reserves are falling, and the price of imported fuel is likely return to even higher levels.

Locally produced, sustainable biofuels are an important way of addressing these issues.

The ethanol we have used since the start of the mandate has saved importing about 100 million litres of petrol. ,

This bill establishes an optimal level of sustainable first generation biofuels production in New South Wales. E10 petrol and 85 biodiesel are also the optimal levels that can be used in the current vehicle fleet.

I turn now to the Mechanism of Legislation.

The legislation builds on the successful implementation of the initial 2 percent ethanol mandate. It increases the volumetric mandate progressively to 4 per cent and then 6 percent in the next two years, phasing out regular grade unleaded petrol from July 2011.

The legislation expands the mandate to include biodiesel, again at an initial 2 per cent level, but increasing to 5 per cent as supplies are available.

These mandate levels are optimal, but this legislation is flexible enough to react to changing economic and environmental conditions.

In particular, the global economic crisis makes the availability of finance and the timing of new development, including biofuels production uncertain. The legislation continues to provide for the suspension of the mandate if the available supplies of biofuels or feedstocks are inadequate or uneconomic. This situation will be closely monitored.

The Expert Panel was established in 2007. The bill will expand membership to include a representative from the Treasury.

The Expert Panel will continue to advise the Minister on whether or not the there is any need to suspend the provisions in whole or in part, and whether exemptions should be granted to individual companies.

It will continue to take into account the widest possible range of considerations before it makes any recommendation to the Minister.

To be eligible to be counted under the mandate, the biofuels will be required to comply with a sustainability standard. The details of the sustainability standards will be promulgated in the Regulations to permit them to be kept up to date with emerging requirements.

The sustainability of domestic biofuels plants is assessed during the environmental assessment processes. Domestic producers operating in accordance with the conditions of their approval and environmental licences will be considered sustainable.

Other countries may not apply the same rigorous environmental protections. Imported biofuels will be required to be certified as sustainable in accordance with international standards.

Under the current wholesale mandate, the major retailers in the State have not been bound to comply. This legislation will broaden the application of the Act to include major retailers controlling more than 20 service stations.

The regulatory system remains as simple as possible, with only primary wholesalers and major retailers, collectively known as volume sellers, required to submit returns to the Government in respect of the volumetric mandates. However, the phase out of regular unleaded petrol in July 2011 will impact all retailers. Exemptions will be available for small businesses that suffer hardship, and for marinas that supply petrol for boats.

The Government's biofuel strategy is both short and long term.

In the short term, we are establishing a sustainable first generation renewable fuel industry right here in New South Wales. We are leading the nation, we are doing something now for the environment, and we are delivering cheaper fuel for New South Wales motorists.

We have positioned New South Wales to lead the development of second generation biofuels in this country.

Through the Office of Biofuels and Departments such as State and Regional Development, Primary Industries, and Environment and Climate Change, we continue to work with stakeholders in the industry developing proposals for sustainable production using current technology, as well as pursuing new technologies and feedstocks.

We will develop a ten-year Biofuels Strategy to pursue second and subsequent generation technologies, and will review the strategy every three years to ensure that it remains abreast of current developments and global conditions.

In conclusion The Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Bill 2007 led the nation towards renewable transport fuels.

The Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Amendment Bill 2009 builds on what we have achieved since 2007, takes us to the optimal level of biofuels for the current vehicle fleet and commercial biofuels technologies, and positions us to lead the development and application of emerging technologies.

The mandate sends a very strong signal to motorists, investors and the fuel industry that the Rees Government is committed to a renewable fuels future.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [5.08 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Amendment Bill 2009. The bill provides for increases to the mandated minimum ethanol content for total petrol sales in New South Wales; makes provision for a mandated minimum biodiesel content for total diesel fuel sales in New South Wales; provides that such mandates will apply to major retailers, in addition to primary wholesalers, of petrol and diesel fuel; and provides that from July 2011 regular unleaded petrol sold in New South Wales by primary wholesalers must contain 10 per cent ethanol.

As I indicated, The Nationals have long been supporters of increasing the use of biofuels in New South Wales. We will not oppose the bill, although we see it has some flaws—which I will explore a little later. The bill aims to triple New South Wales volumetric ethanol mandate to 6 per cent in January 2010, with the phasing out of regular unleaded petrol by July 2011, and also to introduce a 2 per cent volumetric biodiesel mandate, which will rise to some 5 per cent in 2012, when and if supply is available.

A 10 per cent ethanol blend in fuel is said to result in cleaner air, fewer greenhouse gases and fewer respiratory illnesses, and it will also be a stimulus for industry in regional areas. New South Wales has a great capacity to produce ethanol and biodiesel via crops such as wheat, sorghum, corn, sugar and canola. Some of the issues that have surrounded the ethanol debate in New South Wales include concerns expressed by livestock producers that using grain for fuel will make it more difficult for them to access grain. Of course, the other side of that story is that it will put a floor price on the price of grain in New South Wales, and that is something all the industries involved would welcome.

The development of the industry in New South Wales will help to secure markets for farmers in relation to grain prices and will create jobs in rural and regional parts of New South Wales. That is something The Nationals are very focussed on. Biofuels produce less fossil-based carbon dioxide than conventional fossil fuels as they burn cleaner and, in the case of ethanol, produce water as one of the by-products because it is an alcohol-based rather than a petroleum-based product. The Opposition's freedom of information request found that the Government has not yet appointed one investigator, commenced one investigation or served one penalty notice under the existing Act. Parts of this bill will increase compliance requirements on the ethanol industry.

Some of the concerns we have regarding the Government's legislation relate to the cost of tank conversions, which could result in many small country operators closing down. These operators do not sell large volumes of fuel so their capacity to cope with the increased costs is less than the service stations with larger markets. The New South Wales Farmers Association is highly supportive of ethanol but is not supportive of the mandatory percentage targets. Consistency and security of the supply of ethanol is required. If there is a problem with the supply of grain for its primary milling operations, the waste starch product from which a company makes ethanol may not be available in the quantities the company is seeking to meet the mandated level. The industry also argues that current consumer demand for ethanol is not what would be required in order to meet the mandates. Until such time as that demand is there, the producers will not produce it. The Federal Government is currently undertaking a review of the biofuel rebate on excise. The industry believes if the volume of ethanol sold in New South Wales is increased substantially, as proposed by this legislation, it may not be able to maintain the level of fuel excise rebate because of the precarious state of the Federal budget.

I will expand a little on the issue of grain usage and look at some figures from an Australia-wide perspective. Australia uses about 900,000 barrels of oil each day. With about 158.97 litres in each barrel, that means 143 million litres, in round figures, of fuel is used each day in Australia. If we want a 10 per cent ethanol mandate—and 10 per cent of 143 million is 14.3 million—we would require 14.3 million litres of ethanol each day. If one tonne of wheat produces 340 litres of ethanol, we would need 42,000 tonnes of wheat to produce 14.3 million litres of ethanol each day. That equates to some 15.3 million tonnes of wheat each year. I understand that total ethanol production will come not only from the wheat crop but also from a number of other crops—and there are opportunities to produce ethanol from sugarcane and waste starch products as well. I am speaking in round figures, but it gives members an idea of the quantum of starch needed to produce 14.3 million litres of ethanol each day, as required for a 10 per cent mandate.

In relation to the stockfeed industry, the by-product of ethanol production is high-protein feed meal. The ethanol production process removes the carbohydrate fraction from the grain and leaves the protein, which is what the stockfeed industry is after more so than the carbohydrate. So the impact on the livestock industry may not be as great as some people suggest. I suspect that underpinning the price of grain will also underpin the production of livestock in the form of the high-protein feed meal that will come out of the plants. I believe it is a win-win situation for both the livestock industry and the fuel industry. So, despite our few concerns about the bill, we believe that biofuel is a good product so we will not oppose the bill.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [5.16 p.m.]: I support the Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Amendment Bill 2009. The Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Act 2007 introduced the first biofuel mandate in Australia. In December 2008 the Premier announced the Government's intention to increase the ethanol mandate from 2 per cent to 6 per cent. The 2 per cent ethanol mandate has been a great success and more than 20 per cent of all petrol sold in New South Wales right now is E10. E10 has been embraced by motorists and endorsed by the NRMA. It is increasingly available at petrol pumps around the State. December also marked an encouraging milestone: the sale of the one-billionth litre of ethanol-blended petrol in New South Wales since the Government introduced the mandate. The one-billionth litre mandate milestone was achieved in less than 15 months—a great tribute both to the industry for getting behind the mandate and to motorists for embracing a greener fuel option.

Building on that success, the Rees Government will triple the ethanol fuel mandate from 2 per cent to 6 per cent by the end of 2010. This will start with a 4 per cent mandate by the end of this year. Under our biofuel strategy we will also mandate for a 10 per cent ethanol blend in all regular-grade unleaded petrol by 1 July 2011, and will introduce a biodiesel mandate of 2 per cent, rising to 5 per cent if supply is available. These measures will strengthen the New South Wales economy and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. The biofuel mandates deliver on our commitment to building a long-term sustainable biofuel industry in New South Wales, generating investment and jobs in regional areas. Biofuels are clean, green and can be made right here in Australia. These new mandates will help to drive the State's biofuels industries and encourage more use of environmentally friendly, cheaper and locally made fuels. The biofuels mandates will also be expanded to include major retailers as well as primary wholesalers. The biofuels strategy produces winners all round—our farmers, our environment, motorists, business, workers and local communities.

For example, the Manildra ethanol plant employs around 250 people and produces enough ethanol to supply the current 2 per cent mandate. The plant also sustains the employment of many others in the Nowra region. The recently approved expansion will create 25 new permanent, full-time jobs and up to 150 construction jobs. A number of other projects are currently under consideration in regional areas and the Government expects that at least two will come to fruition, creating several hundred more jobs. This is a fantastic example of the multiple benefits of the ethanol mandate. Replacing all regular-grade unleaded petrol with E10 will reduce the total greenhouse emissions from all petrol-engine vehicles by about 330,000 tonnes of CO₂ per year. Replacing 5 per cent of our diesel with biodiesel could reduce the total greenhouse emissions from diesel-fuelled vehicles by another 150,000 tonnes of CO₂ per year. That is the combined equivalent of taking 1,900 buses and trucks and 77,000 light vehicles off the road.

Since the commencement of the mandate, the one billion litres of E10 used in New South Wales have saved 59,000 tonnes of CO₂ emissions, saved $5 million in health costs due to particle pollution, saved motorists $5 million in fuel costs, and saved importing $56 million worth of petrol. The New South Wales Government's new mandate legislation will require 10 per cent ethanol in only regular-grade unleaded petrol from 1 July 2011. Ethanol-blend petrol is suitable for most cars manufactured since 1986. Ethanol-free premium unleaded petrol will remain available for older vehicles, boats and other users who cannot use E10. Australia must accept the choice of moving forward with biofuel production and following the path to liquid transport fuel security and sustainability. Twenty years from now we may be able to replace a large proportion of imported oil with a home-grown product, generating thousands of jobs, millions in tax revenue and billions of dollars in investment. By encouraging our local biofuels industry and encouraging investment in local research, we will put New South Wales ahead of the game and ahead of the inevitable future petroleum crisis.

The bill widens our commitment to renewable fuels by introducing, again for the first time in Australia, a biodiesel mandate. Biodiesel has proven air-quality and greenhouse benefits. It reduces fine particle emissions, which are the major source of health problems from vehicle exhausts. The addition of biodiesel also improves the performance of diesel fuel, replacing the sulphur content and enabling other more effective anti-pollution measures. Biodiesel blends are widely used in Europe, including in the small, high-performance diesel engines that are now becoming more common in cars in Australia.

Both these biofuels are important to the economic wellbeing and development of regional New South Wales. The biofuels developments planned for the Illawarra and South Coast deliver regional expansion and jobs, increased fuel security, lower fuel prices for motorists, improved air quality in our cities and fewer greenhouse emissions—and they do it in a way that is sustainable and does not compete with food requirements. Manildra's Nowra plant is part of an integrated grain processing facility that produces gluten, starch, glucose and liquid carbon dioxide, as well as ethanol for fuel, and industrial and beverage use.

The proposed National Biofuels Group soy processing plant at Port Kembla will produce not only biodiesel but also soy meal to replace the hundreds of thousands of tonnes that are imported annually for poultry and pig food. All other plants that are currently being considered for development in New South Wales integrate food and fuel production to derive the maximum benefit from the feedstocks used. A number of other biofuel plants are proposed across the State. Their ability to raise equity and debt finance is severely affected by the current global economic situation. The bill demonstrates clearly our commitment to the New South Wales biofuel industry and will greatly assist these projects in securing funding.

The Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Amendment Bill 2009 builds on what we have achieved since 2007. The announcement of this policy in December already underwrites the expansion of Manildra's Nowra plant and the development of the major National Biodiesel plant at Port Kembla. These are real projects that are generating real, long-term and sustainable jobs. They are jobs that replace fossil fuel imports with cleaner, greener, locally made alternatives. We are positioning New South Wales to lead the development of second-generation biofuels in this country. Through the Office of Biofuels and departments such as State and Regional Development, Primary Industries, and Environment and Climate Change, we continue to work with stakeholders in the industry, developing proposals for sustainable production using current technology as well as pursuing new technologies and feedstocks.

The New South Wales Government already funds research into cellulosic ethanol technologies at a number of tertiary institutions in the State. These technologies will permit any plant matter—agricultural and forestry residues and even municipal green waste—to be converted into ethanol. We have assisted Ethanol Technologies Ltd to establish a cellulosic ethanol pilot plant at Harwood on the North Coast. We are working with Southern Cross University at Lismore to develop a cooperative research centre for bioenergy. We are assisting a number of companies to investigate sites adjacent to coal-fired power stations where there is potential to capture the carbon dioxide emissions and use them to grow algae for biodiesel and aviation fuel. This technology has the potential to capture the carbon dioxide emissions at one-tenth the cost of geosequestration.

We will develop a 10-year biofuel strategy to continue to pursue the second and subsequent generation technologies and will review the strategy every three years to ensure that it remains abreast of current developments and global conditions. The Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Amendment Bill 2009 continues the progress that the Rees Government has made since 2007 by delivering on the 2 per cent mandate and the first-generation biofuels technologies, while positioning us to lead the development of second-generation biofuels technologies and feedstocks. I support the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.28 p.m.]: On behalf of Christian Democratic Party I am pleased to support the biofuels strategy, the Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Amendment Bill 2009. The Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Act 2007 will be amended to increase the volumetric ethanol mandate to 4 per cent by the end of 2009 and 6 per cent by the end of 2010. It will require all regular-grade unleaded petrol to be blended with 10 per cent ethanol by 1 July 2011 and will introduce a volumetric biodiesel mandate, commencing at 2 per cent and rising to 5 per cent, as supply is available. Together with other speakers, I congratulate the Government on this initiative. Other speakers have referred to the Manildra plant, which produces ethanol. As I live near Nowra I am aware of the importance of the industry to the Nowra community in providing jobs. Obviously, the Manildra plant will provide subsequent benefits to that community, given its more than 250 employees and new jobs to be created through the expansion of the plant.

I note that the Sydney Morning Herald ran an article questioning the enthusiasm of the fuel companies in supporting the Government's plan, and raising the need to carefully monitor what the fuel companies are doing. It is one thing to have the mandatory targets, but if the fuel companies do not cooperate the targets will not be met. According to the article, which is based on material obtained under freedom of information legislation, not one fuel company had met the Government's mandatory target of 2 per cent of all petrol being ethanol blended by the end of last year. The article goes on to report that more than a year after oil companies were supposed to meet the 2 per cent target no company had achieved it. Further, the article states that Mobil's total petrol sales were 1.85 per cent ethanol by September 2008, up from 1.2 per cent in the previous quarter. The figure for Shell was 1.67 per cent by December last year, and for Caltex it was at 0.76 per cent at the end of last year. The article also indicates that BP and Mobil have met the target. Those companies are to be congratulated. However, BP and Mobil are still behind the September 2007 deadline. The Government will need to carefully monitor the fuel companies to ensure they support the Government's objectives through this legislation.

The Government's initiatives build on the overall successes of the 2 per cent volumetric ethanol mandate, increase the sustainable local production, distribution and consumer uptake of biofuels, and create a viable biofuels industry base. Biofuels production facilities in regional New South Wales will support hundreds of jobs—not just in Nowra but in other areas. The biodiesel mandate—which is a very important initiative in addition to the ethanol requirement—will be initially set at 2 per cent but will be increased to 5 per cent in 2012 as supply increases. Five per cent is the maximum biodiesel content currently covered by most vehicle warranties, and the Federal Government has recently amended the diesel fuel standard to permit up to 5 per cent biodiesel in all diesel fuel.

First-generation biofuels provide new, stable domestic grain markets for farmers and produce high-quality stock food for the livestock, poultry and aquaculture industries. Replacing all regular grade unleaded petrol with E10 will reduce the total greenhouse emissions from all petrol-engine vehicles by about 2 per cent. Replacing 5 per cent of our diesel with biodiesel could reduce the total greenhouse emissions from diesel-fuelled vehicles by around 1.3 per cent. That will be equivalent to taking 1,900 buses and trucks, and 77,000 light vehicles, or cars, off the road. That is a very important advantage in this initiative of using ethanol and biofuels. Some people still question this initiative. I believe those people are behind the times when one considers what is happening around the world. I have previously referred to the success story in Brazil. As was shown recently in a television documentary, Brazil is the only nation in whose capital cities you can see clear blue skies, with no pollution at all.

Brazil has the largest and most successful biofuel programs in the world, involving the production of ethanol fuel from sugarcane, and it is considered to have the world's first sustainable biofuels economy. In 2006 Brazilian ethanol provided 18 per cent of the country's road transport sector fuel consumption needs, and by April 2008 Brazilian ethanol provided more than 50 per cent of fuel consumption for the gasoline market. As a result of the increasing use of ethanol, together with the exploitation of domestic deepwater oil sources, Brazil, which years ago had to import a large share of the petroleum needed for domestic consumption, in 2006 reached complete self-sufficiency in oil supply. We might see that as a dream for Australia, so that at some point in the future we will not be dependent on the Middle East for oil to provide fuel for motor vehicles and transport trucks.

Brazil and the United States lead the industrial world in global ethanol production, together accounting for 70 per cent of the world's production and nearly 90 per cent of ethanol used for fuel. In 2006 Brazil produced 16.3 billion litres, which represents 33.3 per cent of the world's total ethanol production and 42 per cent of the world's ethanol used as fuel. Obviously, another nation that is following Brazil's example, because there are so many advantages, is the United States. The United States produces and consumes more ethanol fuel than any other country in the world. Ethanol use as fuel dates back to Henry Ford, who in 1896 designed his first car, the "Quadricycle", to run on pure ethanol. Then in 1908 he produced the famous Ford Model T capable of running on gasoline, ethanol, or a combination of both.

Most cars on the road today in the United States can run on blends of up to 10 per cent ethanol, and motor vehicle manufacturers already produce vehicles designed to run on much higher ethanol blends. Some States and cities are doing the same as New South Wales. In 2007 Portland, Oregon, became the first city in the United States to require all gasoline sold within city limits to contain at least 10 per cent ethanol. As at January 2008 three States—Missouri, Minnesota and Hawaii—required ethanol to be blended with gasoline motor fuel. Many cities now also require ethanol blends due to the non-attainment of Federal air quality goals. This legislation is closely related to the entire debate about reducing pollution in our cities and it is a very important development in promoting ethanol use in New South Wales. I urge the Government to hold regular meetings with the major fuel companies in New South Wales and Australia to ensure they enthusiastically endorse the requirements in the legislation regarding the minimum quantities of ethanol in relation to their total fuel sales. We support the bill.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [5.38 p.m.]: On behalf of the Shooters Party I speak in support of the Biofuels (Ethanol Content) Amendment Bill 2009. I do not need to repeat many of the arguments that have been succinctly put by honourable members in this debate. I note some of the concerns expressed by the Hon. Rick Colless in relation to the effect of the legislation on small country retailers, and I trust that the Government has thought about that. During the drafting of this bill the Shooters Party had representations made to it by feed lotters and also by the association that represents the small independent retailers. I tend to agree with the Hon. Rick Colless that probably equal arguments could be put with regard to the use of grains and the potential to create shortages of food. As the Hon. Rick Colless pointed out, the bill should also provide some sort of a floor price for grains, which I am sure the majority of grain producers would be grateful for.

I am concerned about whether the enactment of the bill will create market distortions. I hope the Minister has considered that and spoken to the association that represents the small retailers about it. Representations made to the Shooters Party suggest that even though the bill allows exemptions for retailers to market E10 there is a twofold concern. First, because of the current limitation on the number of manufacturers of ethanol a situation could develop in which ethanol source material would not be readily available on the open market and therefore not as inexpensive as it should be. As to that I have been asked—and I have sought direction from the Minister's office—what the Government will do to encourage investment in second-generation ethanol plants or those ethanol plants that rely on cellulose-based feedstock rather than starch-based. Secondly, we have all heard about the Woolworths and Coles problem. Many small retailers of food and fuel have experienced the market domination of a couple of large players who are also in the fuel industry. That should be watched.

By increasing the mandate for the use of this fuel combination by three the Government should not inadvertently place pressure on small independent retailers, whether they be city or the even more vulnerable country retailers—as mentioned by the Hon. Rick Colless—in the formulation of the compliance issues and the regulations related to the sale of the fuel. Having said that, I echo the comments made by so many others that it is good for New South Wales to go down this path. I am not a great fan of some of the myths of peak oil or anthropogenic global climate change but anything we can do to reduce our reliance on petroleum-based products is good. The Shooters Party commends the bill to the House.

Mr IAN COHEN [5.42 p.m.]: I speak on the Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Amendment Bill 2009 on behalf of the Greens. In 2008 biofuels were a hot topic and they will continue to draw interest from political and social spheres into the future. Vast bodies of literature have increasingly documented concerns about the impact of biofuel production on food prices and the environment. I have been an enthusiastic supporter of certain biofuels. For the best part of three years I have run a vehicle on approximately 90 per cent biodiesel.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Fish and chip oil.

Mr IAN COHEN: Fish and chip oil. My supplier in Byron Bay constantly assures me that the biofuel comes from recycled tallow and recycled vegetable oil. A small business delivers the vegetable oil to the processing plant in the Hunter Valley and it is then returned as a product for local use.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: What is it a litre?

Mr IAN COHEN: It is about the same price as diesel. The group reassures me that it is not imported palm oil and that it is produced from an environmental sustainable process. I am pleased to support a local Australian industry in the production of biofuel.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: Does it go to the Hunter Valley by road?

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! If members wish to participate in a discussion with Mr Ian Cohen they should do so afterwards and not interject during the member’s speech.

Mr IAN COHEN: I do note the interjection by the Hon. Robyn Parker, and I appreciate the intervention on my behalf by the Acting President, but the vehicle is taken and returned on biofuel. It is part of an integrated, albeit small-scale, process but I am convinced it is a step forward. Investigation by my staff into this issue has revealed concern as to links with deforestation in tropical countries, imported palm oil products being problematic, and the method of production of biofuels in Australia—which I will return to shortly. I believe this process is supported by many, if not most, in this House, but it needs to be carefully addressed. I acknowledge the efforts of my staff who researched this issue.

Before I canvass the issues underlying ethanol and biodiesel I want to refer to mandates generally and reflect upon how New Zealand has dealt with biofuel mandates over the last 12 months. In September last year the New Zealand Parliament passed the biofuel bill which implemented a Biofuel Sales Obligation [BSO] of 0.53 per cent in 2008, and increasing to 3.4 per cent by 2012. One of the interesting aspects of the bill was the amendment secured by New Zealand Greens that sought to ensure that qualifying biofuels were sourced from biofuel production, which reduce greenhouse gas emissions, did not compete with food production and did not adversely impact biodiversity and high conservation value land. The amending bill achieved this by inserting section 34GA into the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Act 1989.

However, with the New Zealand National Party forming a minority Government with three minor parties, the BSO was very short-lived. One of the first legislative actions taken by the New Zealand National Party was to introduce the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill. As the bill's title indicates, the purpose of the legislation was to remove the new BSO implemented by the New Zealand Labour Party. In justifying the removal of the biofuel sales obligation, New Zealand Environment Minister Dr Nick Smith stated:

The fundamental difference between members opposite [NZ Labour] and those on the Government side of the House is that Labour members believe in compulsion. They believe in the nanny State.

I find it interesting that a New Zealand centrist-right National Party Government perceives mandating biofuel use as a modus operandi of a paternalistic nanny state. Upon removing the biofuel mandate, the New Zealand National Party committed to implementing tax reforms to establish incentives and concessions for biofuel production. This position is similar to that advocated by the New South Wales Farmers Association, which has circulated a letter outlining their opposition to mandatory percentage targets of biofuels in liquid fuels and emphasising support for tax concessions and small farm-based biofuel systems.

The Federal Minister for Resources and Energy, the Hon. Martin Ferguson, has made strong comments about the Australian Labor Party's commitment to maintaining the excise rebate of 38 cents per litre for ethanol. It certainly is not guaranteed that the excise rebate for ethanol will continue past 2011, and Australian taxpayers could be forced to foot the $200 million a year bill underwriting a potential ElO mandate. This is extremely problematic because some ethanol producers have claimed that, without the excise rebate, current first generation ethanol production, particularly grain ethanol production, will not be economical. The last thing we want to see is the injection of significant capital and human capital into ethanol production that is not economically sustainable. These grain ethanol plants will quickly become industrial dinosaurs without government support. Other States, including Western Australia and South Australia, have possibly seen this writing on the wall and instead have invested significant funds into bio-algae technology in order to find high biomass yielding algae.

I now turn to the elements of the bill. The bill expands the existing 2 per cent ethanol mandate currently in effect in New South Wales. By 2011 major retailers and fuel wholesalers will be required to have a 6 per cent ethanol content of total petrol sold. The retailers and fuel wholesalers will also be required to ensure they achieve a 5 per cent biodiesel content in total diesel sold. For consumers, all regular unleaded petrol will contain 10 per cent ethanol after 1 July 2011.

Looking closer at the bill, an important change to the Act is the inclusion of the petrol retailers being required to comply with the mandate. This will force the hand of recalcitrant retailers, who have not embraced ethanol with the same fervour as New South Wales Labor or the biofuel producers, to abide by the intention of the mandate. In the same vein, the bill will hail the end of unblended regular unleaded petrol by requiring all primary wholesalers to sell only E10 regular unleaded blends. Nic Moulis, General Manager of the Australian Convenience and Petroleum Marketers Association, has highlighted that there are significant costs for smaller petrol retailers in converting service stations to accept E10 blends.

While infrastructure expenditure by the major petrol retailers on upgrading and converting to carry an E10 blend may not be a problem, for smaller retailers in regional areas the costs of conversion may be prohibitive. The New South Wales E10 Taskforce found that making the required infrastructure changes to support mandatory E10 blends would take approximately six years and cost anywhere between $100 million and $250 million for all service stations to convert. Obviously, there will be challenges for some service stations in converting prior to the restriction on primary wholesalers selling regular unleaded fuel. Those service stations that do not want to convert and sell E10 will have no choice after July 2011 when, if they did want to not convert, they will be required to sell premium unleaded only.

Proposed section 14 essentially duplicates existing section 11 as to the requirements it places on the Minister to publish material about compliance with the Act. A recent Sydney Morning Herald article by Andrew Clennell entitled "Companies miss ethanol target" demonstrated that access to returns and figures of primary wholesalers on ethanol mandate compliance has been available only through a freedom of information [FOI] application. This shows that, where discretion to publish material has been afforded to the Minister, the Minister has not published the material and the material has come to light only after an FOI investigation. I believe this provides a significant case for tightening up publication requirements. I will further address these issues in Committee.

Suspension of the minimum biofuel mandates is another important provision in the bill. Proposed section 17, which generally replicates the existing section 13, allows the Minister, with the advice of the expert panel, to fully or partially suspend the operation of biofuel mandates. This important mechanism is necessary to ensure that potentially unforeseen and unintended adverse policy impacts can be defused by amending the extent or operation of the mandate. I have concerns about the proposed section in its current form in that the triggers for suspension do not cover all the potential adverse policy implications of biofuel, especially those identified by the 2007 New South Wales E10 Taskforce. We must outline further a broad range of triggers for suspension based upon international and national experience with biofuel production. I indicate that I will move a number of amendments in Committee in relation to this section and will talk to the matter at that point.

One point I want to pay specific attention to is the concept of the biofuel sustainability standard. Similar to the legislation originally passed by the New Zealand Parliament, this bill implements a principle whereby only ethanol or biodiesel that complies with a New South Wales biofuel sustainability standard can be counted towards the fulfilment of minimum ethanol or biodiesel requirements. While I wholeheartedly support the need for a mechanism to evaluate the sustainability of biofuels, I am concerned that the creation of this standard will be left to ministerial regulatory-making powers. I consider it a substantial anomaly in process when members of this House are asked to vote on increasing biofuel mandates, yet we have no power to state which biofuels should be encouraged and which should be considered sustainable—the most important dimension of the biofuel debate.

With all due respect to the Minister, I am concerned about ministerial retainment of power to make the biofuel sustainability standard on public perception of fairness when the biggest ethanol producer in New South Wales has been a significant political donor. A month before the Biofuels (Ethanol Content) Bill was debated in this House the Manildra Group donated $15,000 to the New South Wales Labor Party. Within a fortnight of the Biofuels (Ethanol Content) Act 2007 coming into force, Manildra deposited $49,500 worth of political donations in the New South Wales Labor Party's account. All I seek to highlight is that there is a public perception of a nexus between a political donation—before and after Government legislation—and the formulation of government policy platforms. The everyday citizen walking on the street has a perception that the considerable political donations from the Manildra Group in 2007-08—totalling $95,249 in donations to the New South Wales Labor Party coffers, $15,727 in the National Party account and $21,563 to the New South Wales Liberal Party—are skewing and influencing policy decisions. This concern surely extends to who defines and what processes are deployed to create a biofuel sustainability standard.

One of the central concerns about biofuel production is that it creates what is colloquially termed the "food versus fuel" phenomenon. According to the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United States [FAO], in 2007 global food prices increased by 40 per cent. With major grains such as maize, wheat and rice, this price increase is the result of a number of key agricultural commodity price drivers, but a factor identified by a number of commentators and international agencies has been ethanol production. The World Bank estimates that the price of food has increased by 83 per cent in the last three years. The global implications of food price increases for developing nations, where many people were slowly moving out of poverty, have been dire. Against the backdrop of an escalating food crisis, it is important that the role of biofuels in food price increases is dissected and interrogated.

Oxfam International suggests that in deploying and using biofuel production as an incentive to address climate change and oil scarcity nations may be addressing neither problem and creating a new food crisis. The Oxfam report entitled "How biofuel policies are deepening poverty and accelerating climate change" calculates that support provided in 2007 to biofuels among Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] countries:

… cost around $13-15bn, for fuels that accounted for less than 3 per cent of their transport fuel demand, but accounted for nearly half of the worldwide increase in consumption of principal food crops.

Closer to home—our discussion of the food versus fuel phenomenon should be grounded in local, State and national reality—a 2007 joint CSIRO and Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation report stated:

There will be increasing competition with grains for food, and with feedgrain for the livestock industry if the Australian ethanol industry expands to its planned production capacity and beyond.

I am sure that no member in this House wants to see a repeat of the adverse implications of biofuel production that we have witnessed on the global stage. The New South Wales E10 Taskforce, in considering this issue in 2007, stated:

There is potential for competition between primary industries regarding the use of crops for energy as opposed to food. The immediate potential issue lies with increasing grain prices for the intensive livestock industries.

I emphasise the language of the taskforce in stating that while the immediate issue lies in increasing grain prices for intensive livestock industries, the potential for grain price increases that adversely affect food prices is not ruled out. That is something that the expert panel must continue to closely monitor. One aspect of this debate in New South Wales has focused on the exact nature of Manildra and the oft-repeated assertion that Manildra produces ethanol solely from waste wheat starch. The Minister would be aware that I have numerous questions about Manildra's operations. During the public hearings for the Victorian biofuel inquiry Mr Honan described the Manildra plant in the following terms:

I guess a large part of what we use for ethanol production is waste wheat starch out of our starch and gluten process where that starch and gluten have been manufactured for other purposes—for food and industrial use. Then we have a waste stream out of that which is then distilled into ethanol. We do actually buy some other grain and put it directly into ethanol.

After Mr Honan outlined the Manildra process the chair of the committee asked what percentage is waste wheat starch and what percentage is raw product. Mr Honan responded that the ratio is "probably something like fifty-fifty in our case". In May last year I put to the Minister for Lands that up to 50,000 tonnes of whole grain, and not starch product, is used by Manildra every year to make grain-derived ethanol. The Minister responded:

As I have stated in the past, the Manildra mill produces most of its ethanol not from flour but from flour waste products.

I would not interpret 50 per cent production from waste starches as constituting "most of its ethanol". Thankfully, the Office of Biofuels highlighted that while Mr Honan has suggested the waste to new grain product ratio was 50:50, according to the environmental impact assessment produced for Manildra's part 3A Environmental Planning and Assessment Act application the ration is 70:30 waste to fresh grain. Whatever the ratio, it is evident that Manildra uses grain to supplement waste starch in its production.

A difficulty in discussing biofuels is that the sustainability characteristics and environmental impact are very much dependant upon the bio-input, and the subsequent energy usage in converting a bio-input into ethanol or biodiesel. As was stated in a Department of Primary Industries publication that the Hon. Ian Macdonald circulated in this House last year that "not all biofuels are equal". He must have been reading Animal Farm. I strongly agree and it is very important that we acknowledge that each biofuel and method of production must be stringently evaluated against environmental, economic and social criteria. Noting that the environmental benefits of biofuel are dependent on the particular method of production and the production input, I find the sweeping statements about the environmental credentials of biofuels somewhat misleading. When Minister Kelly announced the new mandate in December last year he stated:

We need to embrace biofuels in a sustainable way, but acknowledge their contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This was similar to the rhetoric springing from former Premier Morris Iemma when he declared a 10 per cent ethanol mandate by 2011 would be a "win for the environment". The New South Wales Government has represented to the New South Wales public that ethanol is a clean, green alternative transport fuel. Theoretically, ethanol may have the capacity to achieve such a profile and such an end—but this end will not necessarily be achieved via grain-derived ethanol in New South Wales.

The Manildra plant in Bombaderry, the harbinger of ethanol production in New South Wales, was fined $125,000 plus costs of $235,000 in November 2006 after the Environment Protection Authority took it to the New South Wales Land and Environment Court for breaches of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act. In July 2008 Manildra was issued with a prevention notice by the Environment Protection Authority for the discharging of industrial wastewater into Abernethys Creek causing water pollution, in contravention of section 120 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act. A review of annual reports on compliance with Manildra's environmental protection licence shows that Manildra has had more than 1,900 incidents of non-compliance with its licence. While it could be contended that the majority of these non-compliance issues are related to failures in monitoring, it does not detract from the deficiencies in operational culture at the plant. This is a convincing win for the New South Wales environment and for the amenity of local residents and the homes surrounding the plant.

What about the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions I have heard the New South Wales Labor Party talk about? When we delve into the specific claim that the New South Wales ethanol mandate reduces greenhouse gas emissions we find that quite the opposite is true. Currently, ethanol production in New South Wales is increasing greenhouse gas emissions. As part of the environmental impact assessment submitted for the purpose of an Environmental Planning and Assessment Act part 3A application, proponents had to calculate all greenhouse gas emissions over the project life cycle including scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. Factored into this calculation are carbon dioxide emission reductions achieved by using an El0 blend as opposed to unleaded petrol. Even when this is taken into account the Manildra plant will generate 801,206 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per annum and the Four Arrows ethanol plant will emit 1,233,960 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Together, these two plants, the main providers of ethanol in New South Wales, will contribute more than 1.2 per cent of the 2006 greenhouse gas emissions of New South Wales.

When Minister Keneally approved Manildra's part 3A application it would appear that the Minister overlooked the justification for the project on page 25, which states the Manildra expansion "reduces greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants such as carbon monoxide and particulates". How did the Minister approve a project that justifies its reason for existence as reducing greenhouse gas emissions that add 230,016 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year to the greenhouse gas emission output of New South Wales? I would suggest that most residents in New South Wales could identify this irreconcilable inconsistency, yet the State Minister for Planning appears totally oblivious. The potentially deleterious environmental impact of New South Wales's ethanol mandate does not stop here. Debate continues in the scientific community about the potential increase in carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, volatile organic compounds and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometres [PM10] from ethanol blends with gasoline. A recent paper by the CSIRO entitled "Evaluating the Health Impacts of Ethanol Blend Petrol" stated that the overall benefit of using ethanol blends overwhelmingly dominated with reductions in particulate matter of 2.5.

Another recent paper by Tom Beer and Tim Grant appearing in the Journal of Cleaner Production, entitled "Life-cycle analysis of emissions from fuel ethanol and blends in Australian heavy and light vehicles", provided interesting data on the air pollutant profile of a range of ethanol products and blends. The paper looked at both E1O and E85 blends from a range of feedstock inputs and demonstrates that Australian unleaded petrol emits l8 milligrams of PM10 per kilometre whereas an E1O blend from wheat starch waste emits 24 milligrams of PM10 per kilometre. The difference in PM10 emissions between unleaded petrol and ethanol blends is disproportionately larger in E85 blends.

The point here is not that ethanol may increase PM10 emissions compared with unleaded petrol but that for each different type of ethanol feedstock input—wheat starch waste; sorghum, molasses or wood waste—there are divergent air pollutant outputs for which we need to properly evaluate the environmental and health costs. Research by Professor David Tilman using models developed by the United States of America Environment Protection Authority has found that the total environmental and health costs of gasoline are about 71¢ per gallon, while an equivalent amount of corn-ethanol fuel has associated costs of 72¢ to $1.45, depending on how it is produced.

The nebulous suggestion that a New South Wales grain-derived ethanol industry—and I am clear in my targeting of grain-derived ethanol—provides an environmentally sound and credible alternative transport fuel is nothing more than green wash. These ambit claims of environmental integrity are characteristic of the Manildra Group. In its submission to the 2007 Victorian inquiry into biofuel mandates the company dresses up grain-derived ethanol as some sort of wonder drug curing all society's social and environmental ills. Without even broaching the arguments on Indonesia's palm oil, it is obvious that increasing New South Wales's ethanol mandate has the potential to have an adverse impact on the New South Wales environment.

A good idea improperly instituted in our society is a problem. It is certainly not the wish of the Greens or the environment movement to complain about these methods of production. We recognise the driver and the need for it, but the figures do not add up. I have constantly raised this issue with the Government both in the House and outside. It is almost a fashion trend to develop these processes that are seen to be in keeping with greenhouse reduction targets and being ecologically sustainable, but, once again, the detail and a proper study of these methods do not add up to the development of an industry that will be sustainable in the long term.

With regard to regional development, which of course the Greens support, another pillar that the Minister and pro grain-ethanol advocates rest their ethanol dreams upon is the argument that an ethanol mandate aids regional development and employment. A 2008 Federal Government Parliamentary Library research paper entitled "The Economic Effects of an Ethanol Mandate", which was produced by Richard Webb, found:

In work undertaken for the Taskforce, ABARE estimated that meeting this target (350 megalitres) would generate an additional 648 jobs—216 directly and 432 indirectly—in regional areas. The annual cost (in 2004-05 dollars) of each of the 648 jobs was estimated at $182 000 in Government expenditure and $139 000 in economic costs.

That quote illustrates that the cost of the excise rebate to the Australian taxpayer means a job creation price should be attached to ethanol industry employment. The paper states:

This is partly because the current subsidisation of ethanol production transfers resources from one group (taxpayers) to another (ethanol producers). While employment rises among subsidy recipients, it falls in other sectors of the economy. That's because the taxes used to subsidise ethanol production reduce consumers' purchasing power and hence spending and job creation in other sectors of the economy.

A number of members see job creation through ethanol industries as a strong basis on which to support an ethanol mandate. The Reverend Fred Nile has talked about the wages being paid to employees of Manildra as totalling $54 million and taxes paid by employees amounting to $14 million. However, the Federal Parliamentary Library research paper makes it clear that subsidisation of ethanol is not an efficient form of job creation. It states:

The high cost of job creation (in 2004-05, average weekly ordinary time earnings were about $51 000) means that it would be cheaper to pay each worker average weekly earnings to do nothing than to subsidise them to produce ethanol. Given the cost of job creation under current policy settings, the cost of creating jobs would be likely to be even higher under an E10 mandate.

The economic justification has been known to extend further than regional development and regional employment. Common arguments suggest that biofuel mandates help to reduce trade deficits resulting from lower oil imports and that they have an important role in energy security. This simplistic argument obviously does not take into account the reduction in feedstock exports during ethanol mandate initiated feedstock shortfalls. Page 8 of the Biofuels Taskforce report to the Prime Minister contains the most damning of statements:

Modelling by ABARE forecasts a reduction in GDP of $90 million in 2009-10 for 3501WL biofuels market penetration, dropping in steps each year to $72 million in 2015.

The Greens have real concerns about the direction this Government is taking and the development and type of alternative fuel production being pursued. We would like to see it happen in an appropriate and ecologically and socially efficient manner. We are not opposed to the concept, but we feel that the Government can do much better in terms of economic and environmental efficiencies in the production of this type of alternative fuel.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [6.13 p.m.]: The Liberal Party and The Nationals support the Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Amendment Bill 2009. However, the reality is that the Government has failed to provide the funding necessary to build the industry in a sustainable manner. Substantial issues of concern have been revealed through a freedom of information request that produced documents showing that to date the Government has not appointed one investigator, commenced one investigation or served one penalty notice for breaches of this mandate. Not only do we have problems with Government support for building the industry; we also have concerns about implementation.

The Opposition's support for ethanol is longstanding. The former Liberal Party leader and The Nationals leader Andrew Stoner hosted an ethanol roundtable in July 2006 to find ways to increase rapidly the use of ethanol-blended fuels. It is a matter of record that we took an ethanol action plan to the last election. That plan was designed to boost ethanol production and distribution to 10 per cent by 2011. If the Government had adopted a similar action plan, we would be in a different position now with implementation. For example, the Opposition made a $5-million commitment to help fund the conversion of existing service station infrastructure.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: They stole parts of our policy, but not the good bits.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: That is right. The $5 million would have covered the cost of upgrading fuel tanks to store E10 and signage associated with the sale of E10 at service station outlets. Up to 50 per cent of the cost incurred in these activities would have been reimbursed up to a maximum of $10,000. The Opposition's policy also set aside $1 million for a marketing plan in cooperation with the NRMA and environmental groups with the objective of raising public awareness of and confidence in ethanol-blended fuel.

As my colleague the Hon. Duncan Gay said, if the Government had implemented all of our policy and not just parts, we would be in a much better position in terms of the environment, the use of biofuels and energy security in New South Wales. Many have argued that consumers are not demanding ethanol. In fact, consumer demand for ethanol is higher in Queensland because the Queensland Government has allocated funds to promote its use. The Queensland Government has also appointed an ethanol ambassador. I do not know whether that is the best solution, but it demonstrates that the Queensland Government, unlike this State Government, has backed its target with real action. It is a great pity that this State Government has not followed Queensland's lead.

I cannot overlook the fact that this is an extremely important industry for the Shoalhaven. The Manildra Group is the largest private employer in the Shoalhaven, which has one of the highest levels of unemployment in the State. The Manildra plant has been a huge employment bonus for the area. I would hate to see the House abandon its support for the targets that the Opposition and the Government took to the last election and that have been implemented since the election. Of course, this measure has my full support and the full support of the Liberal Party and The Nationals. It is good for the environment and for our energy security, and it provides jobs in the Shoalhaven. That is certainly a winning formula for me.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [6.18 p.m.]: I will make a brief contribution on the debate on the Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Amendment Bill 2009. I will not go over most of the ground that previous speakers have covered, but I will provide a general introduction. I will then raise two important ethical issues about this bill. The objectives of the bill are to amend the Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Act 2007, to make further provision in respect of the required ethanol content in petrol sold in New South Wales and to make provision in respect of a required biodiesel content in diesel fuel, and for other purposes.

Proposed section 6 of the bill maintains the current provision stating that a primary wholesaler of petrol must ensure that the volume of ethanol sold in the form of petrol-ethanol blend during a certain period is not less than 2 per cent of the volume of all petrol sold within that period. However, the bill also requires that that percentage be increased to 4 per cent from the beginning of 2010 and 6 per cent from the beginning of 2011. The minimum ethanol percentage will also apply to a major retailer.

The bill will expand membership of the expert panel to include a representative from Treasury. The expert panel will continue to advise the Minister on whether there is any need to suspend the provisions in whole or in part and whether exemptions should be granted to individual companies. Under the current wholesale scheme, the major retailers in the State have not been bound to comply. This bill will broaden the application of the Act to include major retailers controlling more than 20 service stations.

The current Act imposes a minimum ethanol percentage mandate on sales of petrol by a primary wholesaler to persons in New South Wales. At present a primary wholesaler of petrol must ensure that the volume of ethanol sold by them in the form of petrol-ethanol blend during a certain period is not less than 2 per cent of the volume of all petrol sold by them in that period. To retain the option of ethanol-free petrol for older vehicles, ultralight aircraft, boats and small engines that may not be able to use the ethanol-blended fuel, the 10 per cent will apply only to regular grade unleaded petrol, commonly known as ULP. The biodiesel requirement initially will be set at 2 per cent, but will be increased to 5 per cent in 2012. The 5 per cent is the maximum biodiesel content currently covered by most vehicle warranties, and the Federal Government has recently amended the diesel fuel standard to permit up to 5 per cent biodiesel in all diesel fuel. In the agreement in principle speech, which places all the values of this bill into a couple of paragraphs, the Parliamentary Secretary said:

Biofuel production facilities in regional New South Wales will support hundreds of jobs ... Second-generation biofuels will add enormous value to regional agriculture and forestry industries, and algae have the potential to capture the carbon dioxide emitted by coal-fired power stations, while producing high quality biodiesel and stock food. …

Replacing 5 per cent of our diesel with biodiesel could reduce the total greenhouse emissions from diesel-fuelled vehicles by about 1.3 per cent. The proposed mandates will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 450,000 tonnes per year, equivalent to taking 1,900 buses and trucks, and 77,000 light vehicles off the road.

Biofuels burn cleaner than petroleum fuels, reducing toxic emissions, especially carbon monoxide and particulates. Fine particles are a major cause of illness and death and are responsible for 97 per cent of the health impacts of emissions from vehicles.
Federal Government trials have recently demonstrated that E10 petrol will reduce fine particle emissions from petrol-engine vehicles by 33 per cent. B5 biodiesel will reduce particle emissions from diesel-engine vehicles by 4 per cent. These reductions will produce health benefits of approximately $22 million per annum in the Sydney basin.

With all of these good things outlined in the other place, why should we raise concerns? The concerns are real, and they are ethical and long term. The 10-year biofuel strategy will be developed to pursue second and subsequent generation technologies and the strategy will be reviewed every three years. I will talk in a few moments about the subsequent generation technologies and, in particular, the advisability of putting more money into research of second-generation technology.

With the problems of global warming, the limited supply of oil, and the deepening financial crisis, the food for fuel dilemma has been at the forefront of both national and international debates. Proponents argue that ethanol is a cleaner, greener and renewable form of energy, yet critics say converting crops into fuel will simply create more food shortages and sky rocketing commodity prices, particularly among those who can afford it least. The international scene presents compelling contrasts. In the United States, rising corn prices, driven by subsidised ethanol demand, have placed pricing pressure on a range of cereal food staples, particularly corn, contributing both to a degree of inflation and some social unrest. In Australia, the escalating cost of tallow and imported palm oil, along with the removal of government subsidies have rendered investment in biodiesel capacity uneconomic.

Brazil and the United States of America are leaders in global ethanol production, accounting together for 70 per cent of the world's production and nearly 90 per cent of ethanol used for fuel. In the United States, more than half of the country's fuel is blended with ethanol and Washington has passed a new law mandating a staggering 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel annually by 2022. According to the supporters of ethanol, there are benefits, and I will mention half a dozen of them. The first is reduced oil imports. Some 70 per cent of petrol in Australia is derived from imported oil. A thriving ethanol industry in Australia will replace much imported oil and improve our balance of payments. Experience in the United States demonstrates that new ethanol plants provide substantial economic stimulation to the nation's economy particularly, as the Hon. Don Harwin said, to an important area on the South Coast.

Kyoto Protocol commitments will see an increased use of ethanol and help Australia to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gases required by international agreements. Regional stimulation means that ethanol plants are usually sited in regional areas adjacent to farm areas. Therefore the ethanol industry would assist in employment, creating added income and value to farm products and reduce the boom/bust cycle. The increase of an Australian-made fuel also would reduce our dependence on oil from the Middle East and Indonesia. Australia imports oil for some 70 per cent of our petrol needs and this figure has been increasing rapidly. There are other benefits to regional Australia; each ethanol plant will provide some 300 jobs in regions that lack skilled, stable employment. In the United States of America the production of over seven billion litres of ethanol per year has created an expected 190,000 jobs in rural communities. There are a range of spin-off industries from co-products such as cattle feed, fertilizers and transport.

The New South Wales Government reaffirmed its decision to mandate 10 per cent ethanol in all regular unleaded petrol sold in the State by 2011. Back in 2007, New South Wales was the first State to mandate the use of ethanol in petrol. The ethanol mandate will cost taxpayers nationally $200 million per year. The New South Wales ethanol mandate will increase food prices nationally as more quantities of grain will be diverted to ethanol production. Wheat and canola are the main ingredients of grain-produced ethanol. I will mention the concern I have about this in just a moment.

The proposed 10 per cent New South Wales mandate will exacerbate the inflationary impact of foreign government ethanol-related policies. With Australia's ethanol producers already receiving more government assistance per litre than the government provides in the United States of America, such as fuel excise relief and ethanol import tariffs, the proposed 10 per cent ethanol mandate in New South Wales will provide further grain and food price inflationary pressures. This might be good for putting a floor price into grain prices, which would make many of our farmers happy, but it has other implications. The 10 per cent ethanol mandate will significantly reduce the ability of the State's grain crop to meet demand needs. For instance, if the 2002-03 drought were replicated after 2011, the New South Wales mandate would divert over 22 per cent of the State's total grain crop away from food production to production of fuel.

The 10 per cent mandate also places implications on the environment. For example, Manildra—the State's monopoly ethanol supplier—indicated in its environmental impact statement for its Bomaderry plant, that the upgrade will generate an additional net 230,000 tonnes of C02-equivalent a year. It stated, "the project will result in a net increase of greenhouse gas emissions, even when the downstream reduction as a result of replacing petroleum fuels with bioethanol is taken into account". However, with the State currently in drought and experiencing a hotter and dryer climate, the E10 mandate will have a major impact on water usage. The 2.5 million tonnes of grain required each year to produce ethanol necessitated by the E10 mandate will see up to 10 ethanol plants across New South Wales, all trying to source grain from reliable suppliers, and this will have huge implications on water usage in the Murray-Darling Basin. According to the CSIRO, the future of the biofuels industry in Australia is not viable because production costs are outstripping the profits being returned for alternative fuels. Large-scale production of fuels from food stocks is no longer economically sound.

Natural Fuels Australia, Darwin's biodiesel plant, has gone into voluntary administration, which threatens the employment of its 15 staff members. Dr Beer, a senior scientist with the CSIRO, believes the plant ran into financial difficulty mostly because of the higher cost of the palm oil used to produce fuel. Dr Beer believes all the biodiesel plants in Australia have had problems because the cost of feedstocks has risen markedly in the past few years. The Service Station Association and the Australasian Convenience and Petroleum Marketers Association have criticised the mandate because there is only one ethanol producer in New South Wales and the mandate system gives that producer a blank cheque in setting prices. The service station sector is also concerned about the lack of supply competition and the inability to meet the stipulated mandate supply targets. Many smaller service stations also have very large capital costs for putting in place new tanks and pumping facilities.

Currently Manildra supplies 100 per cent of the State's ethanol requirements, with no other competitor likely to be operational in the immediate future. The fuel retail and wholesale industry also is concerned that the mandate will impose a $276 million implementation cost on industry. In a time of global financial crisis, small operators will be greatly affected. I have spoken with their lobby group and there is no question that small operators are very concerned about the bill. I will address the House also on the ramifications of the escalation of biofuel expansion and usage in advanced, industrialised countries to the detriment of the poorer nations on this planet. The expansion of the biofuel industry has led to a reduction in food supplies as developing countries convert food crops to fuel. Lester Brown from the Worldwatch Institute stated in the Guardian:

The competition for grain between the world's 800 million motorists, who want to maintain their mobility, and its two billion poorest people, who are simply trying to survive, is an emerging epic issue.

According to Jean Ziegler, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, the growing practice of turning crops into biofuel is a crime against humanity because it has created food shortages and sent food prices soaring, leaving millions of poor people hungry. The right to food is a human right and is a binding obligation well established under international law, in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as a plethora of other instruments. The right to food has been well defined in General Comment No. 12 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This defines the right to food as:

The right of every man, woman and child alone and in community with others to have physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement in ways consistent with human dignity.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's "The State of Food Insecurity in the World" reports that hunger has increased to 852 million gravely undernourished children, women and men. Some 100,000 people are dying from hunger or its immediate consequences every day, 854 million people are chronically undernourished, and every four seconds somebody loses his or her eyesight because of a lack of vitamins. It takes 232 kilograms of corn or grain to produce 50 litres of ethanol. Those 232 kilograms of corn or maize would feed a child in Zambia or Mexico every day for an entire year. The right to food is gravely violated in many parts of the world and the situation is made worse because wealthy people want to have cheaper fuel at the petrol browser.

The 2008 World Bank research report found that from 2002 to 2008 large increases in biofuels production in the United States and Europe were the main reason for the steep rise in global food prices. Cheaper prices at the petrol pump come at the cost of increased prices at the food table for the world's poorest and most hungry. At the Thirtieth Regional Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization, the President of the World Bank said:

While many worry about filling their gas tanks, many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs. And it's getting more and more difficult every day.

The United Nations has said that the price paid for maize has risen by up to 120 per cent in the past six months because of the demand for maize for fuel. For instance, this year 34 per cent of the world's largest grain crop—United States corn—will be produced for fuel, not food. Such biofuel policies also have increased Australian grain prices because 80 per cent of our grain is exported, and United States corn exports represent more than 60 per cent of world trade. While grain prices have declined more recently from their record high levels in 2008, they are still significantly above long-term averages. Matt Marks from www.crikey.com.au puts it best:

Every time you hear the word biofuel, you should think about the real winners and losers. The winners are all those on the biofuels gravy train. The big losers are the most impoverished and disadvantaged people on the planet.

There are new pathways to biofuels using previously unattractive, low-value resources emerging from laboratory and research projects worldwide. These are called generation-2 [Gen-2] biofuels and this is where the New South Wales Government should be investing its money. The process involves the development of ethanol from otherwise low-value lignocellulose, algae, and other plentiful resources of hydrogen and carbon. Every year I teach at the State University of Tennessee in Johnson City, Tennessee, and I have visited the research laboratories for cellulose where they turn sawgrass into ethanol. We do not have to use food for fuel. I close by making two points: We must not promote food for fuel and we are not wise to put our resources into the least productive of all the alternatives for making ethanol.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.37 p.m.]: My colleague Ian Cohen has set out clearly many problems with the Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Amendment Bill 2009. I will expand on the relationship between political parties and Manildra because any discussion about ethanol production in Australia needs to consider the political donations of the Manildra group of companies that dominates the ethanol industry. The former Federal Coalition Government made a number of decisions that benefited Manildra, the flour-milling business, which has a near-monopoly on ethanol production in Australia.

It should be noted that in the past decade the Labor, Liberal and National parties have received $1.7 million from Manildra, with the Liberal and National parties receiving $1.2 million of that total. More recently there have been huge donations. In 2006 the New South Wales Labor Party received $150,000 and the New South Wales Liberal Party received $100,000 from Manildra. In 2007 the Federal Labor Party picked up $150,000 from Manildra. In September 2002 Manildra received a 38¢ a litre ethanol subsidy for making ethanol to be blended into or used as a transport fuel. Mr Alan Ramsey stated in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald in 2003 that this amounted to ethanol companies receiving almost $21 million during the first 10 months. In July 2003 the Federal Government announced another $10 million in short-term assistance for the ethanol industry. According to Mr Ramsey, most of this money went to Manildra since it produces about 96 per cent of the ethanol in Australia, and CSR received the remaining 4 per cent. The scheme ran until the end of 2003, or until payments reached a cap of $10 million.

As I said, the 38¢ ethanol subsidy was granted in September 2002. In that year Manildra gave more money in political donations than in any other year. The company gave $438,541 to the major parties in 2002, with most of the money flowing to the Coalition parties, including two huge donations to the Federal Coalition—$150,000 to the Federal Nationals and $100,000 to the Federal Liberals. Using freedom of information laws, the Labor Party's Kerry O'Brien obtained a letter written by Manildra's chairman, Dick Honan, to then Prime Minister, John Howard, in August 2002 thanking him for his support of the ethanol industry. In the letter Mr Honan said that he had spoken with the then head of the Prime Minister's department about Manildra and CSR Distilleries' concerns about the scheduled arrival of 13.9 million litres of cheap ethanol from Brazil. He believed that cheap imported ethanol could destroy any prospect of an Australian renewable fuels industry. Approximately two weeks after the letter was written Prime Minister Howard announced the Cabinet's decision to provide a substantial subsidy for local ethanol and introduce prohibitive excise arrangements for imported ethanol. A tanker of cheap Brazilian ethanol had to be diverted mid-ocean and sold by two importing companies at a loss of $1 million.

In the ensuing outcry about the matter, Labor asked a series of questions in the Federal Parliament which led to the controversy about whether the Prime Minister misled the Parliament. Also, many reporters at the time discussed the political donations from Manildra to the Coalition parties. According to the party returns to the Australian Electoral Commission, Manildra has contributed $694,970 to the New South Wales and Federal offices of the Coalition parties during the past five years. Most of that money was given since July 2001 and divided almost evenly between the Liberal and National parties. A portion of the money went directly to the 2001 campaign coffers of then sitting New South Wales Liberal members of Parliament, including John Howard, Tony Abbott, Ross Cameron and Jackie Kelly. Mr Honan donated $112,000 of this to the National Party in two cheques written more than six months after the 2001 Federal election and four months before the Cabinet decision on ethanol in September 2002.

Manildra continues to make large donations to both Labor and the Coalition parties. I have already detailed the donations that were given in 2006—that is, $150,000 to New South Wales Labor and $100,000 to the New South Wales Liberals. In 2007, $150,000 was donated to Federal Labor. Earlier in my contribution I referred to the fact that over the past 10 years $1.7 million has been donated to Labor, the Liberals and The Nationals. Manildra gave $281,200 to the Federal Labor Party and $389,981 to the New South Wales Labor Party, making a total of $671,181. The company gave $243,360 to the Federal Liberal Party and $263,750 to the New South Wales Liberal Party. In total, the Liberals have picked up $507,110 from Manildra. Manildra has donated $195,750 to the Federal Nationals, with the New South Wales Nationals picking up $325,600. In total, The Nationals have picked up $521,350.

It is relevant that most of the members who have spoken with such enthusiasm for E10 in this debate and also in the lower House come from parties that have pocketed millions of dollars from the Manildra Group. We need to remember that Manildra, the generous donor to the major political parties, has a monopoly on ethanol production and that it will benefit when the legislation is passed. The problem is not just with this legislation but with the way political donations are used. The responsible action when we come to consider this legislation is to oppose it.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [6.44 p.m.]: I speak briefly to the Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Amendment Bill 2009 and, like my colleagues, indicate that the Opposition will support it. I do not intend to traverse the areas that other members have traversed because the various arguments have been well put in the lower House and, in many cases, reintroduced and revisited a couple of times in this place. The comments of my colleague the Hon. Rick Colless fairly represent my views on this legislation. However, I indicate that whilst we support the bill we have concerns about a couple of aspects. The Lot Feeders Association approached the Opposition to express its concerns about the legislation, and I believe its concerns are valid. They should be considered and, if possible, addressed. Almost surprisingly—it is probably not a total surprise—the Greens' foreshadowed amendment No. 7 goes a long way towards addressing those concerns. The association has asked us to consider other amendments also, and we will.

The lot feeders constitute a vital industry. Some people say quite flippantly, "You are looking after the farming sector. The grain growers are getting higher prices, so everyone should be happy." It is not quite that simple. As the shadow Minister for Industry, I certainly believe there is an important link between our graziers and the lot-feeding industry. Many stock are topped off in lots around the State and the market we get depends on the margins. What affects the margins may well be helping people in the cropping industry but may be adversely affecting people in the grazing industry. We must remember that there are two sides to this industry, and we must make sure that the benefits to one side do not adversely affect those on the other side.

My final concern relates to the small distributors in regional New South Wales and the cost of converting tanks to E10. Many members have spoken about this. The Minister has indicated that the fuel retailers do not have to convert their tanks to E10. That is quite correct. If they are in a situation where they do not want to convert their tanks, under the legislation they will not have to do so. However, I ask the question: Do the fuel retailers not have to do it? The answer is that in reality they do. A fuel retailer in a small market whose competitor down the road is selling E10, which retails at a lower price than unleaded petrol, has an unfair competitive disadvantage. I hope the Minister is listening to the concerns I am expressing, because there is a case for assisting the small distributors in regional New South Wales—and there are not a lot of them—that will be affected by the legislation. Effectively, the legislation may well put some of them out of business.

I know the legislation is well intended, and that is why we support it to help regional New South Wales. But we must be vigilant in ensuring that what we do is fair and looks after everyone. Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes said he would prefer that the Government spent the money it is investing on looking for new products. Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes is being gracious to the Government because, frankly, the Government is not spending any money on this bill. I cannot see any spending attached to it. The Government should consider the small distributors. I hope that somewhere in the debate their concerns are addressed. I know that the Hon. Tony Kelly lives in Wellington and that many businesses in that town are doing it tough. I know he would not want to be responsible for sending some of the smaller distributors out of business.

[The President left the chair at 6.50 p.m. The House resumed at 8.15 p.m.]

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Police, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [8.15 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their support for the Biofuel (Ethanol Content) Amendment Bill 2009. The current 2 per cent mandate has been successfully implemented. The overall market share of E10 is now 20 per cent. That means 20 per cent of all fuel sold is New South Wales is now E10. Well over a billion litres of E10 has been sold in New South Wales since the start of the mandate. Of the 14 registered primary wholesalers, 10 exceeded the required 2 per cent ethanol content in the fourth quarter of 2008. Of the four major oil companies, two exceeded 2 per cent. The other two companies under 2 per cent are smaller wholesalers that were affected by a temporary ethanol supply shortage in December. The only company that was significantly short of meeting its obligations was Caltex, but that was mainly because more than half its sales were through Woolworths, which to this point does not have a direct obligation under the wholesale mandate. The current legislation will fix that.

The Government has not needed to appoint investigators or issue penalty notices because it has established cooperative relationships with the primary wholesalers. The Government considered their positions carefully and granted conditional partial exemptions where necessary. Each company had a different starting point and had different problems to overcome. They are best managed by individual exemptions. The conditions applied are strict and include a commitment to take all reasonable action to reach the required 2 per cent as soon as possible. The taking of all reasonable action is also a defence against prosecution under the Act. The Government is not going to prosecute, or even name and shame, any company that is taking all reasonable steps to comply with the mandate.

The initial mandate has been so successful that the level of ethanol consumption in New South Wales has now reached the level of available supply and some ethanol is coming to New South Wales from Queensland—Queensland is supplementing New South Wales's supply. The bill gives current and potential producers the confidence to invest in new capacity. A project to expand Manildra's production capacity at 300 million litres per year was approved recently. Some of the expanded capacity will be available mid-year and the project will be completed by the end of the year. This is more than sufficient to meet the mandate increase to 4 per cent.

There is a need for at least one additional producer—or preferably two—in New South Wales to ensure a competitive ethanol market. The bill gives confidence to investors to make that commitment in these difficult economic times. Without the bill there will be no further investment in production, no further investment in blending and distribution infrastructure, and no further service station conversions to enable the product to be distributed to consumers. We need additional producers, but in the meantime the mandate includes provision for exemptions when a primary wholesaler cannot obtain ethanol at an economic price. This effectively prevents overexploitation of the situation by ethanol producers. No primary wholesaler has yet applied for an exemption on the grounds that they have been unable to negotiate an economic price for ethanol.

Four new major ethanol projects have been listed with the Department of Planning, at Coleambally, Junee, Gunnedah and Yanco. The Coleambally plant has been approved. Whether these developments proceed depends on their ability to raise capital and debt in the current economic climate. The bill will provide the confidence for investment. If supply is not available when required, the Act provides exemptions to individual companies when they have made all reasonable efforts to comply with suspensions in extraordinary circumstances that affect the whole industry, and the deferral of the replacement of unleaded petrol by E10 if the current economic crisis continues to affect investment.

Current indications from industry are that the Manildra expansion will proceed, and at least one other ethanol producer expects to be online by 2011. The Government expects that the successful passage of the bill will encourage at least one further project to proceed as soon as possible. The situation will be monitored closely to ensure adequate supply and to implement the safeguards provided in the Act to ensure that the objective of cheaper, cleaner, greener and locally produced fuel is delivered. Consumers have demonstrated that they are happy to buy E10 when it is available to them. Only about 30 per cent of service stations offer E10 and many of them have only a small number of E10 nozzles so many consumers still have to go looking for the product. In spite of this, 20 per cent of all petrol sales in New South Wales are of E10. New South Wales has reached the point where consumption is roughly equal to available supply so there is no point embarking on a major consumer information campaign at this time.

The Opposition claims that consumer acceptance of E10 is higher in Queensland than in New South Wales. Why then are E10 sales greater in New South Wales? It is because E10 is more widely available in New South Wales as a result of the mandate. Motorists in New South Wales already want to buy E10. The key to increased consumer uptake is increased availability and competitive pricing. This bill will deliver both. The Opposition mentioned other alternative fuels and vehicle propulsion systems. The Government also supports those developments but they are not commercially available. The simple fact is that only biofuels—10 per cent ethanol and 5 per cent biodiesel—are widely used in the current vehicle fleet without modification. The bill will take us to the optimal alternative fuel mix for the current vehicle fleet.

The excise on fuel ethanol was never intended by the Federal Government to raise any revenue. Before 2002 there was no excise on fuel ethanol. It was introduced in 2002 concurrently with the introduction of a 100 per cent rebate under the Ethanol Production Grants scheme to encourage local producers—Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes alluded to that. It did not work because the then Federal Coalition Government had only voluntary targets to achieve 350 million litres of biofuels by 2010—voluntary targets that the nation would not get even close to meeting without the New South Wales ethanol mandate.

Our New South Wales ethanol mandate complements the Federal excise regime, which encourages production. Our mandate ensures that the petroleum industry delivers that production to the consumers. It costs the Federal Government nothing overall in cash terms. Excise is collected and is 100 per cent rebated. The opportunity cost to the public purse is the excise that would have been collected on the volume of imported petrol replaced by the ethanol. That is the price of encouraging alternative domestic fuel supply. The same situation applies to LPG. The volume of LPG used in this country, more than two billion litres a year, far exceeds the volume of ethanol. The Federal Government not only forgoes the excise on LPG but also subsidises vehicle conversions of up to $2,000. A new excise regime is scheduled to be phased in from 2011, resulting in a final 12.5¢ per litre on fuel ethanol. But all of these arrangements are up in the air because of an ongoing Federal tax review. The uncertain future tax regime is not helping the biofuels industry, but this bill certainly will.

The Opposition has detailed the environmental benefits of biofuels, which we applaud. They have indicated that they will not oppose this bill, and we thank them for their support. We do not accept that the bill's initial mandate has not been successfully implemented. The further measures are deliverable, although the available supply will need to be closely monitored. We will continue to work closely and cooperatively with all sectors of the industry to ensure that cheaper, greener, locally made biofuel is delivered to New South Wales consumers. The Hon. Rick Colless and the Hon. Robert Brown raised the issue of food versus fuel. It is interesting to note that since our 2 per cent mandate has been implemented and the use of ethanol doubled in this State, the price of wheat has dropped from about $450 a tonne to $250 a tonne. I am sure that the Opposition would agree that $250 a tonne is below cost. It is not enough for farmers to make a profit.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It was $220 when I first entered Parliament 21 years ago.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Today it is $250. That explains the situation. A number of members talked about second generation. Last night I flew to Melbourne to meet with Coskata, an American company, and General Motors Holden. They are trying to get second generation production of ethanol and biofuels in Australia. The chief executive officer of Coskata indicated that the company was involved in 70 per cent of the ethanol plants in America. General Motors Holden is very keen to see this legislation go ahead. In relation to investment in biodiesel plants, which I know Mr Ian Cohen supports, the ANZ bank has been very supportive. Because of our proposed mandate, it plans to expand its very large plant on the New South Wales and Victorian border and its plant on the Queensland border as well. I acknowledge the great support of the NRMA for this mandate. Wendy Machin, the new president of the NRMA, met with me and indicated that the NRMA is very keen to see this legislation implemented. I refer to comments about water being a significant issue in the production of ethanol. To put it in perspective, the amount of water needed to produce the 10 per cent ethanol that we are proposing in this State is five times my farm irrigation licence.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: But you have got a big water licence. That is a bit deceptive.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I have not got a big water licence. So it is a very small proportion of the irrigation licences in New South Wales, and even in my area. The farmers who live within one kilometre of my farm have enough irrigation licences to provide all the ethanol in the State. I refer to the food versus fuel issue. Although global food prices increased between 2002 and 2008, recently they have fallen back significantly. The recent price falls have occurred despite a doubling of our own ethanol use and the increasing mandates in the United States that result in demand for ethanol many times greater than that in Australia. It is clear that grain prices are determined by world market forces—including factors such as the price of oil and fertiliser and the exchange rates—not local demand. The 500 million litres of ethanol that we need to replace unleaded petrol with E10 should have a net impact on the available stock feed, after allowing for the use of distillers grain of just 350,000 tonnes annually. That is approximately 5 per cent of the average New South Wales wheat harvest, which is insufficient to have a significant effect on the market.

The Grains Council of Australia considers that the supply of grain is elastic and that the additional demand can be met. The United States feedlotters make great use of distillers grain in the diet of their cattle and other livestock. Lot feeders on the Darling Downs have pre-bought all the distillers grain to be produced by the newly opened Dalby biorefinery. It is time the lot feeders in New South Wales adopted the same open-minded approach to distillers grain and started working with the ethanol industry to ensure the maximum economic value is extracted from every bushel of grain. The joint submission of the Australian Grains Industry, the Grain Growers Association, the Grains Council of Australia and GrainCorp on the carbon pollution reduction scheme green paper supported continued development of and support for renewable fuel sources such as biofuels as part of a wider strategy for energy scrutiny. The submission stated:

Australia should encourage the use of biofuels and if necessary continue to mandate these into the fuel system.

In relation to the comments about the amount of grain that Manildra is using, following Manildra's expansion it will use its waste streams from the current production plus 350,000 tonnes, as I mentioned earlier, of wheat per year to produce ethanol. But also it will produce 300 million litres of ethanol, which is about half its mandate, and it will produce 300,000 tonnes of distillers grain per year. Therefore, out of 350,000 tonnes input of wheat it will output 300,000 tonnes of distillers grain, which, I think Hon. Rick Colless will acknowledge, is high-protein and great for the lot feeders. The net impact on the available stock feed is just 50,000 tonnes—not very significant.

In relation to greenhouse gas emissions, the Manildra expansion includes not only expanded ethanol but also equivalent percentage increases in gluten and starch production. Overall greenhouse emissions cannot be attributed solely to ethanol production. The ethanol production, on a life cycle basis, reduces greenhouse emissions by almost 40 per cent. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Mr IAN COHEN [8.33 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 1 and 4 in globo:

No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [3], lines 17–19. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

biofuel sustainability standard—see section 7A.

No. 4 Page 6, schedule 1 [13]. Insert after line 27:

7A Biofuel sustainability standard
(1) For the purposes of this Act, biofuel sustainability standard means a standard prescribed by the regulations in respect of the sustainable manufacture of ethanol or biodiesel.

(2) The Minister must not recommend the making of a regulation prescribing a standard as a biofuel sustainability standard unless the Minister is satisfied that the proposed standard will give effect to the following principles:

(a) the manufacture and use of ethanol or biodiesel must result in emissions of at least 35 per cent less greenhouse gas than emissions from the manufacture and use of unleaded fuel,

(b) the manufacture of ethanol or biodiesel must not compete with food production and will not significantly prejudice the availability of grain,

(c) the manufacture of ethanol or biodiesel must not threaten the viability of the following:
(i) high conservation value biodiversity,

(ii) water and air quality,

(iii) agricultural crop species diversity,

(iv) soil fertility and health.
(3) The Minister is not to recommend the making of a regulation under this section without first referring the proposed regulation to the Expert Panel for advice and considering the advice of the Expert Panel on the proposed regulation.

These amendments set the scope for regulation-making powers so that the biofuels sustainability standard is subject to some of the principles of biofuel sustainability as adopted internationally and not just at the discretion of the Minister. In proposing this bill the Government has often touted the environmental and sustainability benefits of biofuels as justification for the mandates. These amendments are designed to keep the Government to its word on this point. As many members know, the impact of biofuels on the environment and climate change is not a simple equation. Biofuels can play an important part in tackling the climate change problem, but it can also, quite simply, make things much worse. What effect it will have depends on the details: what kinds of biofuels are used; how they are produced; what impact they have on food availability and land clearing; and other such externalities.

In presenting its case for this bill the Government has chosen to largely ignore the importance of such details, yet it has still been liberally using the green and sustainable labels. As the bill stands the only mechanism for ensuring whether or not the biofuels mandates are genuinely sustainable is the biofuels sustainability standard—a very important mechanism of the bill that we cannot give unfettered power to the Minister to make regulations for. This is especially so when powerful interest groups would tempt the Minister to stay locked into unsustainable greenhouse gas intensive forms of biofuel production, which do more harm to climate change than good, instead of steering the biofuel industry towards genuinely sustainable forms of biofuels. To ensure that it is not just Government rhetoric and that the genuine purpose behind the bill is to tackle climate change and sustainability, we need to have guiding principles for the biofuels sustainability standard.

Amendment No. 4 states the principles that underlie a biofuels sustainability standard. It takes all the best points from international forums, such as the Round Table on Sustainable Biofuels; from reports of non-government organisations, such as the World Wildlife Fund; as well as from the legislation and the proposed legislation of overseas schemes, such as New Zealand's, albeit short-lived one, and that of the European Parliament. The principle in this amendment that sustainable biofuels shall contribute to climate change mitigation by significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions as compared to fossil fuels—as stated in the Round Table on Sustainable Biofuels—is internationally accepted by non-government organisations, corporate stakeholders and government representatives and is common sense.

The 35 per cent greenhouse gas reduction target is a benchmark that New Zealand adopted and the European Union adopted in mid-December 2008 and is supported by many international non-government organisations in reports such as the World Wildlife Fund report. Likewise, the principle that biofuels shall not compete with food production is also very well recognised internationally and should be particularly ingrained in us all, given the recent experience in world food price shocks affecting both developed and developing countries. The United Nations has been a very vocal body warning against the impacts of biofuels on food production if schemes are not regulated properly.

Furthermore, other negative social and environmental impacts of biofuels should not be exempt from the sustainability standard. If one is going to call something sustainable one should make sure it ticks all the boxes and does not ameliorate one problem whilst causing a whole raft of others, as has been the experience in countries without comprehensive sustainability standards. That is why we have included consideration in the standard for conservation and biodiversity, water and air quality and soil fertility, as well as agricultural crop species diversity. I commend Greens amendments Nos 1 and 4 to the Committee.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.37 p.m.]: The Opposition cannot support these amendments. We find it cute that Mr Ian Cohen says we cannot have our own rules; we should use someone else's rules because they are probably better. New Zealand had this rule and then, by the member's own admission, got rid of it, and the European Parliament has it. The Minister has pointed out, and it is self-evident, that under Federation we are a nation of States and section 92 dealing with trade between States presents a problem with Mr Ian Cohen's argument. I cannot see any reason why we should be looking just to Europe with some kind of modern cultural cringe. Proposed section 7A (2) (a) states:

the manufacture and use of ethanol or biodiesel must result in emissions of at least 35% less greenhouse gas than emissions from the manufacture and use of unleaded fuel.

I suspect that the member who moved this amendment is a great supporter of wind power. I wonder how wind power would add up under those guidelines.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Police, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [8.40 p.m.]: The Government cannot support these amendments for some of the reasons enunciated by the Hon. Duncan Gay. A system such as that proposed does not acknowledge the interstate issues that have been mentioned. New South Wales has stringent planning approval processes that address the sustainability issues that have been raised. Other States also have approval systems, but they may not be same. The Mutual Recognition Act, alluded to by the Hon. Duncan Gay, protects freedom of trade between the States, whereas these proposed amendments would impede such trade. How would the Greens propose that we go about accrediting interstate plants and what would happen when we tried to deny accreditation to a plant in Victoria or Queensland? The Government opposes these amendments.

Question—That Greens amendments Nos 1 and 4 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Greens amendments Nos 1 and 4 negatived.

Mr IAN COHEN [8.41 p.m.]: I seek leave to move Greens amendments Nos 2 and 3 in globo.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.41 p.m.]: Amendments Nos 2 and 3 are based on amendments Nos 1 and 4, because they relate to complying with a biofuel sustainable standard. If we have not passed amendments Nos 1 and 4, it makes it hard to move amendments Nos 2 and 3. Is that the case?

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Greens amendments Nos 1 to 4 are related. However, they are not so related that amendments Nos 2 and 3 cannot be moved separately. If they were agreed to, they might impact on the meaningfulness of the bill, but that is the decision of the Committee.

Mr IAN COHEN [8.43 p.m.], by leave: I move amendments Nos 2 and 3 in globo:

No. 2 Page 6, schedule 1 [13], lines 11–13. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(3) Ethanol is not to be counted towards the volume of ethanol sold by a volume fuel seller unless the ethanol is produced at a facility or by a process accredited by the Minister, on the recommendation of the Expert Panel, as producing ethanol that complies with a biofuel sustainability standard.

No. 3 Page 6, schedule 1 [13], lines 25–27. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(3) Biodiesel is not to be counted towards the volume of biodiesel sold by a volume fuel seller unless the biodiesel is produced at a facility or by a process accredited by the Minister, on the recommendation of the Expert Panel, as producing biodiesel that complies with a biofuel sustainability standard.

I appreciate what the Hon. Duncan Gay said, and I do not expect these amendments to be a rocket ship of success—ethanol driven of course. These amendments create an accreditation process that will help to enforce the sustainability standards. They also give the expert panel an advisory role in ensuring the accreditation process is consistent with the sustainability standards. As mentioned previously, the mechanism of sustainability standards is of vital importance to this bill if we are serious about this biofuel scheme actually leading to improved environmental outcomes rather than enormous harm. It would therefore be prudent to give the expert panel an advisory role to guide the discretion of the Minister and the department and to help them to stay on track with the sustainable standards. I commend the amendments to the Committee and thank members for their small indulgence.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.44 p.m.]: The Opposition opposes the amendments.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Police, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [8.44 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendments for the same reasons as I stated earlier.

Question—That Greens amendments Nos 2 and 3 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Greens amendments Nos 2 and 3 negatived.

Mr IAN COHEN [8.45 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 5:

No. 5 Page 9, schedule 1 [13], lines 24–26. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(1) The Minister must publish information about compliance with the requirements of this Act by volume fuel sellers on the website of the Department of Lands.

(2) The information must be published no later than 2 months after the end of a relevant period.

This amendment seeks to bring the bill up to date with basic principles of transparency and accountability. Should the public want to scrutinise the effectiveness of this scheme they should not have to fight a freedom of information battle to get information about compliance with the Act. I commend the amendment.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.46 p.m.]: This is a persuasive amendment, particularly given the comments of the Leader of The Nationals, Andrew Stoner, about the freedom of information process required to find out exactly what the Government was doing with regard to compliance. Part of the problem in this bill and in compliance is the occasional lack of ability to supply out of New South Wales. I suspect that that is the real situation. The honourable member moved what I believe is an appropriate amendment in indicating that the Minister "must" publish information rather than, as the bill currently provides, that the Minister may, from time to time, publish information about compliance with the requirements of this Act by volume fuel sellers. The Hon. Ian Cohen wants to remove "may" and replace it with "must".

However, the Minister's comments in summation persuaded me not to support this legislation. He indicated that the bill provides that if all reasonable steps have been taken and the sellers cannot fulfil the requirements, they are not required to do so. I consulted the bill, but I could not find that provision. I asked the Minister's advisers to direct me to the provision and they were helpful in showing me the regulation covering that point. The regulation provides that certain actions taken by a primary wholesaler constitute the taking of reasonable steps to comply with section 6 of the Act. That is a realistic approach; it says that if it is not there a seller is not breaching the Act by not complying.

One could argue that the Greens amendment provides transparency and that it would show that sellers were actually trying to do the right thing. However, two issues have persuaded me not to support the amendment. First, I have not been able to contact my people this evening to see whether they are willing to change their mind about rejecting the amendment. They were clear earlier this evening that they did not support it. Secondly, I am concerned that this may well be used as a form of name and shame. Despite the fact that people are complying within the meaning of the Act and regulations, there appears to be a paranoia on the part of certain companies in this State that may dictate that it becomes a name and shame scenario. For those reasons, the Opposition cannot support this amendment.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Police, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [8.48 p.m.]: I endorse the comments made by the Hon. Duncan Gay. In my speech in reply I alluded to the fact that some companies—again I do not want to name and shame—were not able to reach the 2 per cent mandate through no fault of their own. Frankly, it was because our legislation did not cover a different company that that company supplied. For that company to be named and shamed or for its name to be published as one of the few companies that did not reach the 2 per cent without a proper explanation would have unfairly held it up to criticism. The Minister has the power to publish compliance results if that is in the public interest and to name and shame if required. However, the Minister should also have the power to keep that information private if that is also in the public interest.

Question—That Greens amendment No. 5 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Greens amendment No. 5 negatived.

Mr IAN COHEN [8.49 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 6:

No. 6 Page 9, schedule 1 [13], line 35. Omit "the confidentiality of the". Insert instead "commercial in confidence".

The debate the Committee had on amendment No. 5 covers the argument to be put on this amendment. I commend Greens amendment No. 6 to the Committee.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Police, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [8.49 p.m.]: The existing wording should remain. The Government believes the current wording, "confidentiality of the information" also covers commercial-in-confidence but the reverse does not apply.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [8.50 p.m.]: The Opposition agrees with Mr Ian Cohen and not with the Government on this matter. Subsection (4) of new section 14 reads:

The regulations can prohibit the publication under this section of specified information or information of a specified kind, for the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of the information.

That means one can refuse to publish anything, based on the word "confidentiality". It means you do not have to publish anything if you do not want to. That is going beyond the realm of realism without a valid reason. The substitution of the words "commercial in confidence" is quite appropriate. If something is commercial-in-confidence, we accept that it should not be published. But the bill proposes that something should not be published just because it is confidential, without any other reason. That is the literal reading of these words. Without totally going to the wall on it, because it is pretty meaningless, I think the Government should accept that the Greens have got this right.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Police, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [8.52 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendment.

Question—That Greens amendment No. 6 be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Greens amendment No. 6 agreed to.

Mr IAN COHEN [9.00 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 7:

No. 7 Page 11, schedule 1 [13]. Insert after line 34:
(d) may have an adverse effect on grain or food stock availability, or

(e) may substantially inflate grain or food stock prices, or

(f) may have a significant adverse environmental impact on water availability or quality, soil fertility and health or biodiversity, or

This amendment gives the Minister the responsibility to consider the impact of the bill on sustainability and climate change and the power to suspend the operation of the Act on the basis that the Act does not achieve one of its primary intended purposes, which is combating climate change and improving environmental outcomes. The stated intention of the bill is quite clear. Although we may disagree on the effectiveness of the Government's trajectory on this matter and the effectiveness of industry to resolve the problem, the fact is clear: everyone is agreed that it is an action undertaken by government and industry to resolve some of the issues of fossil fuel and sustainability and the much-touted subject of this debate, climate change through an alternative source of fuel production. It is reasonable in this case for the Government and Opposition to see their way clear to accepting that the amendment gives a degree of consideration to the basic drive of the legislation. I commend Greens amendment No. 7 to the Committee.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Police, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [9.02 p.m.]: The Government does not agree with the amendment because it is not necessary. The matters canvassed in the amendment are effectively and adequately handled under the heading of the extraordinary reasons, which are part of new section 17 (1) (d). That allows the expert panel to contemplate all those factors mentioned in the amendment plus others not included that perhaps have not been thought of.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.03 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the amendment. Many people have spoken of the concerns of farmers about the cost of feed during drought and the concerns of feedlotters. This amendment goes to the heart of those concerns. It provides for those exceptions. Although the Minister says the amendment is not necessary because the matters are covered in new section 17 (1) (d), it is a little like saying that we need to be sure to be sure. I believe we should specify the exceptions in detail. The Minister's comments in the second reading of the bill are important but this amendment goes further with respect to the suspension of minimum biofuel requirements by stating that the Minister may suspend the requirement if satisfied that compliance:

(d) may have an adverse effect on grain or food stock availability, or

(e) may substantially inflate grain or food stock prices, or

(f) may have a significant adverse environmental impact on water availability or quality, soil fertility and health or biodiversity, or

This is a sensible amendment. It deals with the concerns of lot feeders and concerns about drought. Whilst they may be concerned about the price of grain during a drought, it may not always be a problem. The Minister did not actually speak against the amendment and suggest it was a bad amendment. He did not suggest it would change the bill and make everything unworkable. His view was that the matters outlined in the amendment were already covered in the bill and therefore the amendment was unnecessary. I think the amendment should be supported, just to be sure.

Question—That Greens amendment No. 7 be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Greens amendment No. 7 agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Police, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [9.14 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question put.

The House divided.
Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly with a message requesting its concurrence in the amendments.

Bills received from the Legislative Assembly.

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

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.

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

Government Business Order of the Day No. 2 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.22 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Robertson: 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.

I am pleased to introduce the Associations Incorporation Bill 2009.

The bill rewrites and overhauls the current legislation bringing the regulation of associations up to date with the modern business environment removing archaic and redundant provisions and making other amendments which have arisen from a review of the Act.

Not-for-profit associations are an important and integral part of our community fabric.

The Associations Incorporation legislation provides a simple inexpensive means for community and sporting groups to achieve corporate status.

Incorporation allows these groups to act as a body corporate and provides limited liability.

There are more than 35,000 associations currently registered under the New South Wales legislation.

Incorporated associations represent a diverse range of activities from the local soccer or music club to child care services community support groups and animal breeding clubs.

The bill will streamline and simplify administrative procedures for these groups and assist associations in managing their affairs more efficiently.

The bill will also strengthen the financial accountability of larger associations while ensuring that smaller associations have less onerous financial reporting requirements.

One of the most fundamental reforms is the insertion of the objectives of the Act into the statute itself.

Specifically the bill provides that the objects of the legislation are:

· to establish a scheme for the registration of associations engaging in small-scale, non-profit and non-commercial activities, and

· to provide for the corporate governance and financial accountability of associations.

The inclusion of these objects will alleviate stakeholders' concerns about the legislative intention in regulating associations.

The bill makes significant changes to the current Act making it easier for associations to manage their own affairs while ensuring they remain accountable to their members and the public.

The review of the Act found it is not appropriate to impose the same level of administrative obligation on small associations as it is on associations that have a significant turnover and assets.

In response the bill introduces a two-tiered financial reporting system which will distinguish small and large associations on the basis of a financial threshold.

This threshold will be based on the association's gross receipts for the financial year last ended or the association's current assets.

This threshold will be calculated in accordance with the regulations so as to allow refinements and adjustments to be made as required.

This will provide a comprehensive yet flexible method for determining the appropriate threshold through a comprehensive public consultation process.

Large—or "tier 1"—associations will be required to have their accounts audited annually by an appropriately qualified auditor.

Small associations—termed "tier 2" associations—will be exempt from this requirement.

The purpose of introducing this two-tiered system is to ensure that larger associations are properly accountable for the financial and asset management while at the same time recognising that smaller associations should not be unduly burdened by the same financial reporting requirements.

There may be occasions where the auditing of these large associations' financial records may put individual associations in financial distress or there may be some other reason why an association is unable to comply with the auditing requirements.

Recognising that this legislation is dealing with not-for-profit usually volunteer-run community groups the bill includes a power for the Commissioner for Fair Trading to make an order exempting an association or a class of associations from the requirements where appropriate.

The exemption can be subject to appropriate conditions or a time limit and can be varied, suspended or revoked by the Commissioner if necessary.

Alternatively a situation may occur where the Commissioner finds it necessary to direct a small association to have its financial records audited either to ensure the association's assets are protected or for some other reason.

The bill provides the Commissioner with the power to make this directive.

Incorporation under the Act is only suitable for non-profit groups.

The current Act provides a list of circumstances in which an association is deemed not to be trading or securing pecuniary gain for its members.

During consultation it became apparent that the current definition is difficult to interpret and does not give adequate direction to associations as to what constitutes "securing pecuniary gain".

The bill adds a new clearer definition of the term pecuniary gain which includes circumstances where association members will obtain financial benefits.

In addition the bill retains the list of circumstances in which an association is not considered to be securing pecuniary gain for example for members where an association carries out fundraising activities but no part of the gain is divided among or received by members.

The new definition is more comprehensive and provides clearer direction on these matters and greater certainty for associations

The public officer of an association plays a very important role.

They are the formal public point of contact for an association and are therefore required to provide an address for the service of notices upon the association.

The current Act requires the register of the committee members to be kept at the public officer's residential address and public officers are required to provide their residential address for this purpose.

During consultation some stakeholders made the point that given some associations are formed to deal with sensitive family or personal issues it may be inappropriate for the public officer to provide a residential address.

The bill addresses these concerns by clarifying that the public officer must provide the Commissioner with either a residential address or some other address at which the officer can generally be found.

The register of committee members will be able to be kept in New South Wales at the main premises of the association or the association's official address.

The bill also clearly states that an outgoing public officer and committee members must hand over all records and documents relating to the association.

This will eliminate the need for court action to obtain association records which is both inefficient and costly to the association.

In regard to disclosure of interests the bill will require committee members to disclose any conflict of interest when dealing with contracts and prohibit a member from voting on any matter where a conflict of interest exists.

Such provisions are standard practice for good corporate governance and will set ethical standards for committee members as well as providing consistency with the contractual obligations of funding providers.

As part of the process of updating the terminology of the Act and bringing it into line with other corporate structures it was determined that the term 'constitution' should be substituted for the term 'rules'.

References to by-laws are also removed in the bill and the constitution is defined as the document recorded in the Register of Incorporated Associations for a particular association.

The term 'constitution' is more comprehensive than 'rules' and better represents the role of this document.

This terminology also aligns with other community organisations such as sporting groups which may also be guided by forms of model constitutions for their sports.

The bill includes new provisions which provide the Commissioner for Fair Trading with wider powers to direct an association to change its name in circumstances where an association's name is unacceptable or has become unacceptable.

The current Act does not grant the Commissioner these wider powers and does not clearly list the classes of names that are unacceptable for incorporated associations.

To address this the bill includes clear guidelines for determining if a name is unacceptable for the purposes of the Act.

Unacceptable names include a name that suggests a connection with the Crown or State, a name similar to or the same as that of another association or a name that is offensive or undesirable.

This provision is consistent with the restrictions on the registration of business names set out in the Business Names Act 2002.

An independent appeal mechanism is included enabling an association to apply for a review by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal with respect to a direction from Commissioner to change its name and for other decisions.

The bill also clarifies the process for changing or reserving the name of an association.

The review of the Act found that legislative requirements for an incorporated association to use a common seal are archaic and unnecessary.

After consultation with stakeholders it was decided that requiring the signatures of two executive association members would be sufficient for the execution of documents.

Although the bill removes the requirement for a seal it does not prevent associations from continuing to use a seal if they wish to do so.

This approach is consistent with the Commonwealth Corporations Act 2001 and provides cost savings to associations.

Another finding of the review was that the current Act does not set out clear statutory duties for the members of an association's management committee.

Other jurisdictions such as South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria include statutory duties in their Acts and New South Wales stakeholders raised the importance of having a statutory regime to ensure ethical standards are maintained.

Accordingly the bill introduces high level statutory duties for committee members.

The new requirements aim to protect the public associations and the association members from rogue officers who might improperly use their position or information to the detriment of the association or to gain a personal advantage.

These provisions will empower the Commissioner for Fair Trading to take legal and disciplinary action where the statutory duties and requirements are breached.

This is particularly important given that other members of the association may not be in a financial position to take such action.

Another important matter dealt with in the bill relates to meetings of an association.

The provisions relating to meetings and voting have been updated to enhance the ability of associations to operate efficiently.

In particular more flexibility has been created around the requirements for holding meetings.

For example where an association's constitution allows a general meeting will now be able to be held at two or more venues using any technology that gives the association's members a reasonable opportunity to participate.

This innovation will be of great benefit to associations whose members are spread across large geographical areas.

The bill also provides associations with the option of holding postal ballots.

To protect the integrity of the voting process postal ballots will only be able to be conducted for resolutions of a kind permitted by an association's constitution and must be conducted in accordance with requirements which will be prescribed in the regulations.

The bill also streamlines the Act by repealing the defunct provisions contained in the current Part 6 which relates to insurance.

Amendments to the regulations in 2002 had already removed any prescribed requirements for insurance.

The insurance crisis being experienced at that time had resulted in many associations being in the untenable position of having a legislative requirement to hold public liability insurance but being unable to purchase it.

While the Office of Fair Trading strongly advises associations to hold insurance for their association it has not been mandatory under the legislation since 2002.

The bill removes these redundant provisions.

As a consequence of the requirements of the Ministerial Council Corporations Agreement 2002 the bill redrafts the provisions that currently disapply the operation of the Commonwealth's corporations legislation.

Following negotiations with the Australian Government an agreement was reached for the bill to include a blanket disapplication but to reapply a number of key matters.

These relate to the areas of financial disclosure, fundraising, market misconduct, unconscionable conduct and consumer protection.

In closing I would like to give a brief overview of the very extensive consultation process which has led to these reforms that are of such importance to community based associations and their members.

In addition to the consultation carried out during the initial review which involved release of a discussion paper, acceptance of submissions and meetings with stakeholders there has since been ongoing detailed consultation in the development of the bill.

These consultation processes included the provision of information on the Fair Trading and other websites, invitations to comment directly mailed to stakeholders and other interested parties and the preparation and publication of an editorial in a range of community newsletters.

In response to the exposure draft bill released in 2008 Fair Trading received 59 written submissions, the majority from incorporated associations.

Consultation meetings were undertaken with stakeholder's bodies such as The Council of Social Service of New South Wales, peak sporting organisations and the Canterbury Bankstown Migrant Resource Centre.

Feedback from the submissions and meetings informed the revision of the draft bill and extensive changes were made in response to the concerns and suggestions of key stakeholders.

I am proud to say that this bill is the result of a genuine and two way communication between Fair Trading and the community members who will be directly affected by it.

I wish to acknowledge the contributions of all the organisations and individuals who assisted in the development of this bill.

The resulting legislation addresses the concerns of stakeholders as well as incorporating their proposals for reform.

The Associations Incorporation Bill 2009 maintains the current simple and inexpensive alternative for acquiring corporate status for small non-profit non-commercial organisations.

In doing so the bill streamlines the processes involved in the incorporation and regulation of associations.

At the same time the bill simplifies and clarifies many of the current requirements and increases flexibility for associations in carrying out their operations and complying with their obligations.

It also better protects associations, their members, funding bodies and the public from potentially unscrupulous and illegal conduct.

Associations play vital roles in our society and I am pleased to introduce a bill that will deliver benefits to both associations and their members throughout New South Wales.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [9.22 p.m.]: The Associations Incorporation Bill 2009 had its genesis in April 2003 in a discussion paper released by the Government when Bob Carr was the Premier of the State. It has taken an inordinate amount of time for what was a discussion paper six years ago to reach this House as a bill on the day before April Fools Day 2009. I estimate that probably seven Ministers for Fair Trading have dabbled with the bill. Although it took six years to reach this place, the bill was considered to be so urgent that it was rammed through the lower House only hours ago and has been brought on for debate in the upper House with literally five minutes notice to the Opposition. Nevertheless, it will be a relief to many associations that the legislation is finally before the House.

I begin my remarks by congratulating Mr Greg Aplin, the shadow Minister for Fair Trading, for the wonderful job he has done on consulting with many groups about the legislation. He has diligently endeavoured to get across the detail of the bill in the limited time afforded to us by the Government. The Opposition does not oppose the bill; nor will it move amendments to it in Committee. However, the Greens have proposed a large number of amendments, some of which the Opposition will support. I will deal with those in the Committee stage.

The purpose of the Associations Incorporation Bill 2009 is to update the existing Act to cover contemporary situations and to provide enhanced financial protection for members of associations. There are more than 35,000 incorporated associations in New South Wales, ranging from Scout groups and fishing and sporting clubs to associations with an annual turnover exceeding $500,000. The Associations Incorporation Act 1984 commenced in 1985. The first review of the Act and regulations in 1989 led to amendments in 1992. A further review of the regulations took place in 1999 and a fresh round of community discussion papers appeared in April 2003. The review of the regulations appeared to go nowhere, although it raised expectations that much-needed reform was imminent. Indeed, the recommendations of the April 2003 review were not made public.

When minor amendments were made in 2007 the Opposition was eager to obtain the outcome of the review and the submissions that were lodged by many community groups. It was the Opposition's contention at the time—and it is still our contention—that the level of secrecy surrounding such a matter is completely unnecessary and in fact is detrimental to informed debate. An exposure draft of the current legislation was released in early 2008 and the bill was tabled on 4 March 2009.

Essentially the bill appears worthwhile and sensible. The Opposition acknowledges the wide community consultation over an extremely prolonged period of time and that the Government has now addressed several of the key stakeholder concerns that were raised in their submissions to the exposure draft. The bill introduces tighter financial reporting and auditing requirements for larger incorporated associations; it simplifies and modernises administration, for example, to allow postal voting and for the holding of a meeting in two places at once, allowing members to contribute by modern communication technologies, such as telephone and email; it updates penalties and creates new offences to deal with committee members who use their position, or the information they receive in the course of their duties, dishonestly; it provides a broader definition of pecuniary interests that need to be disclosed by committee members; and it contains expanded sections on the cancellation of registration, insolvency and winding up.

The bill introduces a two-tier financial reporting system for associations. Tier 1 associations are larger associations with high annual financial receipts or substantial assets that will have to meet increased standards of financial record keeping and reporting, including a requirement to have their accounts annually audited. Tier 2 associations face much more modest financial requirements. Thresholds are yet to be set for the transition points for associations ceasing to be tier 2 and becoming tier 1. The Government is looking at setting a figure for annual receipts and assets.

The shadow Minister for Fair Trading was advised by the Minister's staff that a turnover of $200,000 per annum is under consideration. There was no information available about the asset-value threshold. Obviously that will be a matter of intense interest to the Opposition and the associations affected, particularly the associations in the middle range. The Opposition is concerned that some incorporated associations may have accumulated assets of considerable value over time—assets that may be increasing merely through property revaluation. Potentially, many associations will be in this situation, for instance, preschools and surf lifesaving clubs that own their properties might find their land, which was once at the back end of the park and of little value a few years ago, is now worth a million dollars. There is no detail in the bill about this; it will be simply left to regulation. Assets alone should not tip an incorporated association into high-level compliance obligations. Annual receipts should always be taken into account, and arguably the receipts should be averaged over the past three years to allow for peaks, such as upon the sale of an asset or an unusual increase in membership fees.

The bill is an attempt to streamline the administration of incorporated associations. However, there is a concern among grant-dependent incorporated associations that while they may meet financial and other requirements of government funding bodies, they could find themselves in breach of this Act and therefore liable to penalties if the requirements do not match. A concern has been expressed about the threshold for tier 1 incorporated associations and the requirement to have a financial audit. The Government should explain its actions to match the requirements of this bill with the requirements of government funded bodies. It is a perennial issue that needs to be addressed.

The provisions requiring incorporated associations to have public liability insurance have slowly been removed—it began with amendments to the regulations in 2002 and has been completed by the provisions in this bill. It could be argued that this is a failure of governance. The public expects organisations to have liability insurance, particularly where an incorporated association has land or engages in activities of potential danger to the public. During the insurance crisis in the early part of this decade it seemed reasonable to do away with mandatory insurance, as it was difficult and sometimes impossible to obtain and extremely expensive. Some organisations found themselves doing nothing but fundraising to pay for their insurance premiums. The Government should source interested insurance companies, negotiate affordable premiums and then make public liability insurance mandatory. Incorporated associations get the protection of limited liability and, in return, should ensure the public has a remedy, when needed, of insurance coverage.

The existing Act prohibits "trading" by an incorporated association. The bill removes that word while expanding the definition of "pecuniary gain" for members, which is a prohibited activity. The concept of trading is complex, of course. When I was shadow Minister for Fair Trading strong representations were made to me by an amateur play group that was concerned about the word "trading" in the existing legislation. The group received no personal financial gain as a result of its productions but charged an admission fee to cover the out-of-pocket expenses of staging events, such as for scenery and costumes. While it was not financially beneficial to the members of the play group, the organisation had obtained a legal opinion that as they were trading they were not eligible to be covered by the Associations Incorporation Act. That was of great concern to them. This issue has been raised with the Government for many years and it seems to have been somewhat addressed in this legislation.

The bill does not mention the existence or roles of secretary and treasurer. Instead, the focus is on public officer. The bill should require incorporated associations to have both a secretary and a treasurer to ensure that these roles are part of the essential structure of every incorporated association. In a briefing to the shadow Minister, the Government indicated that the introduction of the Act will be revenue neutral. It is worth noting, however, that the new or broadened offences and increases in penalties have raised an expectation of greater enforcement by the Office of Fair Trading. I will deal with the issue of penalties in more detail when the Greens move their amendments in Committee. It is an issue the Opposition will monitor very closely because some very harsh penalties for such offences have been included in the bill—much harsher than we are comfortable with. As I said, I will deal with that matter when the relevant amendments are considered in Committee.

A further issue I wish to raise is training. Associations are run by volunteers. The people who take on the position of voluntary office bearers seem to wear many different hats in the community, and they have a thirst for more training and information about their responsibilities. I have attended many meetings of community associations, including Liberal Party branch meetings, that operate as voluntary organisations. When the office bearers get to the part of the annual general meeting at which an eligible auditor is discussed, they become confused. It does not matter how many times they have the discussion year in and year out. Everyone wants to get it right, and there is a need for clearer information about compliance obligations.

With this overview legislation soon to be passed into law, there is high expectation that the Government will provide proper resources to inform and educate the wonderful volunteers who carry a great weight of responsibility and a heavy load. I believe I speak on behalf of the whole Parliament when I say that the Government must make the task of complying with the obligations easier, particularly given the fairly harsh penalties that can be imposed under this legislation. The Government, rather than talking in terms of penalties, must take a more positive approach that values our volunteers. It could assist by providing easy-to-understand information, particularly to distinguish the task of office bearers. For example, the Government could provide a one-page fact sheet that explains clearly the responsibilities of the treasurer of a second tier association. That type of information would be most beneficial. As to compliance with this legislation, it would be farcical for the Government to enforce provisions if it has not provided the proper resources to educate all those wonderful people about their responsibilities. Volunteers are positive people who want to meet their responsibilities. I am sure that any effort to assist them to do so will be warmly welcomed by them. It is in the interests of all that this work is undertaken.

I again congratulate the shadow Minister, Greg Aplin. He has done an outstanding job in very limited time. Inexplicably, the Government kept a great deal of information secret. I acknowledge the Council of Social Services of New South Wales, which made very detailed submissions to all members and informed our views. The Law Society, the Aged Care Community Services Association, the Association of Children's Welfare Agencies, the New South Wales Scouts, the New South Wales Girl Guides and the Local Community Services Association were involved in consultation. My colleague the Hon. Melinda Pavey will raise some additional issues. I flag to the Government that the Opposition will not oppose the legislation but we are very interested in the Greens amendments.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [9.37 p.m.]: I thank the Hon. Catherine Cusack for her contribution to the debate on the Associations Incorporation Bill 2009 and I join with her in recognising the work of the shadow Minister, Mr Greg Aplin. As the shadow Minister for Emergency Services I want to raise a specific issue in relation to the surf life saving movement. The role of surf life saving clubs in keeping the people of New South Wales safe at the beach and other areas is undervalued. I raise an issue that has been brought to my attention by the member for Manly, Mike Baird, who received correspondence from North Steyne Surf Life Saving Club, which is within his electorate. The issue goes to the very heart of the Government's inability to connect with the people affected by this legislation. A discussion paper on this bill was released in April 2003. As the Hon. Catherine Cusack pointed out, there have been seven Ministers for Fair Trading since that time. Is it any wonder there has not been proper consultation on this matter within the community? I raise the concerns of surf life saving clubs and Surf Life Saving New South Wales. I particularly refer to correspondence from Kieran Martin, who wrote:

The proposed bill as drafted will be detrimental to the North Steyne SLSC and many other not for profit Surf Life Saving Clubs because of the following reasons.

He points out the need to have prepared full reporting financial reports that cost as much as $10,000. Mr Martin writes:

Our members are usually not interested in that level of detail, and the clubs income does not justify the cost.

Further, Mr Martin wrote that surf clubs presently set up as incorporated associations with more than $500,000 in assets—such as leasehold improvements to the North Steyne Surf Club, which is on Crown land; and this would be the case for the majority of clubs—would be required to become a company limited by guarantee with onerous reporting requirements with potential costs in the tens of thousands of dollars. He also writes:

Our Auditor would be required to be a Registered Company Auditor. This would result in significant increases of say $6,000 for reasons detailed.

I also note that the chief executive officer of Surf Life Saving New South Wales has had meetings with Mr Graham West, the Minister for Volunteering, raising genuine concerns in relation to this Act and the charitable fundraising legislation and referring to turnover of more than $200,000, which requires accounts to be prepared to Australian accounting standards. He wrote:

Many, if not the majority, of the 129 surf clubs need to raise funds to operate the club for the community and club fellowship. The type of turnover activities include donations, sponsorships, government grants, general fundraising, sportsmen functions, social functions for members and contributions by members and their family towards the cost of touring to State and Australian Titles. This turnover is, more often than not, likely to be in excess of $200,000, sometimes as a result of a once-off grant for capital and facility development.

I acknowledge that the Minister in the other place during his agreement in principle speech highlighted that, pursuant to the bill, any association can be exempted from tier 1 auditing requirements at the discretion of the director general where there are good reasons for such exemption. Although the Minister has stated that exemptions can be granted by the director general, it is significant to highlight the concerns of surf clubs across New South Wales that this constitutes yet another application process, another process for Government, another obstacle in the way of volunteers who are genuinely trying to do the right thing by their communities, and another process that volunteers will have to go through to receive exemptions from the onerous auditing requirements proposed in the bill.

Mr Rob Stokes, the member for Pittwater, has raised concerns with me on behalf of his local clubs, and I know that the Coffs Harbour club, which is in my area, also has concerns about financial disclosure. We are now reliant on the director general and the Minister doing the right thing with regulations. Let us hope they do the right thing. The bill should be clearer about this, given that the Government has had six years to get its act together on the matter. But as my colleague the Hon. Catherine Cusack said, that seven Fair Trading Ministers have been involved in the process does not augur well for good policy discussion and good communication with volunteers across New South Wales.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.43 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Associations Incorporation Bill 2009, which is a rewrite of the 1984 Associations Incorporation legislation. Discussion on the matter has taken place over a period of years, resulting in an exposure draft bill and 59 written submissions and this bill that is now before the House. I have been involved with many incorporated associations over the years and I am pleased that the bill has been introduced. Not-for-profit associations play a very important role in our society and, as those who run them are usually enthusiastic volunteers, management procedures should be made as simple as possible in order that management committees—secretaries, treasurers and the like—can easily understand their role and not be overawed by the Department of Fair Trading when applying for incorporation.

Currently more than 35,000 associations are registered under New South Wales legislation. They represent a wide range of organisations such as local soccer clubs, music clubs, childcare services, community support groups and animal breeding clubs. I was instrumental two years ago in forming the Australian Christian Nation Association to uphold our Christian heritage in Australia. Such associations cover a wide variety of aims and objectives. They can have ad hoc meetings and mailing lists, but I think it is better that they have an organised approach, as there is with the incorporation of associations. An organised approach brings about order and reduces the potential for conflict when there is no agreement about the model constitution to be followed.

The bill provides for two-tier associations. A tier 1 association will be required to have its accounts audited annually by an appropriately qualified auditor. It is very important, no matter how large the organisation, that this not be a heavy financial burden to the association. We know, for example, that problems with audit for electoral returns can be quite expensive. It must be clearly stated that the auditor may be a qualified auditor as distinct from a company auditor, who is often expensive. A qualified accountant may audit the books of an association.

As have other members, I too have some concerns about how the two-tiered system will operate in relation to some associations. The idea is to ensure that large associations are properly accountable for financial and asset management and have higher financial reporting requirements than smaller associations. The figure of $500,000 has been mentioned. It sounds like a lot of money. Some associations may have an old building that they use as headquarters that may be worth $500,000, but do not have the wherewithal to pay for expensive auditing processes. I welcome the exemption provisions. In my opinion it would far better if large associations that have the financial resources could move voluntarily into the tier 1 category if they wish. Making it compulsory may create some stress for some associations. I believe it is important that the commissioner and/or the Minister issue a statement clarifying the operation of the two-tiered approach so that associations are not overburdened.

The bill clarifies the role of the public officers of associations who play an important role. It also reinforces the need for the register of committee members to be kept in New South Wales at the main premises of an association or the association's official address. There is a requirement to maintain membership records. The Commissioner for Fair Trading is to be given wide powers to direct an association to change its name in circumstances where an association's name is unacceptable or has become unacceptable. That too is important. Under the current Act the commissioner does not have such wide powers, and the Act does not clearly list the classes of names for incorporated associations that are unacceptable. I believe that the commissioner should have these powers, particularly if an association seeks to register a name that implies a connection with the Crown or the State of New South Wales and therefore makes it appear to be a semi-government body, or if an association seeks to register a name that is similar to, or the same as, another association or a name that is offensive or undesirable.

Some years ago when we formed the Festival of Light we failed to incorporate and register it and one of the porn peddlers in Sydney registered the name "Festival of Light". He contacted me and said, "I now own your name". We were very upset and contacted the Office of Fair Trading about the matter. The chap finally said, "You can have the name back if you pay me $1,000". So we had to buy back our name and the other person cancelled his registration of it. The commissioner needs to have the power to stop an association seeking deliberately to use a name that is similar to another association's name and thereby imply that it is the same organisation, perhaps in an attempt to get donations from well-meaning people. I am not unhappy with the powers of the commissioner. I believe the powers are justified and I will not support amendments in Committee to water them down.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [9.50 p.m.]: The Greens do not oppose the Associations Incorporation Bill 2009. However, we have significant concerns about several provisions of the bill and will be moving amendments to rectify its deficiencies. The Associations Incorporation Bill 2009 is designed to update and redesign the way that incorporated associations are regulated. The majority of the social welfare sector, sporting clubs and small community groups are governed under associations incorporation legislation. When first introduced, the legislation was intended to provide a regulatory framework for such organisations without imposing upon them the difficult and onerous requirements of the Corporations Act. Before the introduction of the Associations Incorporation Act, community groups such as Rotary or local football clubs were not recognised by the law, and members were legally liable for the actions of the group. When Paul Landa, the then Attorney General, introduced the Associations Incorporation Bill on 19 September 1984, he said:

The cost of gaining incorporation under the national Companies Code, and the continuing requirements the code and its predecessor imposed, have always operated to deter community groups, and the situation we have today where most small organisations have decided to remain unincorporated is evidence of the degree to which this deterrent effect has prevailed. It is certainly intended that the new scheme will always be simpler, less expensive and more attractive to small non-profit bodies than the Companies Code.

The goal of the original legislation was to provide an accessible legal framework for small to medium community organisations to enable them to acquire some of the legal protections available to large companies without being subject to overly complex regulation. While I do not dispute the need to update and modernise legislation that is 25 years old, I am concerned, however, about the move to introduce a far more punitive and complex regime that, in effect, overturns the spirit of the original legislation.

Incorporated associations are a vital part of our communities, running organisations that provide great social benefits, such as refuges, sporting clubs, neighbourhood centres and advocacy bodies. Enthusiastic volunteers are the lifeblood of these organisations, not only as individual members but also as members of management committees. It is these volunteers who will be particularly affected by this legislation. The Chief Executive Officer of Volunteering New South Wales, Lynne Dalton, told me:

In my experience there is rarely deliberate mismanagement by voluntary committee members. If they wantonly and deliberately break the law then there is existing legislation available.

One of the key aspects of the legislation is to increase the financial accountability requirements of organisations. Although the Greens have no issue with keeping fair and transparent records of financial matters, I am concerned that the low threshold, as proposed by the Minister last year, of only $200,000 of either gross income or of current assets will require many small organisations to comply with the proposed tier one financial reporting requirements. Tier one organisations will be subjected to much stricter, and therefore much more expensive, annual audits.

Many organisations that are not large or well resourced will exceed the proposed $200,000 upper limit. Other government agencies have vastly different definitions of small organisations. The Greens hope that when the regulations for this bill are gazetted the Office of Fair Trading will use the opportunity to streamline the definitions so they are consistent across the whole of government. Smaller organisations do not need to be over-regulated and have their mistakes criminalised. For example, the Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Community Aged and Disabled Transport Service clearly needs to be regulated differently from a failed corporate entity, such as ABC Learning Centres. Extending numerous aspects of the Corporations Act to cover such small associations is excessive and potentially damaging to the health of those organisations.

Another key concern that the Greens have with this legislation is the increased and excessive penalties that could now be imposed on community and sporting organisations. The Greens will seek to amend those penalties, because up to two years imprisonment is far in excess of what a breach of the Act warrants. We believe enhanced training and education are far better ways of ensuring that organisations comply with their legal obligations and will not deter potential volunteers from serving on management committees. In the case of serious offences, such as fraud, any malfeasance of this nature will be able to be prosecuted under the Crimes Act, as is currently the case.

To outline some of the concerns from the not-for-profit sector, I turn to one of the peak bodies, the Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS]. One of the services the council provides is support and resourcing for management committees of non-government organisations. In doing so, the council recognises the challenges and difficulties of attracting and retaining volunteer members of management committees. A Council of Social Service of New South Wales publication on how to attract new committee members highlights some of these challenges. It states:

Most people who have had an association with non-Government organisations are aware that attracting skilled people onto the Boards of Management is never easy. The history of NGOs dictates that individuals who are passionate about 'the cause' are those who put their hand up first when it comes to volunteering their services. While they may have the passion, they may not necessarily have the skills that are required for the effective management of an incorporated organisation. In today's world where the term good governance is becoming symbolic of the early years of this decade, the expectations on non-Government organisations have increased dramatically. Recruitment of appropriate expertise on boards of management is now essential.

In its 2007 report entitled "It's a bit of a minefield", which looked at the legal needs of the volunteer sector, the Centre for Volunteering New South Wales identified the significant resource gap in providing legal information to organisations about legal compliance and legal risk management issues. Twelve per cent of organisations reported that governance legal issues had been their most recent challenge. It is vital that any changes to the legal framework governing these organisations take the resource constraints seriously. The Greens will move in Committee several amendments whose purpose is to maintain oversight of incorporated associations without deterring community members who want to be actively involved in valuable community organisations. The pressing need for the Office of Fair Trading to provide extensive and comprehensive training and education programs for community organisations is now all the more urgent in view of the changes in the bill.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.00 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate and for their broad support of the objectives of the amendments. The primary aim of the Associations Incorporation Bill 2009 is to rewrite and overhaul the current legislation. The bill is the result of a comprehensive review of the current Act that will modernise the regulation of associations by removing archaic and redundant provisions, strike the correct balance for accountability and ease of operation, and make other amendments as a result of the review of the Act.

However, I would like to pick up on some issues raised in the debate. As other members have noted, the bill will provide for a two-tiered financial reporting system and the financial threshold will be prescribed by the regulations. This threshold will determine what are tier one and tier two associations in order to ensure that requirements under the bill with respect to the preparation and auditing of financial statements are applied to the appropriate class of association. The development of the regulations will be the subject of a comprehensive consultation and cost-benefit analysis. I know members have referred to specific concerns that individual associations have raised with them. The Government encourages all interested parties to participate in this process to ensure that the regulations work effectively and efficiently to support the bill.

Should certain circumstances mean that an association is unable to meet its auditing requirements, the bill provides an avenue by which the association can seek an exemption from the director general. The bill also gives the director general the power to grant an exemption to an association or a class of associations from the requirements of the bill in relation to financial statements. Such an exemption may be subject to conditions, may be limited by time, or may be varied or suspended or revoked by the director general. If other circumstances or characteristics of an association make it appropriate that it be audited, the bill provides a power for the director general to direct an association to be audited. Clause 52 of the bill provides that the director general may direct an association to cause the whole or a specified part of an association's financial records to be audited within a specific time. Such a direction may be given regardless of whether the association has been audited previously.

I will comment on the lead-up to the bill. There has been a comprehensive consultation process. The bill satisfies government and broadly individual associations, umbrella organisations and consumers simply because of this extensive consultation. The consultation process included an initial issues paper, which resulted in 56 written submissions, an exposure draft bill for public comment, which received 59 written submissions, and face-to-face consultation with major stakeholders and umbrella organisations such as the Council of Social Service of New South Wales [NCOSS], Football NSW and Basketball NSW. As a result of the further 59 submissions received from the exposure draft bill and face-to-face consultation, it was determined that whilst a few of the reforms and recommendations in the exposure draft bill were sound policy proposals they would have an impact on a few associations. The benefits of these particular proposals could not be outweighed by the costs to the associations. As a result the exposure draft bill was redrafted, and that is what is before us.

The current Associations Incorporation Act 1984 does not set out clear standards of conduct required by committee members in the exercise of their functions. Other jurisdictions such as Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia have statutory duties for committee members and penalties for non-compliance set out in their Acts. A similar penalty regime in New South Wales will ensure that committee members comply with statutory duties in relation to dishonest use of information and position. The Government considers these to be high-level offences and they are intended to ensure that rogue committee members do not take advantage of the less stringent regulation and governance of associations. These offences have been drafted to ensure that committee members cannot accidentally be caught by the provisions.

Consistent with the gravity of such offences and the need for a more significant deterrent, the bill sets a higher maximum penalty of 240 penalty units and/or imprisonment for up to two years. Directors and officers of corporations face far higher penalties for similar offences under the Corporations Act. The bill increases maximum penalties where there has been demonstrated non-compliance with the provisions and where compliance with the provisions is vital to the operation of the registration scheme. An example of this is the penalty increase from one to five penalty units for the non-lodgement of financial records, the main area of governance of associations. To ensure that the impact of any additional penalties on associations remains as minor as possible the bill also introduces the ability to issue penalty notices as an alternative to prosecution. Generally a penalty notice is only 10 per cent of the maximum penalty and this will further ensure that associations do not face onerous requirements.

In relation to the issues raised about public liability insurance, I point out that mandatory public liability insurance for associations was removed in 2002 because many associations could not take out that insurance. This was due to the situation in world insurance markets, which is beyond the New South Wales Government's control. I know this issue was raised by other members. At the time the Government responded by providing funding to agencies such as the Council of Social Service of New South Wales to assist in providing insurance packages so that more small associations could take out cover if they wished to do so. I understand that the Council of Social Service of New South Wales continues to help to provide associations with affordable, sustainable insurance cover for the community sector.

The associations are self-governing bodies and it is up to them to work out what insurance they need, after assessing their risks. I also understand that public liability insurance is now more easily available. I am advised that no other jurisdiction in Australia requires compulsory public liability insurance for all their associations and to reintroduce this mandatory insurance would be out of step with the rest of Australia. The Office of Fair Trading will continue to recommend that associations take out public liability insurance in accordance with their potential risk. However, for associations that have minimal income and minimal risk compulsory public liability could add significant cost, which may prevent them from becoming incorporated and result in greater risk to their organisation through the loss of the limited liability that incorporation provides. In conclusion, I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I understand that the Greens intend to move amendments in Committee but I indicate at this point that the Government will not support them. I will go into more detail during the Committee stage. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [10.07 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 1, 2, 11 and 12 in globo:

No. 1 Page 7, clause 7 (2) (c) (iii), line 33. Omit "public, or". Insert instead "public."

No. 2 Page 7, clause 7 (2) (c) (iv), lines 34 and 35. Omit all words on those lines.

No. 11 Page 39, clause 73 (2) (c), line 27. Omit "public, or". Insert instead "public."

No. 12 Page 39, clause 73 (2) (d), lines 28 and 29. Omit all words on those lines.

Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 aim to clarify the role of the director general in relation to her power to refuse registration "for any other reason that appears sufficient". This power would enable the director general to stop any association from being formed or being registered for flimsy, non-existent or, dare I say, political reasons. There are plenty of other sections in the Act that provide rules for what kinds of organisations can incorporate and what happens when they do. The Legislation Review Committee was likewise concerned that there is in the bill as it stands an ill-defined and wide discretion by the director general to refuse the registration of an association for any reason that appeared to be sufficient to the director general.

Greens amendments Nos 11 and 12 are similar in principle to amendments Nos 1 and 2 in that they seek to clarify the grounds on which the director general can order the cancellation of an association's registration. The Greens believe other clauses of the bill provide sufficient scope for refusal to register or cancel registration of organisations where there are legitimate grounds for doing so. Our amendments therefore omit the words that give the director general carte blanche to reject registration of associations for any reason that appears sufficient to the director general. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.10 p.m.]: The Government opposes Greens amendments Nos 1, 2, 11 and 12. Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 curtail the power of the director general to refuse registration of an association. The basis of these provisions has been carried over from existing laws and has been drafted to enhance clarity about the grounds for refusal. There is greater clarity in these provisions. However, a review process for a refused application has also been introduced. That means there is a right of appeal if an application has been refused. This will allow a person aggrieved by a refusal to apply to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for a review of the decision. The stakeholders did not raise these provisions as a cause for concern during the extensive consultation period. The Government believes it is wholly appropriate that the director general hold such power. The Government also believes curtailing the power would be a detriment to the entire bill. The Government's concerns about amendments Nos 11 and 12 are the same. Again, stakeholders did not raise the issue. The Government believes it is appropriate that the director general have these powers, so we will not support the amendments.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [10.12 p.m.]: Greens amendments Nos 1 and 2 relate to provisions in clause 7 of the bill that give discretion to the director general to accept or refuse applications for registration as an association. The Government's bill enables the director general to refuse to register for "any other reason that appears sufficient to the director general". The Opposition shares the Greens' concerns that this power is too broad and it therefore supports the amendments. Greens amendments Nos 11 and 12 relate to clause 73 and seek a similar outcome in terms of limiting the director general's powers to cancel registration for "any reason". Again, we believe this power is too broad and we support the Greens amendments.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [10.13 p.m.]: All the Greens amendments have been discussed in considerable detail with the Council of Social Service of New South Wales and other relevant associations and organisations. They certainly have the support of the latter organisations and the Council of Social Service of New South Wales. I fail to see how a provision that is worded so widely as to give the director general power to refuse to register or cancel a registration for any reason that seems sufficient to the director general enhances the position of organisations. The current wording makes it much more obscure.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.14 p.m.]: As I stated in my speech during the second reading debate, the Christian Democratic Party does not support the Greens amendments. In this situation it is better for the director general to have these powers. We never know what circumstances will arise, and the provision offers flexibility.

Question—That Greens amendments Nos 1, 2, 11 and 12 be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Question resolved in the negative.

Greens amendments Nos 1, 2, 11 and 12 negatived.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [10.20 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 3 and 4 in globo:

No. 3 Page 11, clause 18 (1) (e), line 33. Omit "State, or". Insert instead "State".

No. 4 Page 11, clause 18 (1) (f) and (g), lines 34–36. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:

(f) it is offensive.

Greens amendments Nos 3 and 4 will limit the power of the director general by setting a legal test to establish whether an association is offensive, rather than that matter being left up to the opinion of the director general. Under proposed section 18 the director general can refuse to approve the name of an organisation if "the director general is of the opinion that it is offensive or undesirable". I do not think that one person should be the final arbiter of whether the name of an organisation is offensive or undesirable. The Greens' proposed wording would provide that where the name of an association is offensive registration can be refused. However, we believe that this is a more objective test because the word "offensive" has a specific legal meaning.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [10.21 p.m.]: The Opposition does not agree with the Greens' interpretation of this proposed section. We do not agree that the effect of this provision would be for the organisation not to be registered; an organisation will not be allowed to use a name when that name is already registered. Proposed section 18, which deals with unacceptable names for associations, specifies that the word "incorporated" or "Inc" must be included at the end of the name. It prohibits the use of foreign language characters and it prevents applicants from using the word "police" or "sheriff" in a name unless they have appropriate approvals. The names must not imply a connection with the Crown or the State and they must not be too similar to an existing name that has been registered or that an organisation gives notification of its desire to register. A name that in all likelihood would lead to the public being misled as to the identity of an association also should not be registered.

Proposed section 18 (f) provides that a name will be unacceptable if "the director general is of the opinion that it is offensive or undesirable". Greens amendments Nos 3 and 4 propose to remove the director general from the equation so that the proposed section simply states that a name is unacceptable if it is offensive. The intention is to establish a legal test for what is and what is not offensive. The Greens appear to be concerned that the director general could use his or her judgement inappropriately to censure names of associations. The Opposition, however, does not share that concern. Giving the director general this power is an efficient means of achieving an outcome whereby some standard of good taste is maintained in the naming of associations.

According to the opinions of individual magistrates sitting in judgement, handing over responsibility for determining the community standard to the courts is bound to be inefficient and lead to strange and inconsistent outcomes. Ultimately, somebody has to arbitrate and it may as well be the director general who oversees all the names. The Greens believe that making this a judicial issue will result in fairer outcomes, which to us appears to be naive at best and at worst risk bogging down taxpayers in expensive proceedings with no promise of better quality outcomes. The concept of what is offensive is an ethical political question; it is not a legal problem. The director general's decision is more likely to exhibit common sense and, if not, it is subject to review by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. For applicants whose names are deemed offensive by the director general, a better course of appeal would be through the Administrative Decisions Tribunal rather than funding the development of new case law in order to determine what names are or are not offensive.

Finally, I add a note of irony in relation to this provision. I believe it should be unacceptable for a private business to use the word "association" in its name. I realise that that matter might not be capable of being covered by this bill. Some organisations call themselves associations, implying that they are charitable or somehow democratic when they are not associations at all. The Housing Industry Association, which is a private company, is a prime example. There are no elections for its committee members or office bearers, yet by calling itself an association it implies a credibility that perhaps is undeserved. However, I accept that that is an aside. On this occasion the Opposition will not support Greens amendments Nos 3 and 4.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.25 p.m.] The Opposition has outlined the reasons why the Government does not support Greens amendments Nos 3 and 4. The Greens amendments seek to introduce an undefined legal test for whether an association's proposed name is offensive. We believe that, in doing so, it will significantly increase potential costs incurred by associations when they seek to register, increase administrative costs to government, and create a lawyers' picnic over what is or is not offensive. The director general's powers to refuse registration of an association are appealable and we believe that this is a common sense way to deal with these matters.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.26 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party does not support Greens amendments Nos 3 and 4. We believe that the wording in the legislation is sufficient. If people plan to form an incorporated association, they can contact the Office of Fair Trading and discuss proposed names. It is not a question of banning an organisation from using a name; it is a question of ensuring that an organisation does not commence by using an offensive name. Those who make inquiries and who are told that a name is too close to the name of another organisation would subsequently have to change the name and find a formula that is acceptable to the commissioner or the director general. The legislation provides for a penalty to be imposed if any organisation uses the word "incorporated" or "Inc" in a name if it is not incorporated. However, the legislation does not prohibit the use of the word "association"—an issue that should be examined in due course.

Question—That Greens amendments Nos 3 and 4 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Greens amendments Nos 3 and 4 negatived.

Clauses 7 to 18 agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 27 agreed to.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [10.28 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 5 and 8 in globo:

No. 5 Page 17, clause 28 (5), line 17. Omit "14". Insert instead "28".

No. 8 Page 22, clause 35 (2), line 3. Omit "14". Insert instead "28".

Enjoyable as it is to have an audience, I inform members that I do not intend to seek any further divisions. Greens amendments Nos 5 and 8 would extend from 14 to 28 days the time for the handover of relevant documents by both a former committee member and a former public officer. We believe that the additional time is necessary to give associations whose members are spread over geographic distances time to comply with the requirements of the legislation without imposing unnecessary penalties on them and their management committees, which often meet only once a month. It is important to remember that essentially we are dealing with volunteers and with organisations whose size can vary considerably. We are also dealing with people who are giving freely of their time. I do not believe that allowing an extra 14 days will so adversely impact on the functioning of incorporated associations that volunteer members should not be given the additional time in which to comply with the legislative requirements.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [10.29 p.m.]: Greens amendment No. 5 concerns part 4, division 1, of the bill, which deals with committee members. The provision in the bill requires committee members to deliver all documents that are the property of the association to the public officer within 14 days of vacating office. The Greens amendment is consistent with the New South Wales Council of Social Service [NCOSS] advice, which proposes that the time be increased from 14 days to 28 days. Given that a penalty is proposed for failure to comply, and given the voluntary nature of the associations, we are very sympathetic to the NCOSS advice and will support this amendment. The circumstances in which a volunteer may vacate an office are wide and varied. The situation may be contentious or could relate to a personal issue, or both. The person may be away when they are sacked from the position. Giving people a four-week deadline rather than a two-week deadline to return documents seems reasonable given the voluntary nature of their work.

The same view applies to Greens amendment No. 8, where this logic is extended to the circumstances in which a public officer vacates office. Clause 35 (2) requires that they return documentation to a committee member within 14 days. We support an extension of this to 28 days. It is a small change. It has been requested by NCOSS, which is the representative and advocate for the associations who will need to comply with this legislation. Parliament should recognise the wishes of those whom this legislation is designed to help. We support both amendments moved by the Greens.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.31 p.m.]: The Greens proposal seeks to extend the time to hand over associations' documents from 14 days to 28 days. The Government believes the proposed period of 14 days does not impose any onerous obligations on associations. Rather, it seeks to ensure prompt handover of potentially vital documentation from former members or public officers. We do not believe extending the time provides any benefits to the associations. We believe it could be disadvantageous or inconvenient to new members who require that information as promptly as possible. We believe the provisions provide a fair balance between the time given to committee members or public officers to hand over documents and the needs of the new committee or public officer to start operating. The Government believes its approach is logical and well founded, and will support the smooth and efficient functioning of associations when there is a turnover.

Question—That Greens amendments Nos 5 and 8 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Greens amendments Nos 5 and 8 negatived.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [10.32 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 6, 7, 9, 10 and 14 in globo:

No. 6 Page 19, clause 32, lines 37 and 38. Omit "240 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both." Insert instead "60 penalty units."

No. 7 Page 20, clause 33, lines 9 and 10. Omit "240 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both." Insert instead "60 penalty units."

No. 9 Page 24, clause 40 (1), line 8. Omit "60 penalty units." Insert instead "20 penalty units."

No. 10 Page 36, clause 68 (1), line 30. Omit "50 penalty units or imprisonment for 1 year, or both." Insert instead "30 penalty units."

No. 14 Page 48. Insert after line 38:

95 Court may order offenders to undertake training or other courses
(1) Orders may be made in relation to certain proved offences
If a court finds an offence against sections 31, 32, 33, 40 or 68 proved, the court may order the offender to attend a training or other course specified by the court in relation to the behaviour that caused the offence.
(2) Meaning of proved offence
Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), a court finds an offence proved if:
(a) the court convicts the offender of the offence, or

(b) the court makes an order under section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 against the offender in relation to the offence (in which case the order is not a punishment for the purposes of that section).
(3) Orders are additional

An order may be made under this section in addition to any penalty that may be imposed or any other action that may be taken in relation to the offence.

(4) Other action not required

An order may be made under this section regardless of whether any penalty is imposed, or other action taken, in relation to the offence.
(5) Machinery

The court may, in an order under this section, fix a period for compliance and impose any other requirements the court considers necessary or expedient for enforcement of the order.

(6) Definitions

In this Part:
the court means the court that finds the offence proved.

the offender means the person who is found to have committed the offence.

These amendments aim to lessen the penalties to be imposed on individuals for breaches of the Act. We also propose that any breaches of the Act should be dealt with by requiring that the offending parties undertake training rather than be subject solely to criminal sanction. Amendment No. 14 outlines how breaches of the Act may be dealt with by training and education rather than solely by criminal penalty. Training and education should and could be delivered to help, not punish, community volunteers who are serving on management committees. The Greens believe that education and smaller penalties are sufficient to ensure compliance with the Act.

One of the significant concerns of the New South Wales Council of Social Service is that it is already very difficult to encourage volunteers and members of incorporated associations to participate on management committees of associations. They are deterred by the legal obligations imposed upon them. We believe that once people become aware that they may potentially be subject to imprisonment or to quite considerable financial penalties this will dampen people's enthusiasm. We believe the provisions of the Crimes Act can be invoked to deal with serious breaches of the Act—frauds perpetrated quite knowingly—but to introduce what are relatively draconian measures into the Associations Incorporation Act will undermine the purpose of that Act by making people fearful of participating at a management committee level in the operations of an association. Therefore, we commend the Greens amendments to the Committee.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [10.35 p.m.]: The Government is proposing a range of penalties up to 240 units and/or two years imprisonment. The Greens amendments propose to reduce this to 60 penalty units. The New South Wales Council of Social Service [NCOSS] has recommended to Parliament that we should reduce it to 20 penalty units. The effect of the Greens amendments would be that people convicted of an offence under the Act would not be subject to large fines or imprisonment. The Opposition understands the concerns expressed by both NCOSS and the Greens that the penalties may be too harsh. However, I note we are now looking at three different proposals. The Government's proposal is for 240 penalty units, the NCOSS proposal is minimalist at 20 penalty units, and the Greens proposal is for 60 penalty units. The basis of those proposals is not clear to us: we do not know how they all arrived at those figures. The Opposition accepts that there needs to be a serious deterrent to offences, which are, under this bill, knowingly committed and therefore involve substantial dishonesty.

While considering what we thought would be an appropriate penalty we realised if we put forward our own suggestions we would have a fourth set of ideas of what the penalties should be, and that would not be very useful at this stage. On the one hand, we recognise that a volunteer who makes a genuine mistake should not be in fear of these provisions. On the other hand, we want legislation that will deter the serial fraudster who seeks to exploit the provisions of the Associations Incorporation Act and prey upon members of the community for their own base purposes. As a result, the position we have arrived at is to express concern in the Chamber that the penalties may be too draconian. However, we will monitor the compliance activities of the Government in relation to these penalties and will obviously closely watch the implementation of these penalties by the courts. We would imagine that only really severe cases would attract the maximum penalty and terms of imprisonment. The most useful course we can take is to adopt a watching brief and hope that the legislation is effective.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.37 p.m.]: The clauses in the bill that are the subject of these amendments deal with two very important matters, particularly in voluntary associations that are based on trust between members. Clause 32 refers to a committee member who makes dishonest use of information to gain advantage for himself or herself, or cause detriment to the association. The dishonest use of their position is even more serious. The whole point of an association is that there is no benefit to the individual. Penalties for a committee member who dishonestly uses his or her position with the intention of directly or indirectly gaining an advantage for himself or herself or causing detriment of the association need to be severe. Those two offences are serious in any association, but particularly so in a voluntary one based on trust. It has been said that these are maximum penalties and it will be up to the court to take into account all the evidence of how serious or minor the matter is and to apply the appropriate penalty.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.38 p.m.]: The Government strongly opposes these amendments. The Greens proposal would reduce the maximum penalties for serious offences involving deliberate, corrupt and dishonest conduct to 60 penalty units or a mere $6,600. The Government that believes this is not a sufficient deterrent to a committee member, who may stand to gain a far greater amount from their dishonesty and misuse of information that they obtained through their position on the association committee.

The Greens amendments also would reduce the maximum penalties for distributing pecuniary gain amongst members and incurring debts while insolvent to even more paltry amounts of $2,200 and $3,300 respectively. The Greens also propose in amendment 14 to give courts the option of giving a convicted offender significantly less than a wrist slap as an alternative to imposing a suitable penalty. Where a committee member has dishonestly misused their position or used information to which they were privy because of their position to obtain advantage or deliberately cause detriment to the association, the effect of the Greens amendment would be to send them to a training course to be taught that this behaviour is very naughty. We do not accept this.

The Government is talking about high-level serious offences involving deliberate or intentional acts of dishonesty carried out for the sole purpose of obtaining an advantage or harming others. These provisions in the bill have been drafted carefully to ensure that committee members cannot accidentally be caught. Fair Trading would not be able to prosecute for an honest mistake or oversight by a committee member. For Fair Trading to be able to take action a number of steps have to be proven: there needs to be a demonstrated intent and the action must be dishonest and it must involve the misuse of position or information and the action must have been taken with the intent of gaining advantage for a person or causing detriment to the association.

If a committee member is found to have acted in this way the only appropriate sanction would be a criminal or significant monetary penalty as this is a serious offence. This kind of behaviour is rare indeed among association members, as we all know. We all acknowledge that members of incorporated associations are some of the hardest working in our community, freely giving of their time and finances to make a contribution for others. They deserve to be protected. These provisions do not in any way seek to punish people for honest mistakes. The Associations Incorporation Bill reflects the Government's view that a person who deliberately abuses the trust of these hardworking volunteers to gain an advantage or cause harm needs to be dealt with appropriately.

Question—That Greens amendments Nos 6, 7, 9, 10 and 14 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Greens amendments Nos 6, 7, 9, 10 and 14 negatived.

Clauses 28 to 41 agreed to.

Clauses 42 to 53 agreed to.

Clauses 54 to 71 agreed to.

Clauses 72 to 84 agreed to.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [10.43 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 13:

No. 13 Page 47, clause 91 (1), line 17. Omit "or permitted".

This amendment refers to clause 91 (1), "Offences by committee members," which states:

(1) If an association contravenes, whether by act or omission, any provision of this Act or the regulations, each committee member of the association is taken to have contravened the same provision if he or she knowingly authorised or permitted the contravention.

The amendment seeks to delete the words "or permitted". The Greens believe this is important, particularly when subclause (3) states:

(3) In the case of a contravention of section 40, each person who, pursuant to subsection (1), is taken to have contravened that section is, together with the association, jointly and severally liable for all debts incurred by the association as a consequence of that contravention.

I understand perfectly that company directors have a responsibility to know exactly what the organisation is doing and are to be held fully accountable. However, when dealing with unincorporated associations the awareness or ability of people who may be involved in the running of the organisation on a part-time basis to familiarise themselves with all of the activities and decisions of, say, the chief executive officer or the public officer may be limited. It is quite possible that committee members may approve a breach because they do not fully understand the ramifications of committing that breach. It is very different from the situation when a committee member knowingly authorises a contravention of the Act. Permitting a contravention is a much more passive position and one that I believe may suggest ignorance but not necessarily a culpable preparedness to contravene the Act. By deleting the words "or permitted" we fairly and squarely identify those who may knowingly aid the breach of the Act.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [10.46 p.m.]: The Opposition does not support this amendment. The key word in the Government's proposed legislation is the word "knowingly". Therefore, the contention by the Greens is that someone who through ignorance or inexperience allowed something to happen by not being aware of the implications will be caught by this provision. Having the safeguard of the word "knowingly" is important. The provision needs to be clear: these organisations need accountability and responsibility. We cannot have loopholes through which people can wriggle. If a member has knowingly allowed a contravention of the Act he or she must be accountable. Obviously, the Office of Fair Trading will pursue these sorts of matters in proportion with the consequences. We would anticipate that the matter would be serious if a volunteer were taken to court over knowingly committing a contravention of a section of the Act for an offence involving dishonesty, and that it would be appropriate for the commissioner to have sufficient power to prosecute the matter.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.47 p.m.]: The Government opposes this amendment. The Government does not believe that the amendment provides any greater protection to law-abiding committee members. The point made by the Hon. Catherine Cusack refers to the word "knowingly". In order to prove a breach of the Act in these circumstances any prosecution would have to prove to a criminal standard that the committee member knew of the contravention and not that he or she permitted or authorised an act or deed in the belief that no breach would be committed. Committee members who seek to do the right thing have nothing to worry about: the terms of this provision still provide protection to committee members when there is no intent to commit a breach, while ensuring liability is shared by the appropriate parties.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [10.48 p.m.]: My construction of the wording of the clause obviously differs from that of the Hon. Catherine Cusack. I believe that the adjective "knowingly" modifies the verb "authorise", but does not modify the verb "permitted". A penalty would attach to someone who knowingly authorised a breach of the Act, and the Greens are perfectly happy with that. However, it then has the words "or permitted". I cannot believe the adverb "knowingly" refers to "permitted". It concerns the Greens that someone may be caught by that wording when they permit something to happen largely because they are unknowing of the consequences.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [10.49 p.m.]: I take the point of the honourable member. It is an interesting point. However, there is a second safeguard in that it refers to someone who has "permitted" the contravention of the Act. It is not permitting an act that contravenes the Act; it is actually permitting the contravention itself. One cannot permit a contravention without knowing that it is against the Act. One can permit an action that one was not aware contravened the Act, in which case the wording would be different. The Opposition is satisfied that the wording means that the people who will be targeted by this provision will be people who are well aware of what they did.

Question—That Greens amendment No. 13 be agreed to—put and resolved in the negative.

Greens amendment No. 13 negatived.

Clauses 85 to 94 agreed to.

Clauses 95 to 97 agreed to.

Clauses 98 to 109 agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee without amendment.

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.54 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.54 p.m.]: I inform the House of the importance of the education export sector to New South Wales. The export of education is an important component of the service sector in New South Wales, which accounts for some 70 per cent of the State's gross domestic product. In 2006-07 the State's exports of education-related services were valued at $4.335 billion. This represented 22.7 per cent of the State's total services exports. The State's export of education-related services represented 38.3 per cent of Australia's total.

New South Wales remains an attractive destination for international students, despite the current global economic crisis. New South Wales recorded 215,403 international students in 2008, up from 180,898 in 2007. This represents a year-on-year jump of 19 per cent. There were notable increases in international student numbers from China, India, Vietnam, Nepal, Thailand and Brazil, with respective rises of 18 per cent, 40 per cent, 64 per cent, 86 per cent, 18 per cent and 24 cent. In six years the number of international students in New South Wales has almost doubled from 109,717 in 2002 to 215,403 in 2008.

The Government is active in ensuring that New South Wales remains an attractive destination for international students. The Government has established the New South Wales Ministerial Taskforce on International Education, which will review the international student experience in examining the areas of marketing and recruitment; social inclusion, welfare, immigration and safety, and quality of education and training.

Mr David Riordan, the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Education and Training International, chairs the task force, whose membership includes a range of key stakeholders in the international student sector. The taskforce will identify and consult with key stakeholders to assist in developing recommendations to the Minister for Education and Training, sponsor a series of subcommittees to address key issues, conduct an analysis of other countries to develop a whole-of-government approach to marketing and recruitment of international students, call for submissions from interested parties and develop a report, including recommendations for the Minister for Education and Training by August 2009. The Education Exports Subcommittee of the New South Wales-Asia Business Council plans to invite David Riordan to attend a future subcommittee meeting to consult the subcommittee about issues the task force is considering, prior to the Taskforce finalising its report to the Minister.

There are close ties between the export of education and tourism, with education visitors to New South Wales making a significant contribution to overall visitor nights to the State. Education now generates 20.2 million visitor nights in New South Wales, compared with 17.8 million nights for holidays. This is because international students in New South Wales attract other visitors, such as family and friends, during their studies here. International students who return to their home country after studying in New South Wales are more likely to visit in the future, while those who remain in New South Wales after their studies will also attract other visitors. The Government recognises this and has established the New South Wales Ministerial Taskforce on Tourism and Education. The task force will identify strategic issues relating to education tourism to inform the Tourism Industry Plan being developed by Tourism New South Wales. The task force will look at how to use our State's quality education institutions as a promotional base, so as to increase family and friends visitation and encourage return visitation.

At a recent meeting of the New South Wales-Asia Business Council's Education Exports Subcommittee, Belinda Comninos from the office of the Minister for Tourism updated the subcommittee on the Ministerial Taskforce on Tourism and Education, as announced in the New South Wales Tourism Strategy. The Government will invest an additional $40 million over 3½ years to implement this new strategy. The members of the Education Exports Subcommittee provided valuable feedback on the task force, raising issues such as marketing strategies and material targeting Asian markets, accommodation for international students, flight availability, and information and communication technology infrastructure. The subcommittee plans to invite a representative from the task force, whose membership is currently being finalised, to attend a future subcommittee meeting to consult the subcommittee about issues the task force is considering.

In conclusion, I congratulate the Nathan Rees Government on its commitment to the export of education and education tourism in New South Wales through establishing the New South Wales Ministerial Taskforce on International Education and the New South Wales Ministerial Taskforce on Tourism and Education. [Time expired.]

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [10.59 p.m.]: One of the most important responsibilities of any government is the maintenance of law and order and the physical protection of its citizens and their property. A government that fails in its obligation in this area does not deserve to govern. Here in New South Wales the Labor Government has shown itself, after 14 years, totally incapable of providing adequate protection to the citizens of our State. It has forfeited its right to govern and come 26 March 2011 it will no longer be the Government of this State.

This failure to provide adequate protection against criminals is certainly not the fault of the New South Wales Police Force, one of the most professional and dedicated in the world. It is certainly not the fault of the New South Wales Commissioner of Police, Andrew Scipione. He is a good man, known for his decency, integrity and competence. He is doing the very best that can be done with the inadequate resources that the Government dishes out.

Since the most recent State election, more than 1,300 New South Wales Police officers have left the service, according to the Police Association of New South Wales—and it surely is in a position to know. The major reasons given have been low wages and poor conditions. In other words, the State Government has failed to provide resources to allow our police to effectively do their job. The Police Association points out that for the State Government to fulfil its election pledge to increase police numbers by 750, it will need to recruit more than 4,300 new officers over the next five years—a promise that it has Buckley's chance of achieving.

Two-thirds of police commands throughout the State are understaffed compared to the situation five years ago. In the first five months of 2008, far more officers left the Police Force than graduated. At its peak in 2003 the Police Force had 15,168 police officers in New South Wales, but five years later it has only an additional 179. According to the New South Wales Police Association, police numbers in New South Wales stand at one officer for every 440 people, which is well below the international standard of one officer for every 300 people. Only yesterday the Daily Telegraph highlighted aspects of the decreasing police presence with a story that began:

… the State Government's war on bikie gangs is ringing hollow after revelations the number of qualified detectives cracking crimes is at its lowest in more than a decade.

The article went on to reveal that over the past seven years, designated detective numbers across New South Wales have fallen from 2,370 to 1,596. The State Crime Command, which includes the gang squad, has decreased by 13 detectives and now stands at 584 despite a massive proliferation of gang-related crime. No wonder there has been such an expansion of crime involving bikie gangs. No wonder that for months gang-initiated drive-by shootings have become virtually a daily occurrence. For example, in the Quakers Hill Local Command area, despite a substantial population increase, police numbers have decreased from 115 in December 2003 to 104 in November 2008. That may partly explain why a few nights ago the Quakers Hill police station was closed at a time when in nearby Beaumont Hills a shooting took place.

Blacktown Local Area Command shows a similar downwards trend with a decrease from 178 to 164, and Penrith saw a decrease from 261 to 163 along with varying decreases in local command areas, such as the Blue Mountains, Campsie, Green Valley, Hawkesbury, Parramatta and The Hills, to name just a few areas that have less of a police presence. Without a sufficient police presence, it is no wonder that crime figures have escalated enormously since Labor came to power in 1995. If anyone is in any doubt, they should check the official statistics. I do not mean the Government-touted statistics that cover only an unrepresentative two-year period. If people want to know the true position, they should examine the period between 1995, when the Government came to power, and 2007, which is the latest of the full-year figures.

In outer-western Sydney, for example, which covers the Blue Mountains, Hawkesbury and Penrith local command areas, an alarming, but typical, story is revealed. Assaults have increased by 102.6 per cent, sexual assaults have increased by 76.6 per cent, robbery with a weapon has increased by 61.2 per cent, robbery with a weapon that is not a firearm increased by 117.5 per cent, and malicious damage to property increased by 47.5 per cent. These are certainly not figures that suggest we are winning the war against crime, or even bringing it under control. Why would we be winning? How can we possibly win when police are deprived of necessary resources, when police are walking away in increasing numbers from the profession, totally demoralised, and when police stations are often operating on a part-time basis?

Can this depressing state of affairs change? Yes, it can, and yes, it will—in March 2011. A future premier, Barry O'Farrell, backed by a future Minister for Police, Mike Gallacher, and a Liberal-Nationals Coalition are committed to giving the police of this State the resources they desperately need to confront and take on crime, to take on the perpetrators of violent crime, to take on the drug pushers, and to take on the criminal gangs who are turning areas of Sydney into no-go areas for law-abiding citizens. That is what the people of New South Wales want, and that is what a Liberal-Nationals Coalition government will deliver.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.03 p.m.]: On Saturday 28 March I attended the first National Public Education Forum in Old Parliament House, Canberra. The message was loud and clear. The supporters of public education are organised and determined to secure a strong and vibrant future for the schools that educate young Australians and build the economy and society of tomorrow. They reject markets, competition between schools and in particular league tables in education. Politicians and private school lobbyists should take careful note of the determination of this group of people to secure the future of public education.

Human rights lawyer, academic, author and broadcaster Geoffrey Robinson, who eloquently argued not only the case for public schools but also the need for human rights education, opened the forum. The forum heard from academics, economists, education experts, commentators and journalists, including Trevor Cobbold, the convenor of Save Our Schools in the Australian Capital Territory; Chris Bonnor, the co-author of The Stupid Country; Adam Roris, an education economist; Lyndsay Connors and Jim McMorrow from the University of Sydney; Jane Caro, a social commentator; Leslie Cannold, a writer and academic; and journalists Gerard Noonan formerly of the Sydney Morning Herald, Michael Bachelard from the Age and Maralyn Parker from the Daily Telegraph.

Professor Tony Vinson from the University of Sydney summarised the forum findings, and the presidents of the Australian Education Union, the Australian Council of State Schools Organisation, the Australian Government Primary Principals Association and the Association of Secondary Principals of Australia delivered the forum communiqué. The audience consisted of teachers, principals, unionists, parents, academics and public education activists. I will report on two very important presentations. Trevor Cobbold from Save Our Schools pointed to a number of paradoxes in the Rudd Government's promotion of market-based education policies. He warned that Kevin Rudd's ultimate market discipline is to subject schools to a form of bankruptcy proceedings, involving tough action including the firing of principals and senior staff, and closing schools.

Mr Cobbold suggested that the Rudd Government effectively had given the Howard Government, and in particular the former Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, David Kemp, another term in office by fulfilling their dream of setting school against school in competition for funding and survival. The Federal Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, uses terms such as "new progressive approach to schools", but in effect she is trying to destroy the difference between public and private schools. Under the Rudd Government, private schools are sharing proportionately in all new initiatives, including the infrastructure funding program. This is grossly unfair, given the much lower proportion of disadvantaged, indigenous and special needs children in private schools. Mr Cobbold pointed to the paradox of extending market-based competition to schooling at a time when markets are discredited by their failure to keep the economy running.

The Rudd Government is importing its market model from England and America, especially New York city, despite Australian schools outperforming institutions in those jurisdictions. In fact, Australian students are six to 12 months ahead of students in those countries. Disadvantaged students in Australia are six months or more ahead of United Kingdom students, and 18 months ahead of those in the United States of America. Mr Cobbold pointed out that Australia could do much better by looking to Finland where students are a full year ahead of Australia, and disadvantaged students are 12 to 18 months ahead of their Australian counterparts. Finland has the lowest achievement gap between rich and poor students in the OECD.

Unlike Australia, Finland rejected market models for education and instead invested in producing quality outcomes for all students. It is now reaping the benefits. Chris Bonnor illustrated the point by reporting on a study of rural secondary schools in New South Wales that are subject to competition and showed the devastating consequences for public schools. Jim McMorrow, with the rigour and precision for which he has become renowned both as a public servant in New South Wales and as an academic, used budget figures and the national report on schooling to compare public and private school per student funding from all sources, including State and Federal Government funding, and fees.

The conclusion was startling. Even after the recent Rudd Government increase in funding, per student expenditure in public education falls almost $4,000 behind independent schools and only just matches that in Catholic schools. The greater proportion of students with special needs, learning difficulties, or English as a second language, and Aboriginal students in public schools means that public education costs are much greater, but their funding is less. The first National Public Education Forum successfully laid down the agenda for opposing the headlong rush to market-based competition. We look forward to many more such forums putting the case for making public education the priority.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH [11.08 p.m.]: Tonight I acknowledge the working career of a true blue-collar stalwart of the labour movement; a man renowned for his "fire-in-the-belly" approach to labour movement organising; a man renowned for his passionate advocacy of the working class; a man renowned for his forthright approach; and a man who, in the true Labor way, is widely regarded as a mate. I draw the attention of the House to the recent retirement of Mick Lawler from his duties as an organiser with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [CFMEU]. Construction companies right across the State, particularly in the north-western part of New South Wales, will now breathe a little easier in the knowledge that Mick Lawler is no longer on their case.

Mick has had a long career with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. He initially joined the Building Workers Industry Union [BWIU] in 1969. He served for more than 29 years as a union official first for the BWIU and then the CFMEU. Mick had particular responsibilities for members in rural New South Wales. Mick was appointed the first ever full-time country official with the CFMEU and then in 1983 became the first ever elected full-time country official. From 1972 Mick represented the BWIU in Tamworth as town steward, delegate and State councillor. From 1977 he represented the Union at Australian Labor Party State and country conferences.

Mick recently advised the CFMEU construction division journal "Hardhat" that he only missed about three conferences in the last 30 years due to ill health or family matters. All I can say is Mick must have been ill, because he was indeed an omnipresent character at every conference I have ever attended with the Australian Labor Party. Mick was also President and Secretary of the Tamworth District Trades and Labor Council, and he attended the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress in that capacity.

But I know Mick Lawler as a fellow member of what was once the Rural and Provincial Affairs Policy Committee and what is now Country Labor. I served with Mick for 11 years on this extremely important committee of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party. And I was not alone. Members of this Chamber, the Hon. Tony Kelly, the Hon. Tony Catanzariti and the Hon. Christine Robertson, also served with Mick Lawler on that committee. All would agree that Mick brought to the committee unprecedented commitment, passionate resolve and brutal honesty, delivered in a very forthright manner. We were never in any doubt as to Mick's position on any matter.

I recall with a degree of fondness some "Mickisms", as I call them. At least once at every Country Labor Conference Mick Lawler would suddenly jump to his feet, storm down the aisle with a newspaper rolled up, smack the paper with his right hand into the palm of his left hand, and shout loudly, "Point of Order, Madam Chair." I am sure the Hon. Christine Robertson recalls these moments as well—probably not as fondly as I, for she was the chair who had to rule on the point of order. Mick refers to everyone as "comrade", some more affectionately than others. I remember delivering what I thought was a wonderful speech at an Australian Labor Party State Conference. I turned from the podium and walked past Mick. I gave him a wink, expecting the nod of approval in acknowledgement of my fine effort. Mick responded curtly, "Comrade, not good enough."

But there were other sayings: "Comrade, does it really matter?", "Comrade, what a beauty", and the one heard most often, "Comrade, it's your shout". I have left out the colourful adjectives, but the House should remain assured that as a construction industry industrial official Mick had a very colourful turn of phrase. Mick intends to remain an active member of the Tamworth branch of the Australian Labor Party, information that I am sure will have the Hon. Christine Robertson rejoicing loudly. Mick also intends to stay involved with his beloved CFMEU and was elected State Councillor last year. He will travel to Cuba for May Day with the Bushrats Association of Building Workers.

Mick has recently been awarded the CFMEU Gold Badge membership and a Newcastle Trades Hall scroll of honour, and this year he will receive a Unions NSW scroll of honour for his dedication and commitment to the workers and the union movement in New South Wales. Mick Lawler should look upon his career with pride. He never sold out his beliefs or values. He never once walked away from the building industry and his colleagues. He never once deserted a mate. Mick Lawler has had a career that has transcended some of the great industrial relations victories of the past 30 or so years, and some of the more draconian and shameful moments thrust upon the working class by the Conservatives, particularly the anti-union, anti-worker disgraces.

Mick intends to spend his retirement following his beloved West Tamworth Lions, honing his fishing skills, and writing a book. No doubt any book about Mick Lawler's career would have to be titled "Comrade, it's your shout". I am sure the House will support my acknowledgement of Mick Lawler's career as a union organiser. I close my speech by saying to Mick Lawler, "Comrade Lawler, well done."

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [11.13 p.m.]: Yesterday I hosted a visit to the Hunter region by the shadow Minister for Eduction and Training, Adrian Piccoli—he as a Nationals member and I as a Country Liberal. We met with parents, parents and citizens organisations, and principals to hear their views on education. We spoke to them about how they might spend, on behalf of their school, the funds to be provided by the Rudd Government under its Education Investment Fund, the Building the Education Revolution Program. One would think that in an education revolution they would want to spend the funding on new smart boards and educational innovations. Instead, their requests were for things such as basic toilet facilities, rather than quality facilities for their outstanding local teachers. We also heard how some schools are in need of certainty when it comes to funding of indigenous-specific programs for Aboriginal students. Sadly, in an era when we are talking about an education revolution we have to ask for basic programs, and have to beg and steal for certainty and delivery of programs such as those that provide support for Aboriginal students after school.

As part of the shadow Minister's visit to the region we toured Rutherford Technology High School, which has an outstanding Aboriginal support program. The number of indigenous students enrolled in year 12 has doubled since 1999. The school has the second-largest Aboriginal student population in the Hunter-Central Coast area, with 86 students. Given current enrolments, the number of Aboriginal students doing their Higher School Certificate is expected to increase again in 2010 and then again in 2011. The school shows some great improvement, due in no small part to the leadership of its principal, Paul Tracey. However, with regard to the provision of funding for the Aboriginal education program, concern has been expressed that the school's successes may mean its funding and support will drop off. That is a shame; the funding should be sustained and ongoing.

We also visited the Maitland TAFE campus. I was extremely impressed with the facilities and the grounds. I was also impressed with the college's innovative programs, particularly the support programs to re-engage students who may have dropped out of school. Through basic education programs the college also provides support in numeracy and literacy. I thank Steve Frost from Maitland TAFE college for assisting with our tour.

It was recently brought to my attention that a school in the Hunter region is among many schools that have been cut a raw deal with regard to the National Solar Schools Program. The school received quotes for a very efficient and cost-effective system to be installed but was told by the Department of Education and Training it should wait until a procurement deal was finalised. The system the department came back to the school with had half the capabilities for the same amount of money. The department also informed the school that its renewable energy certificates would be owned by the department and not the school—which effectively took away possible funding for other environmental education programs.

Similarly, the school recently received a quote to build a new school hall and new school buildings, as part of the Federal Government's $2 million funding initiative for schools. The quote would have enabled the construction of a new school hall, the replacement of demountables, and almost $500,000 left over for other projects. But once the department got involved the school was informed that every single dollar of the $2 million grant would be consumed solely by the construction of a school hall. I might add that a template hall at a school that has close to 300 students is said to house fewer than 100 students. So it is inadequate and too expensive. Is it any wonder that principals and parents are left scratching their heads at the complete mismanagement of money in this State?

It is clearly evident when one visits schools and speaks with parents and educators that the New South Wales Government is failing miserably when it comes to education, given its poor funding management practices, red tape, and its stranglehold on a school's ability to make its own decisions in the best interests of its students, using local providers wherever possible, and getting the best deal and the best bang for its buck. This is supposed to be a stimulus package, but instead we find that the State Government's involvement means that it costs far more for school communities, and principals are simply left scratching their heads wondering why they cannot get a better deal for their community and their schools.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.18 p.m.]: Last week I spoke about the compulsory but inherently inequitable and totally unsatisfactory warranty insurance schemes. I outlined the Housing Industry Association's attempts to stifle Phil Dwyer, Chair of the Builders Collective of Australia, and Mr Dwyer's successful defence of the Housing Industry Association's legal action against him. Last year my Greens colleague Christine Milne instigated a Senate inquiry into home warranty insurance. The inquiry found there were only two supporters for the scheme, namely the Insurance Council of Australia and the Housing Industry Association, the dominant financial beneficiaries of this insurance. They defended its perceived benefits aggressively in the face of overwhelming evidence of its failure. Based on their presentations and the lack of any official data on the performance of the scheme, the Senate committee maintained the status quo.

Since then the Business Council of Australia has become aware that the Commonwealth Ombudsman has collected relevant official data. The information was publicly available during the course of the Senate inquiry, but those who knew of its existence made no mention of it. What the Ombudsman service found was that last year insurers rejected a massive 45 per cent of all builders warranty insurance claims. In the same period, fewer than 2 per cent of all other voluntary insurance claims nationally were rejected. This is a damming statistic, all the more so when coupled with the Sydney Morning Herald's revelation last year that the claims-to-premium ratio of home warranty insurance is barely 7 per cent compared with a claims-to-premium ratio for most other classes of insurance of around 75 per cent.

The Ombudsman's data is the first official data on this compulsory insurance product ever produced. It vindicates all those who have been seeking reform of the fundamentally flawed regime. It should lead everyone to question the motives and integrity of those powerful interest groups that seek to maintain the status quo. Last week I briefly outlined what can befall any individual prepared to stand up and be counted on this issue, especially anyone who goes into bat for small builders and consumers. After seven years most would have given up, but not Phil Dwyer, not the Building Code of Australia and not the Building Action Review Group. The Government claims that consumers derive a benefit from the insurance, but what the Government does not say is that the benefit is available only after protracted, enormously expensive litigation, that it almost never compensates consumers for the losses they have suffered, and that any settlement is always contingent on a confidentiality agreement that prevents the full facts and shortcomings of the insurance being made public.

In the meantime builders have had to provide the insurer with security against claims lodged against them. Insurers access those securities to satisfy successful claims against builders. In effect, builders are being required to underwrite the insurance. The whole issue of the legality of what amounts to reinsurance is due to be tried in the District Court of Western Australia in three weeks time. I look forward to the outcome with great interest.

I now return to my remarks about the attempt by the Minister for Lands to smear me because in January 2008 I had provided surety for bail for Mr Ian Fraser, who had been charged with two alleged firearms offences. In February 2008 I raised a series of questions about the decision by the Minister for Lands to grant a lease over Killalea state park to a developer who had made several large donations to the Labor party. In response to those questions the Minister for Lands referred to the bail surety, implying that I had acted inappropriately. He said:

I would like to know why the member funded a bail application for an alleged criminal.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: I seek direction in terms of whether this should be a personal statement. I am not clear on whether this matter should be dealt with in an adjournment speech or whether it would be more properly done by way of a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order. Ms Sylvia Hale may continue but should bear in mind the standing orders that relate to making accusations against other members.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: Following this attempted smear I made a personal explanation to the House on 3 April 2008. I confirmed that I had provided the surety and made the point that where a court has determined bail conditions there is nothing illegal, immoral, unethical or questionable about anyone helping someone to meet those bail conditions. Although this Government treats the presumption of innocence with contempt, fortunately it is still a principle upheld by our courts and the common law. Last week Mr Fraser faced trial, some 15 months after his initial arrest. After a seven-day trial the jury took just 90 minutes to deliver a verdict of not guilty. Had Mr Fraser not been able to raise bail, he would have spent 15 months in jail for an alleged crime he did not commit. His partner would have faced dire circumstances. I look forward to the Minister coming into this House and apologising to Mr Fraser and his partner for his shameless smearing of an innocent man and for his attempt to intimidate me into desisting from questioning his role in the Killalea decision.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [11.23 p.m.]: I am sure all honourable members would agree that bullying and harassment are important issues. We have often discussed it in this House, most recently in respect of hospitals and the Ambulance Service. It is incumbent on all public figures to set a good example for the community. This evening I call on radio announcers to stop bullying and harassing their guests and treat them with respect so that they do not continue to set a bad example for the community. We should not dismiss this issue lightly. The simple fact is that people follow the examples set by public figures. We all accept that the recent behaviour relating to alcohol, violence and sexual assault in a variety of football codes is unacceptable. It is time we imposed the same standards to media figures in terms of bullying and harassment. If media figures do not stop their bullying and harassment, they will continue to earn their epithet of shock jocks. We should condemn them for not setting a good example.

[Time for debate expired.]

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

Motion agreed to.