Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 24 June 2009, Corrected Copy)

The President (The Hon. Peter Thomas Primrose) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.

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.

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 amendments.

Motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce agreed to:

That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution the following documents in the possession, custody or control of the Treasurer or NSW Treasury in relation to the 2009-2010 Budget:

(a) any documents, excepting any budget papers tabled in Parliament, provided to individual members of Parliament outlining regional electorate capital works summaries, by electorate,
(b) any documents, excepting any budget papers tabled in Parliament, which refer to capital expenses by electorate, by agency, funded by appropriations from Parliament as well as funds from asset sales and other sources,

(c) any other documents, excepting any budget papers tabled in Parliament, which refer to capital and recurrent expenses by electorate, and

(d) any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.

Motion by the Hon. Greg Pearce agreed to:

That, under Standing Order 52, there be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days of the date of the passing of this resolution any document created since 31 March 2009 in the possession, custody or control of the Treasurer or NSW Treasury, that details projections of potential capital spending to 2021 and any document which records or refers to the production of documents as a result of this order of the House.

Petition requesting a moratorium on the creation of all new proposed marine parks, sanctuaries and habitat protection zones and rejecting extensions to existing parks, sanctuaries and zones that further restrict fishing activities and removal of the National Parks Association report the Torn Blue Fringe for consideration by the Parliament, received from the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Private Members' Business item No. 66 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by the Hon. Michael Veitch.

[During the giving of notices of motions.]

The PRESIDENT: Order! President Johnson said on a number of occasions that Presidents are given many gifts but clairvoyance is not amongst them. If members wish to seek the call, they should rise in their place and use words to the effect of "Mr President".

Government Business Orders of the Day item Nos 1 to 3 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That on Thursday 25 June 2009 Government Business take precedence of General Business.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Police, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [11.16 a.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Della Bosca: I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

It is my privilege to introduce the Government Information (Public Access) Bill, the Government Information (Information Commissioner) Bill, and the Government Information (Public Access) (Consequential Amendments and Repeal) Bill—legislation that will vastly improve the transparency and integrity of Government in New South Wales.

In October 2008, I addressed this House on the issue of the transparency and accountability of Government and made clear my view that the old culture of Government secrecy has to end. The public's right to know should be respected.

Members of the public should be able to have access to the widest possible range of information to give them confidence in Government decision making. And that means a total revamp of the system. I gave a commitment that I would introduce new legislation to reform FOI in the first half of this year—once the outcomes of the Ombudsman's review of the Act were known. And today I am delivering on that commitment.

These bills together represent the first comprehensive overhaul of the Freedom of Information regime in twenty years. These bills do just what I promised. They turn the Freedom of Information regime on its head. The bills establish a framework to actively promote the release of Government information. They offer the opportunity for a fresh start.

The new legislation shifts the focus toward proactive disclosure. The legislation requires that certain "open access information" must be published. This includes details of an agency's structure and functions, its policy documents, and its register of significant private sector contracts. In addition, agencies are authorised to release other information unless it is sensitive personal information or there is some other overriding public interest reason why it cannot be disclosed. There is a significant amount of information that can and should be released without the need for a formal application.

The Government Information (Information Commissioner) Bill creates a new, independent champion of open Government. The Information Commissioner will have robust investigative powers, including the inquiry powers of a Royal Commission. The Information Commissioner's roles will include: reviewing decisions of agencies in relation to access applications; receiving and investigating complaints about agencies in relation to their information disclosure obligations; promoting open Government, and promoting public awareness and understanding of the legislation; providing information, advice, assistance and training to agencies and the public; and reporting and recommending proposals for future legislative and administrative changes to further the object of open Government.

The Information Commissioner will be a fully independent office. The Commissioner will report directly to Parliament and will be subject to oversight by a Joint Parliamentary Committee. Appointments will be subject to veto by a Joint Parliamentary Committee. The Commissioner will only be eligible to be reappointed once. And the Commissioner will only be able to be removed from office following a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

The Ombudsman recommended that the Information Commissioner be established in his office. The Government has decided instead to establish the new Commissioner as a separate Government agency. Although there may be some marginal cost savings associated with the Ombudsman's proposal, the Government considers that these reforms are too important to be driven by cost considerations alone.

Establishing a new independent office will give greater prominence and emphasis to the role of the Commissioner. It will also give the Commissioner greater scope to act as a true champion of open Government. I note that the establishment of a separate office of Information Commissioner has the strong support of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, the Privacy Commissioner and the New South Wales Law Society.

Importantly, the Commissioner's Office will be adequately resourced to ensure that it can deliver its functions. A final budget for the Information Commissioner will be developed once the Information Commissioner is appointed. Given the independence of the Office, it is important that the Commissioner be involved in planning decisions around structure and staffing. I can, however, advise the House today that the Government has provided a level of funding to ensure the Information Commissioner can operate effectively.

The Information Commissioner will receive at least $3 million for 2009-2010 and $4 million a year thereafter—a guaranteed minimum commitment. This is well in excess of the current funding for FOI functions performed by the Ombudsman, estimated to be less than five hundred thousand dollars. This new funding commitment therefore represents a significant increase. It recognises that the new Information Commissioner's role is to extend far beyond mere complaints-handling, underlining the Government's genuine commitment to genuine reform in this area.

As well as the focus on proactive disclosure, the bills enhance the rights of the public to apply for particular information under formal application processes. The new legislation makes clear that an agency should release the requested information unless there is an overriding public interest against disclosure. This is supported by an explicit presumption in favour of disclosure. Of course, the legislation recognises that the public interest in favour of disclosure may, in some cases, be outweighed by particular public interest considerations against disclosure.

The bills continue to ensure that the confidentiality required in respect of Cabinet information, law enforcement and safety information, sensitive commercial information and private information will be adequately protected. The new legislation specifies some information for which it is conclusively presumed that there is an overriding public interest against disclosure. Apart from these prescribed cases, agencies will be required to apply a public interest test on a case-by-case basis.

The requirement to apply a public interest test applies even in respect of information that is prohibited from release under some other Act. Currently, there are secrecy provisions in over a hundred different Acts. Under the current FOI Act, if a document is subject to one of these secrecy provisions then it is automatically 'exempt'.

Under the new legislation, there is a list of around twenty secrecy provisions, which conclusively establish an overriding public interest against disclosure. These include the obvious things such as details of witnesses under Witness Protection legislation, the identity of jurors, details on the child protection offenders register and so on. However, information that is subject to any other secrecy provision will now need to be subject to the public interest test on a case-by-case basis. The fact that a secrecy provision applies will be a relevant consideration but it will no longer be conclusive. And if the agency does decide that the information can be released, then the Government Information (Public Access) bill will override all other legislation and ensure that the information can be released under the protection of the law.

The new Act makes it clear that decisions by agencies are to be made independently of political considerations. Among other things, the legislation expressly prohibits decision-makers from taking into account any possible embarrassment to the Government that might arise if information is released. And for the first time, the legislation also makes clear that public servants are not subject to Ministerial direction and control in dealing with an applications to access Government information. The new legislation also creates offences for public officials who deliberately make decisions they know to be in contravention of the legislation.

It will also be an offence to destroy, conceal or alter a record in order to prevent the disclosure of Government information. And, it will be an offence for any person to knowingly direct or influence a public official to make an unlawful decision. A landmark change to public policy.

The new legislation will not increase fees or charges. Responding to FOI applications is costly for Government as the fees currently levied go nowhere near recovering the full cost. The Ombudsman recommended that applicants continue to be required to make at least some contribution to those actual costs incurred by agencies in dealing with applications. However, in the spirit of these new bills, the Government will not increase FOI application fees, and the current discounts for those on low incomes will continue to apply.

The fees and charges under the current FOI Act have not increased for 20 years and they are not about to now. In fact, the new bill expressly prescribes the fees and charges in the legislation itself. This means that no future Government can increase those fees and charges without the approval of Parliament.

The new legislation implements the Ombudsman's recommendations to provide short and realistic turn-around times for FOI applications, namely, that the time frames for dealing with access applications should be 20 working days for an application and 15 working days for an Internal Review.

There is also clear guidance to agencies and applicants as to when time periods can be suspended or extended, including allowing for extension with the agreement of the applicant. All extensions will be required to be notified formally to the applicant.

The legislation provides that the failure of an agency to decide an application within the required time will be taken to be a refusal, which will, in turn, trigger the applicant's review rights. The applicant will also be entitled to a full refund of the application fee and any advance deposit already paid.

It is currently the case that around two thirds of all applications for information under the FOI Act concern personal information. Various Government agencies routinely collect and hold private information about individuals such as medical records and vehicle registration details. The public's "right to know" and the public's "right to privacy" are complex and intimately related. The intersection between them is a delicate balance.

The New South Wales Law Reform Commission is currently involved in a comprehensive review of privacy law. The Attorney-General recently asked the Commission to extend their work to consider explicitly how privacy laws interact with public access laws. The outcome of this work will inevitably lead to further reforms in this area. However, the Government does not consider that these reforms to FOI should be delayed while the Law Reform Commission continues to do its work. There is a general consensus that the FOI Act is broken and needs to be fixed. I agree.

The new legislation will therefore put in place a framework based around the principles of pro-active disclosure, a presumption in favour of public interest disclosure, and oversight by an independent Information Commissioner. Just as importantly, the new legislation ensures that—pending future reforms to privacy legislation—the right of individual's privacy will continue to be protected.

New South Wales already has an independent Privacy Commissioner to monitor and promote issues concerning personal and information privacy. The current Commissioner, the Honourable Ken Taylor, has done an excellent job working with Government departments to ensure they adequately protect the private information they hold. The Government is committed to maintaining this role.

As part of the future reform of privacy legislation, the Government intends to bring the Privacy Commissioner and the Information Commissioner together within a single office. The two roles will remain functionally independent within a combined office. It makes sense to have a single body overseeing both of the key issues relating to Government information—privacy and public access.

The Law Reform Commission has already signalled its support for bringing privacy and information access functions together within the same office. It was also something that was flagged by the Ombudsman in his report. Both Queensland and the Commonwealth area also proposing a similar approach.

The precise details of the merger will be developed once the Law Reform Commission has finalised its review and made its formal recommendations.

Landmark legislation like the bills I am introducing today cannot occur without extensive consideration and discussion. The Ombudsman's report, which was received in February, has been carefully considered. In preparing that report, the Ombudsman undertook a thorough public consultation process. The Ombudsman's recommendations have taken on the views of many individuals and organisations.

The Government has also undertaken a further public consultation process in developing these bills via draft exposure bills, which I tabled on May 6 this year. The Government received over 50 submissions in response, and the overwhelming majority of them supported the general direction of the proposed reforms.

We have carefully considered the submissions in drafting the legislation, and changes have been made to the exposure draft bills where appropriate. One change is that we are going to fix the complex overlap of disclosure provisions applying to local councils. This was recommended by the Ombudsman and has been supported in the submissions. Under the new legislation, all applications for council information will be brought under the umbrella of the new legislation. In so doing, we will minimise any reduction in the availability of information, or any increase in costs.

We have also listened to submissions and included new provisions in the bills relating to information held by private sector bodies that perform functions under contract for Government agencies. The bills provide that agencies that engage private sector contractors to provide public services on their behalf must ensure that they, and therefore the public, have a right to access relevant information about the delivery of those services.

In addition, the bills provide that public sector bodies who perform what may be described as Government functions can be declared to be agencies in their own right. This approach has already been applied in respect to private managers of correctional facilities, who have been brought within the scope of the FOI Act.

As well as listening to the Ombudsman and stakeholders in New South Wales, we also considered the reforms that are being proposed in Queensland and the Commonwealth. These are historic reforms, and we want to get them right.

These bills constitute a fundamental freedom of information revolution. With these bills, New South Wales will gain the nation's best FOI laws. The public's right to know must come first.

As well as comprehensively responding to the Ombudsman's report, they pick up reforms arising from the Solomon Review in Queensland, and recently proposed changes to Commonwealth legislation.

The bills mark a paradigm shift. Our public sector must embrace openness and transparency and Governments must forever relinquish their habitual instinct to control information. This is generational change—reform long overdue.

I commend these bills to the House and to the people whose interests they will so effectively serve.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [11.16 a.m.]: These bills have been introduced in accordance with recommendations made by the New South Wales Ombudsman in February 2009 in his report "Opening up government—Review of the Freedom of Information Act 1989". There are three elements to the main bill and the cognate bills: a new Act to replace the current Freedom of Information Act 1989; a greater emphasis on the proactive disclosure of government information or, as it has been described, the push rather than the pull system; and the creation of an Information Commissioner. I lead for the Opposition, and it is important to indicate at the outset that the Opposition will not oppose the legislation. But it is also important to recognise that the current legislation was the creation of the Greiner Government in 1989.

In the lead-up to the 1988 State election, the Greiner Government made it clear that under a Greiner-led Coalition Government the veil of secrecy that for far too long had covered every measure of government reporting, transparency and accountability to the public would come to an end. In accordance with the commitment that was given prior to the 1988 election, former Premier Nick Greiner and his government proceeded to fulfil the commitment that was given to the people of New South Wales. Two decades later the Ombudsman has produced a report that is a review of the current freedom of information legislation that has had only minor amendments to bring it in line with the requirements of the community in the twenty-first century.

The Ombudsman's report makes 88 recommendations, and the legislation we are debating today emanates from those recommendations. That is not to say that the Government has accepted all of the Ombudsman's recommendations. However, the three key elements espoused by the Ombudsman are embodied in the legislation: a greater level of proactive disclosure of government information, a new open government information Act to replace the Freedom of Information Act, and the appointment of an independent Information Commissioner.

It is important to recognise that the debate we are having today is similar to a debate held in the Parliament in the lead-up to the 2007 State election. As I was looking through the legislation while preparing my contribution I was reminded of a previous debate. When I had an opportunity to look at the debate on the Freedom of Information Amendment (Open Government—Disclosure of Contracts) Bill 2006 I saw a resemblance between the legislation we are debating today, the debate that has taken place in the Legislative Assembly, and the contributions of members, including me, back in November 2006. I draw the attention of members to my contribution in 2006 on the overall issue of the need to advance the calls for modernising the freedom of information legislation. Representing the Coalition, I said:

The Coalition will create a proper appeals and evaluation process with the creation of an independent watchdog. The Freedom of Information Commissioner will create greater confidence in the conduct of the Freedom of Information Act by creating separate responsibility for the evaluation of the Government's freedom of information performance through the Freedom of Information Commissioner within the office of the NSW Ombudsman.

It is important to recognise that that was the Coalition's position back in 2006, and it is still the Coalition's position in 2009. The Government has partly taken on board the suggestions made by the Opposition over the past three years. It has taken on board the recommendations made by the Ombudsman in his February report and has brought forward legislation that makes some progress towards a much more acceptable position with regard to the Ombudsman. As I said, this legislation will create, for the first time, a new position called the Information Commissioner—a position that was spelt out by the Opposition back in 2006—as a crucial part of a government that embraces and embodies accountability and transparency with the public.

This Information Commissioner will promote public awareness and understanding of the Government Information Act; provide information, advice, assistance and training to agencies and the public on matters relevant to the Government Information (Public Access) Act; investigate, audit and report on the exercise of agency functions and compliance with the new Act; and make reports and provide recommendations to the Minister about proposals for legislative and administrative changes to further the objects of the legislation. The Ombudsman recommended that the position of Information Commissioner be housed within the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Coalition agreed with that recommendation. However, the New South Wales Government has elected not to accept the recommendation, no matter how it tries to dress it up by suggesting that it would be a new stand-alone approach to information exchange and transparency in New South Wales, as Premier Rees did in the other place.

The Leader of the Opposition in the other place, Barry O'Farrell, rightly pointed out one fundamental weakness in Premier Rees' argument relating to the Government's power, if necessary, to remove or replace the Information Commissioner at a future date. If the Government intended to separate the Information Commissioner from the Ombudsman but recognise the independent nature of such a strategic and important position, one assumes it would have given the Information Commissioner the same level of protection as the Ombudsman in terms of the ability of the government of the day to remove or replace the Information Commissioner if it has cause to do so. The Leader of the Opposition in the other place pointed out what he believes is a fundamental weakness, that is, the Information Commissioner will be on a level playing field with the Auditor-General in terms of the Governor's ability to remove or replace the Information Commissioner, which is different from the Governor's ability to remove or replace the Ombudsman. The Opposition has recommended that the provisions relating to the removal or replacement of the Ombudsman would provide a much more suitable level of protection for the newly created Information Commissioner.

The legislation also deals with public access. The principal features of this bill include the mandatory proactive release of certain government information, limiting the public interest considerations that can be taken into account for disclosures of information, and providing a general public interest in favour of the disclosure of government information. No doubt fees and charges will increase, but they will be fixed in legislation to prevent future increases without parliamentary approval. The time frame for dealing with applications will be 20 working days for an original application and 15 working days for an internal review. That is in line with the Ombudsman's recommendation. Currently, the agency has 21 days in which to determine applications, with a 14-day extension in certain circumstances, and 14 days to determine an internal review application.

As I said earlier, the Opposition is not opposing this legislation, but it is important that I take this opportunity to put on the record the Coalition's commitment to maintaining the independence of the position of Information Commissioner and to the principle of open and transparent government. It is important also that I place on the record that a Coalition government would do a number of things to enhance further not only the independence of the Information Commissioner but also the protection of the position. The Coalition would ensure that the provisions relating to the removal of the commissioner mirror the provisions relating to the Ombudsman. A Coalition government would ensure that the office of the Information Commissioner was constituted in the Office of the New South Wales Ombudsman, and it would ensure that the quarantine period for Cabinet documents was reduced to the completion of two terms of Parliament. Finally, a Coalition government would implement the Ombudsman's recommendation relating to the proactive release of certain Cabinet information. The Opposition does not oppose this legislation.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.28 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Government Information (Public Access) Bill 2009, the Government Information (Information Commissioner) Bill 2009 and the Government Information (Public Access) (Consequential Amendments and Repeal) Bill 2009. These bills are the result of the Ombudsman's report that was published on 5 February 2009. The Ombudsman recommended replacing the current Freedom of Information Act with new legislation and establishing a new independent office of Information Commissioner. That is a positive move forward in terms of making the New South Wales Government more open and ensuring that there is an independent information commissioner representing the public to ensure that all information that is available can be provided on request.

The Information Commissioner will have very strong investigative powers, including the inquiry powers of a royal commission. His or her role will include reviewing decisions of agencies in relation to access applications, receiving and investigating complaints about agencies in relation to their information disclosure obligations, promoting open government, promoting public awareness and understanding of the legislation, providing information, advice, assistance and training to agencies and the public, and reporting and recommending proposals for future legislative administrative changes to further the object of open government.

In addition, the Information Commissioner will be a fully independent office. Apparently the Ombudsman recommended that the position of Information Commissioner be established in his office. The Ombudsman has the tendency to have a large collection of offices under his supervision, something with which I do not agree. I think it is correct that the Government has decided to establish the new commissioner as a separate government agency, despite the fact that extra expenditure may be involved—although that is debatable because there would be establishment costs in any case. The establishment of the separate office of Information Commissioner is supported by important groups such as the Law Reform Commission, the Privacy Commissioner and the Law Society of New South Wales. I note that to ensure the commissioner is truly independent he or she can be removed from office only following a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That will give commissioners the confidence to pursue their role and not be frightened that if they are too aggressive they will be removed from the position. Of course, their removal is possible but it would be a difficult and complicated process, and hopefully it will not occur.

I also hope that members of Parliament will use this new legislation and that we will see a reduction in the number of all-encompassing calls for papers in this Chamber. A recent call for papers dated back to 1994, and another called on 19 departments to check their records and files. It will be better if all members of Parliament focus on the information they want and use this new legislation to obtain it. I do not say that information should be concealed, but this new legislation will provide the correct processes to obtain it and to take action, as necessary, if there is a finding of some failure in government or corruption. I would be the first to support such a matter being made public and debated in this Chamber. I am pleased to support this improved means of providing information to the public.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.33 a.m.]: I congratulate the Ombudsman on conducting a fine review, and thank the Government for adopting the vast majority of the Ombudsman's recommendations. I welcomed the chance to work with the Government on the legislation, and I congratulate Parliamentary Counsel on this example of good plain-English drafting. The Government Information (Public Access) Bill 2009 and cognate bills are the first step in what should be a great leap forward in accountability and transparency in this State. They must be taken in context because it has taken a long time to reach this point, but I reiterate that the bills are excellent. We should remember the many individuals, activists, journalists and community groups who have hit their heads against a brick wall. They have been refused information, received documents covered in black pen, or not even got to first base because the cost of the freedom of information application was prohibitive. That has been the story for too many years.

The Ombudsman's review of our 20-year-old laws is significant. The Government should be embarrassed that a failure in leadership meant that the Ombudsman had to do the proper work of government. That is on the record, and it is good that we can move forward. The Labor Premiers of Queensland and Victoria initiated such reviews, but not the New South Wales Premier. In New South Wales the Ombudsman took on the job in frustration at the Government's inaction. There followed more than a decade of reports from the New South Wales Ombudsman setting out in great detail the flaws in the operation of the old Freedom of Information Act. The Ombudsman stuck an embarrassing label on New South Wales: we have the worst freedom of information record of any jurisdiction. Hopefully this legislation will change all that.

The themes of the Ombudsman's annual reports that commented on freedom of information laws and administration were depressingly similar year after year. Less and Less information was released and exemption clauses were overused or misused to deny requests. There were high charges, failures to give reasons for refusing access, delays in processing applications and a growing number of complaints to the Ombudsman's office. Despite that, the current Government and the Carr and Iemma governments doggedly resisted changing their ways and releasing information to the public, or reforming well-outdated freedom of information laws. In 2006 the Government voted against my private member's bill, which simply called for an independent review of freedom of information laws. At the time the Government gave no clear reason for its opposition, but one can certainly see from the trends that there was dogged opposition.

But now there is a wave of freedom of information reform, not just federally but in Queensland, where there have been excellent moves in this area. The Solomon review, which produced a most useful document, was conducted in Queensland. It is worth noting that the President of the United States of America, Mr Barack Obama, is also pursuing reforms in this area. Well-functioning governments and bureaucracies should open their doors to scrutiny. They should not feel threatened but welcome having a light shone on their operations. The trick for the Rees Government, and whatever government succeeds it, is to do the hard yards in implementing this legislation to make sure that its magnificent spirit is translated into action in the hands of Ministers and agencies. The essence of this legislation is ensuring that it makes a difference.

We know that freedom of information, as the Ombudsman points out, goes against the natural instincts of government. It will require grit and determination to drive the change needed to dismantle the culture of secrecy that has become entrenched in this Government and its bureaucratic arm. Publication schemes and disclosures logs are an excellent idea, but ultimately they are a human invention and the Premier, his Ministers, heads of departments and of course the new Information Commissioner will need to be on the job, making sure that information that cannot reasonably be expected to cause detriment or harm is on the public record.

We live in the information age, with the web and other electronic advancements. The capacity of the Government to communicate with its citizens has never been greater. Openness is important to a thriving democracy. Accountability breeds better decision-making and better government. Giving citizens access to information improves our democratic processes. We all hope very much that when Premier Rees said, "The days of a secret State are over", he was serious. But on this very happy day, when it looks like New South Wales will finally get an impressive piece of freedom of information legislation, we should not get carried away by emotion and ignore the evidence of this Government's continued disdain for openness and accountability. We must ask a number of questions. Why are the answers given by Ministers to questions on notice and during question time so consistently poor, and getting worse?

Why will the Government not release cost benefit analyses of major infrastructure projects, such as the CBD Metro or the Victoria Road projects, which would allow the real stories to be told about whether their alleged benefits stack up? Why was the public not allowed to see the contract for the V8 Supercars event and the modelling behind the Government's claim that it would bring $100 million in economic benefits, or, for that matter, the costs and economic benefit modelling for World Youth Day?

Why were we not shown the memorandums of understanding between Coal and Allied, Rosecorp and the Government relating to the controversial developments at Catherine Hill Bay and Gwandalan? Why did it take so long to find out the price at which native south-east New South Wales forest timber was sold or what losses the native forests division of Forests New South Wales was making? Why, in reviewing the Gaming Machines Act, did the Government decide to reverse the longstanding tradition of publicly releasing submissions to a review unless authors sought to keep them confidential and decide instead not to release submissions unless specific permission was given? Why, even though it knows that the website for disclosing government contracts and the government tenderers website are hopelessly inadequate instruments for public searches, has the Rees Government not fixed them? Why, when there is so much public interest in what members of Parliament are paid and how they spend their allowances, is this information not freely available on the parliamentary website?

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: It is.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection from the Minister. He needs to acquaint himself with the fact that, while there has been a small advance in this area, the scope of salaries and entitlements still is not spelt out. We would welcome the opportunity to work with the Minister to ensure that his statement comes true.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: The Remuneration Tribunal spells it out.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: But it does not spell it out individually for members and it does not detail how that public money is spent. That is what needs to change.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: The department wants it spelt out. The Auditor-General audits it.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: No, I called for information about what members of Parliament are paid and how their allowances are spent, and the Minister said that it is available.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: That is right, it is.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: No, I asked about individual salaries. I would welcome the opportunity to work on that with the Minister, because at the moment details are not provided on an individual basis. Why do my staff who are engaged in the Democracy4Sale donations project have to sit in the offices of the New South Wales Electoral Commission and physically and painstakingly sift through piles of photocopies to find out what fundraisers have occurred and who has given what in donations to New South Wales politicians?

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Do you detail your entitlements on the website?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, of course we do. I am glad that the Minister asked that question. It is an excellent question.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile): Order! Members should not engage in conversations when making speeches. It is very difficult for Hansard to record a number of conversations as well as the debate.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Thank you, Mr Deputy-President. Following on from the Minister's comment, I am sure you will agree that it is very valuable for members to have that information. Like all members and political parties, the Greens provide that information, as we are obliged to by law. However, we provide it before the election, which is a critical point. Voters and the public should know what money is being given to political parties before an election. For too long, New South Wales Labor has relied on media spin and secrecy to hold on to power, and this has eroded public trust in the Government. With this new Act, Premier Rees has the opportunity to revive the reputation of his Government as open and accountable. We hope to see application of the "push" principle, which involves agencies proactively releasing information, rather than the "pull" principle, whereby citizens must extract information like a dentist pulling teeth. We want to reverse the presumption characterised by the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties in its submission to the Ombudsman that:

Secrecy is the norm and extraction of information is the exception … Ministers and administrators must be encouraged, and required, to adopt radically open mind sets.

We hope the new Freedom of Information Act is used only as a last resort, when there are difficult access issues to decide or the Government has unjustly refused access to information. Releasing information that traditionally has not been made public, such as Cabinet documents, will require bravery on the part of Premier Rees, but if he does so the people will applaud him. Real change will require drive from the Government in monitoring practices and ensuring that agencies regularly and routinely release information to the public. A lot of faith has been placed already in the new Information Commissioner. This is a very important role and we hope that the Government plans to appoint a fearless advocate for freedom of information who has the energy and commitment to change the culture. All too often history shows us that offices of independent guardians such as this are established with great fanfare and, once they have become effective, attacked by the government of the day or starved of funding, resources and staff. Unfortunately, that is the history in New South Wales in recent times.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Which one?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Inspector-General of Corrective Services. We are happy to document the cases. I think the Minister is aware of what he has done to this State in terms of reducing scrutiny. The position of the commissioner must be well resourced and supported, and the Government must make sure that the commissioner can follow through and implement many of the non-legislative recommendations of the Ombudsman, such as training agency staff, oversight, data collection and systemic reviews.

We note that the Ombudsman recommends that the Information Commissioner conduct a five-yearly review of the legislation—a review that is very important in the early stages of the Act's operation. But the Government has in the bill given this job to the Minister, who must merely cooperate with the Information Commissioner. This is disappointing because the Minister will not be in the best position to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the new laws. It is clear that the Information Commissioner will be in the best position to do that. The Greens call on the Government to give this legislative review to the Information Commissioner, and I ask the Minister to comment on that issue when he replies to the debate. It is a weakness in a piece of legislation that the House is acclaiming as a major step forward overall. We have the opportunity in this debate—because we are basically all on the same page—to have a real dialogue so that we can implement the necessary changes to the legislation to make it even stronger.

The Greens will also be watching to ensure that the Information Commissioner gets the job of protecting privacy in New South Wales, as the Premier has suggested in his second reading speech. The Greens urge the Government to do this swiftly and with adequate resourcing once the New South Wales Law Reform Commission has finished its privacy reference. For too long the Government has ignored the need to champion privacy in New South Wales at a time when this important right is under increasing threat. Privacy New South Wales has become an orphan, starved of leadership, starved of staff, starved of funding and starved of political support. In Committee I will move a number of amendments to this excellent bill that are designed to strengthen its operations further. Chief among them is an amendment that will seek to make the New South Wales Parliament subject to freedom of information laws, as recommended by the Ombudsman in his 2009 final report

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Does that mean I can get all your privileged information?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am happy to sit down with the Minister and talk to him about any information that he wants from me. It seems a rather strange request considering he is in government and he is the one—

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: How about a copy of your diary so that we know what protests you are going to?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Minister, that is really interesting. It is interesting how the debate has progressed. I am always open about the work that I undertake. It is advertised regularly on the Greens website, and I am obviously keen to promote it. If the Minister would like to suggest the best email address to use—we can send the information to his personal email account or to his staff; whatever suits him—we are certainly happy to accommodate him. It is an unusual request because that information is readily available. We understood that a number of Labor staffers have the job of reading the Greens fortnightly e-brief to check up on what we are doing and saying, because the information pops up periodically in members' questions and statements.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Your taxes at work.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: It is hopelessly out of date. I am a regular reader.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I have to acknowledge the interjections. The Attorney General claims to be a regular reader of the Greens e-brief.

The Hon. Rick Colless: You could twitter.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: That is certainly interesting; we can all twitter each other. The Greens amendments will also narrow the exclusions covering Cabinet documents, strengthen the objects clause, reduce the lengthy time frames for dealing with freedom of information requests, and subject information now caught by a blanket freedom of information exemption to the public interest test. It is important that we continue to work on this, and I hope there will be a spirit of openness when we come to consider the Greens amendments in Committee. We recognise that this legislation is a major advance and we just need to improve it in certain areas and take into account fully the Ombudsman's recommendations. We will then have even better legislation. I must say that the Opposition has been glaringly inconsistent on this bill. On freedom of information issues, the Opposition's language is strong but its actions are weak. That is something that worries me about the Opposition in regard to a number of policy areas.

I have spoken previously about the two-drawer policy of the Opposition, as clearly set out by Mr Greiner in a book about the history of New South Wales elections. The Opposition Leader, Mr Barry O'Farrell, in his speech during the lower House debate praised the New South Wales Ombudsman for dragging the Government—as he put it—kicking and screaming to undertake these freedom of information reforms. He compared New South Wales's progress under Labor unfavourably to other jurisdictions, and sang the praises of his party's record on transparent and open government. That is fair enough. You would expect a speech like that from an Opposition leader who is in a difficult position. He thought he had some mileage on freedom of information issues and all of a sudden the ground was cut from under him because Labor has at last stumped up and is bringing forward decent legislation.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: That's not right. It has been a victory for Barry O'Farrell in dragging them to this stage.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection because to claim this legislation as an Opposition victory does not sit well in this debate when there has clearly been so much widespread public pressure for these changes over a long time. I am not denying the Opposition has played a role, but claiming that this is all the Opposition leader's victory is similar to what he does in relation to donations. He says that he is the only one calling for reform of political donations. He will fall flat if he continues to make such extreme and arrogant statements.

The Leader of the Opposition went on to outline four areas of concern in the legislation: that the Office of the Information Commissioner should be in the New South Wales Ombudsman's office; that the Information Commissioner should be appointed in the same way as the Ombudsman; that Cabinet documents should become public after eight years; and that the proactive release of certain Cabinet information should be allowed. He foreshadowed that the Coalition would make those changes if elected in 2011. Why is the Opposition not going to move those amendments during consideration of this legislation? I hope one of the Opposition members will explain that, because I think it is a real shortcoming. The Opposition is undermining its own case by not bringing forward any amendments. We would have had a real chance of getting such amendments passed in this House, and I hope we will have a real chance of achieving similar aims with the Greens amendments. Why was that work not undertaken?

The Opposition had every opportunity to achieve those outcomes in this bill, and it makes me wonder whether it is really committed to this position. As I said, we have seen this style of approach time and again—for example, on the Central Coast when Opposition members spoke against coalmines. However, when they came to Parliament and we moved a motion about protecting the waterways from those coalmines, they voted against it. Similarly, I hope they have shifted ground on planning issues. However, there is considerable concern that the two-drawer policy might operate on planning issues. On the one hand the Opposition, having voted for part 3A, now speaks against it. Concern is mounting in some community sectors that the Coalition could introduce something similar to part 3A if they get elected. This dual approach of trying to walk on both sides of the road is very common. Again, I am worried that there remains some resistance in the Opposition's approach to the freedom of information legislation.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: It is not as double-sided as attacking Labor and then giving them preferences, Lee.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The old furphy about preferences is starting to sound like a broken record. Let us get it on the record and be clear about it. Ms Cusack's statement that we preferenced Labor across the board at the last election in all marginal seats is not true.

The Hon. Kayee Griffin: No, it isn't.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection because on the Government side members scream at us because we do not give them preferences in enough areas—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Which Coalition candidates did you preference, Lee?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Why would we preference a Coalition candidate with your policies?

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Thank you. That is my point.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: With the policies you have—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I hesitate to interrupt conversations between members across the Chamber but I do so to ask members to cease interjecting and Ms Lee Rhiannon to address the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Thank you, Mr President. It is interesting how discussion of that issue becomes quite lively. It is certainly interesting in the context of the freedom of information debate. I reiterate that I welcome debate when we are all committed to improving the legislation. The bill has gone a long way to increasing the transparency of government operations in New South Wales. The legislation is critical but hopefully we can improve it with the Greens amendments and also by changing the culture. That is where the Premier has an enormous task before him. It would certainly give him considerable standing—and it is something he would be remembered for—if he not only introduced this legislation but worked hard to ensure that the Government changes the way it operates. One of the most important points I have made in the debate is that I hope we will get to a point where there will be few requirements to put in freedom of information applications because the default position of government departments and ministries is that the bulk of the information is readily available, particularly through websites. It is good to be able to speak in this debate, and I look forward to the Committee stage of the bill.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.57 a.m.]: I speak strongly in support of the Government Information (Public Access) Bill 2009 and cognate bills. The introduction of this legislation follows an extensive process of public debate and consultation. In April last year the Ombudsman announced that he would undertake an independent review of the Freedom of Information Act. As soon as he became Premier, Mr Rees came out strongly in support of this review. In September 2008, the Ombudsman issued a detailed discussion paper and called for public submissions. More than 70 submissions were received from a wide range of stakeholders. They included agencies that are subject to the Freedom of Information Act as well as those who seek information from them. They included community groups, academics, and private sector freedom of information experts.

Rather than formulating a single Government response, individual departments and agencies were able to make their own submission to the Ombudsman if they wished. Because of their different roles and the different types of information they hold, different agencies will have different experiences of the freedom of information regime. It was considered that the debate would be improved by having each agency bring its own unique perspective, highlighting issues of particular relevance to it. Submissions to the Ombudsman's review were made by various government departments, including the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Attorney General's Department, Department of Planning, Department of Corrective Services, Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, and more.

I acknowledge that the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Coalition made a submission to the Ombudsman. Following the release of the Ombudsman's discussion paper, late last year the Premier announced that he would introduce legislation to overhaul the Freedom of Information Act in the first half of 2009, once the Ombudsman had released his recommendations. The Ombudsman's report was eventually released on 5 February this year. Since that time the Government has been working tirelessly to meet the Premier's commitment, which is what we are debating today. A first step was to consult with those agencies that are the subject of specific provisions under the current Freedom of Information Act.

The purpose of this initial consultation was to determine the reasons why these provisions had been included in the Freedom of Information Act in the first place, and to see whether similar provisions would be needed in the new legislation. The responses of those agencies have been made available on the website of the Department of Premier and Cabinet since the beginning of May. On 6 May the Premier released for public comment exposure draft legislation. The draft bills were published together with a companion guide that highlighted the main changes proposed by the bills and invited public submissions.

The Government received 57 submissions on the bills and these included around 20 submissions from individuals and non-government organisations, a dozen from New South Wales government agencies, 20 from local councils and two from universities. Most of them were supportive of the general direction of the reforms. These submissions have also been made publicly available on the website of the Department of Premier and Cabinet. The Government also publicly released separate advice it has received from the Presiding Officers and the Law Reform Commission about specific aspects in the Ombudsman's recommendations.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 12 noon for questions.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that it is now 21 days since the Police Association released its "Working Smarter—The Police Association of NSW plan to fund the 2009 award"? Given that the current award covering our police expires in six days time—on 30 June—and a meeting of association members resolved to impose that date as a deadline for the finalisation of negotiations, what steps has the Minister taken to ensure industrial action by New South Wales police is avoided and that negotiations for their well-deserved pay rise are concluded by 30 June?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The Leader of the Opposition expressed concern about the well-deserved pay rise for the fantastic policemen and policewomen in the New South Wales Police Force. Any pay rise that they receive will be well deserved. Officers in the New South Wales Police Force are already some of the highest paid employees in New South Wales.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Are any of them on Robbo's hit list?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: None of the New South Wales police officers.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What about ancillary staff?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The member has diverted me from answering the question. There are 650 additional police officers. By December 2011 there will be 15,956 police officers. The Leader of the Opposition referred earlier to payroll negotiations, which are ongoing.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: There are six days left.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: A lot can be achieved in six days. Those negotiations are ongoing. If negotiations are not concluded by that time obviously any pay rise will be backdated.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Health. Can the Minister advise the House what action the Government is taking to deliver better health services to families in New South Wales?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I most certainly can, and I thank the member for his ongoing interest in health matters. The Government has committed more than $15 billion a year to deliver better health services to families in New South Wales. We have committed almost $1 billion to build the new Royal North Shore Hospital; a spectacular new hospital at Liverpool; we have started the new Orange Base Hospital; we have a partnership with Catholic Healthcare in Dubbo to rebuild the Lourdes facility there; Narrabri is funded in the coming financial year; a new wing will be constructed at Nepean hospital; and we have built or rebuilt virtually every major hospital in this State during our time in office. These are massive projects.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: What about Parkes-Forbes and Wagga Wagga?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I acknowledge the interjection of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: What about Kurri Kurri?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: These projects contribute not only to job creation, but also they will improve health service delivery across New South Wales. Even with a record State capital works program creating more jobs and infrastructure we cannot build every competing project every year. A number of communities around New South Wales want their hospitals to be the next cab off the rank. The member for Dubbo wants a start on Parkes-Forbes and the member for Tamworth wants a start on Tamworth. I have not heard much from the member for Wagga Wagga or the member for Bega, but I know that their communities also want new hospitals. I would also like to start on the northern beaches. New South Wales will continue its important planning and preparatory work so that we are ready to build as revenues recover.

Opposition members carp and moan about health services, but what have they promised? They have not promised one new hospital, one extra nurse, one extra doctor, one dialysis chair, one cancer centre, or one radiotherapy chair. They have promised $300 million for new bureaucrats, 20 area health services, 20 sets of support staff, 20 offices and 20 chief executives. Those issues are superbly detailed in the six-point plan presented by the shadow Minister and reinforced in Barry's budget reply last week. Barry spoke for about 30 minutes in his budget reply and he dedicated only 30 seconds of his speech to the health budget. Health, which receives almost one-third of this State's budget, warranted only 30 seconds of the attention of the Leader of the Opposition in his 30-minute speech. For 30 seconds he did not speak about patient care—he dedicated 30 seconds to a discussion about his new bureaucracy.

Barry's blog states that the Coalition wants to make the lives of families easier so that they can get on with raising their children, creating jobs and increasing services in New South Wales. What astounding hypocrisy! When will the Opposition build Tamworth hospital? It will not. How many new nurses will it employ if it were to win government? It would not employ any. It wants more managers and more clerks. The New South Wales Government is investing in new and better health services to meet the needs of our growing and ageing population, and it is investing in maintaining the excellence of our health care system.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware that farmers in the Dunedoo area are concerned that they are being kept in the dark about a proposed coalfield in that area and that the Minister is hiding behind the word "confidential"? Can the Minister explain why farmers have been forced to sign confidentiality clauses on secret land transactions with Macquarie Generation while owners of neighbouring properties have been given no information whatsoever about what is going on? Will the Minister provide a guarantee to farmers, who have described themselves as second-class citizens, that from now on neighbouring farmers will be fully briefed in an open and transparent manner?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about the Cobbora development site near Dunedoo. It is a thermal coal site that the Government determined and announced in May. The site will be used in the future for the production of thermal coal for our three generators and will underpin contracts as a number of those contracts expire over the next few years. In May the Government decided to enable a joint venture partnership to conduct exploration and analysis in the area for the development of this mine. As I understand it, Macquarie Generation—a joint venture associated with that coalfield and probably with the other two—I am not too clear on that—has been having discussions with local landholders in the Dunedoo region.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Will you make sure that there is a briefing for the guys that are in the dark?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I would hope that there are always consultations—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Will you make sure that it happens?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The member in his question said that landholders are being "forced" to sign certain types of contracts. My understanding is that no-one is being forced to do anything. When people enter into negotiations with a commercial entity, either partner has the right to have a confidential clause included in that contract. I do not believe in any circumstance that anyone is being forced to do anything. These are commercial relations between entities and landholders only.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Will you get a briefing to the guys who live there and do not know what is happening?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Rather than try to inflame the situation, I ask the member to be careful when using such words and to be responsible for once. Sometimes he is not responsible when he is pursuing his interest in various issues.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Will you get a briefing?

The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I will ask Macquarie Generation or the joint venture partner about the issues and their discussions and listen to what they have to say.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: My question is directed to the Minister for Health, and Minister for the Central Coast. Is the Minister aware of the new independent tests commissioned by the Somersby Action Group that show that the amount of respirable silica, a class one carcinogen that can cause cancer and silicosis, is approximately five times greater than the mine proponents claim in their environmental assessment documentation? Is the Minister aware that the sandstone to be mined contains 97 per cent crystalline silica quartz, that the area already is surrounded by six existing sand mines and that test results show that the existing annual average background PM10 silica concentration already exceeds international air quality standards without this sand mine going ahead? Will the Government heed community concerns and reject the proposed Somersby sand mine, which would be situated 170 metres from the Somersby Public School?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I thank the member for her question and for the opportunity to respond briefly on the safety and health of students at the Somersby Public School in the context of a proposed sand mining development. I am aware of some of the matters because I listened intently to her contribution in the debate yesterday. She was not so sympathetic to my attentiveness to her remarks in some of the local media this morning. However, that is all right. She was more accurate in her remarks than was the member for Terrigal in the other place, who made some silly remarks this morning about a range of matters, which unfortunately will cause some confusion.

[Interruption]

Yes, the swamp fox was at it again, lying through his teeth, saying all sorts of things and worrying the Central Coast community about matters that are firmly in hand. I return to the member's question because she makes sensible contributions on these matters. Of course, I have become familiar with this issue over quite a long period of time. The member is aware, as am I, that the Department of Education and Training has made submissions about safety issues for teachers at Somersby Public School and the implications of the sand mining development. The health department also has made submissions. Those submissions remain confidential in relation to the planning process. I am not the Minister for Planning, as the member knows, and which the House understands. The process for determining the outcomes takes place within the Department of Planning.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why did you scarper out when the division was on?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: No, I had a pair with the Hon. Catherine Cusack.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: No you didn't.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: We had an informal arrangement. We had one of those understandings. She is embarrassed, but it is true.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You are misleading the House.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: No, we had a bit of a tête-à-tête. We have a thing going! In any event, I share the community's concern about this project, particularly given its proximity to the Somersby Public School. I have shared that concern for quite a long time. I have made my views clear publicly as Minister for the Central Coast.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You should have said that yesterday in the House.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am saying it today in the House.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Yes, but you missed the vote. You should have been here yesterday. You have had all night to think about an excuse.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: It is all right to think about things.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You should have got up and said that yesterday from the heart.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I know you never think about things, Michael, but I do think about things sometimes. New South Wales Health has reviewed the proposal and made a number of submissions to the Department of Planning regarding the potential impacts of the sand mining proposal. As I said in the first part of my answer, the Department of Education and Training has written to the Department of Planning outlining its concerns.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: This is your personal explanation.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: No, this is an answer to the member's question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am acknowledging the member's unhelpful interjections.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Chair does not require the Minister to acknowledge interjections, which are disorderly.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: Thank you, Mr President.

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

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am advised that the development application is still being considered by the Department of Planning. I will ensure that the health concerns of the local community and the relative scientific findings as outlined by the member and the community are given close and appropriate attention throughout the assessment process.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question: Will the Minister elucidate his answer with respect to when the Government will announce its decision on this project?

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I refer the member to my substantive answer: I am not the Minister for Planning. It is not up to me to announce when outcomes will occur as a result of the determinations of a planning process.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is addressed to the Attorney General. What is the latest information on sentencing for alcohol-related violence?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Alcohol abuse can not only destroy the health of individuals, but can also wreak havoc on the peace and wellbeing of local communities and destroy the lives of victims of alcohol-related violence, such as glassing attacks. In October last year the Premier unveiled a comprehensive package of reforms to address the problem of alcohol-related violence. As part of this package the Government requested the New South Wales Sentencing Council, which is chaired by the Honourable Justice James Wood, AO, QC, and includes representatives of victims of crime, police and the Director of Public Prosecutions, to undertake a review of sentencing in relation to alcohol-related violence. I am pleased to report that the Sentencing Council recently has completed its review and released its report entitled "Sentencing for Alcohol-related violence" on its website.

As part of this review the council was asked to provide advice to the Government on the current principles and practices governing sentences for offences committed whilst the offender is intoxicated, including personal violence offences such as glassing; whether there is a need to change penalties or sentencing practices to address alcohol-related violence; and whether the intoxication of the offender should be added as an aggravating factor on sentencing under section 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. The council received submissions from police, legal groups and peak drug and alcohol advisory groups, and undertook its own detailed research, including the assessment of statistics and a review of relevant case law. The council concluded that courts have given appropriate levels of guidance in the sentencing of offenders where intoxication is an issue and that relevant sentencing principles are not overlooked by judges.

The council found that existing sentencing laws impose appropriate sentences for repeat offenders who have a record of violence while intoxicated. The council examined also the adequacy of existing provisions that enable courts to consider it an aggravating factor on sentencing if the offence involved the use of a weapon. The council highlighted a number of cases where such provisions have been applied appropriately to impose tougher sentences against offenders in glass attacks. The council found also that under existing law intoxication can constitute an aggravating factor where the offender has a history of committing alcohol-related offences and is aware of his or her propensity for violence in those circumstances. In light of these findings, the council found that existing sentencing laws are effective in dealing with offences involving alcohol-related violence.

However, the council noted concerns expressed by the Chief Magistrate that in certain cases the prosecution of serious personal violence offences in the Local Court, rather than the District Court, might prevent the imposition of sufficiently severe sentences. The council therefore recommended that there be an ongoing review to determine whether there is a body of personal violence cases where the Local Court's jurisdictional limit of two years' imprisonment has led to the imposition of inappropriate sentences. The Government has agreed to provide a further reference to the Sentencing Council to allow this further review to proceed. We are examining also existing processes to ensure that proper consideration is given to bringing appropriate cases to prosecution in the District Court. Otherwise, the council expressed the view that the best response to alcohol-related violence is to take steps to stop it from occurring in the first place through measures such as tough licensing laws to curb excessive drinking and a public education campaign.

As members would be aware, notwithstanding the opposition of the Liberal Party and The Nationals, the Government already has imposed tough conditions on licensed venues known to be the source of much alcohol-related violence. Currently, through New South Wales Health we are undertaking extensive public education campaigns to draw people's attention to the dangers of excessive drinking. Alcohol-related violence is a scourge on the community, which warrants targeted and considered policy responses. The Sentencing Council has assisted in our review of this matter. [Time expired.]

The Hon. ROY SMITH: In directing my question to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, I refer to recent reports that livestock, health and pest authorities in the area from the Queensland border to the Upper Hunter now have completed their bait placement program to kill off wild dogs on the Eastern Escarpment. It is reported that 16 tonnes of meat treated with 1080 poison was dropped, despite the controversy surrounding the impact of such baiting programs on non-target species, including native animals. Is 1080 poison used anywhere in national parks in New South Wales? If so, how many tonnes of poisonous baits have been used in New South Wales national parks over the past 12 months?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am not aware of the source of the information to which the member refers, but I will find out. I will certainly refer the question to the Minister and obtain the answer.

The Hon. DON HARWIN: My question is directed to the Minister for Police. Given that he did not attend the public meeting held on 14 June in Potts Point, is he nevertheless aware of the concerns of residents of Potts Point, Woolloomooloo and Elizabeth Bay about an explosion in antisocial behaviour by car and motorbike hoons in the area that are detrimentally affecting the lives of those in residential areas adjacent to the Kings Cross strip? Is he taking action to address these concerns with the assistance of the police and the Commander of the Kings Cross Local Area Command, or does he believe that it is solely the responsibility of the Council of the City of Sydney?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the member for his question. I cannot recall being invited to Potts Point on that particular day. I know I was at another function on that day.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Where were you?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I was with the police at a function that day, which was a Sunday. I cannot recall being invited, but I will obtain information, particularly in relation to crime figures in the area, and convey to the member and the House how well our crime figures are going in this State. The Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR] figures that we were given some time ago showed that 15 of the 17 major crime categories either were stable or were reducing quite significantly. But the most recent Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research figures show that 16 of the 17 major crime categories right across the State either are stable or are reducing.

The only category that was increasing was fraud incidents related to petrol stealing and the theft of number plates by people who obtain petrol at a service station and drive off to avoid paying. That increased incidence has been attributed to the higher prices of petrol last year. More recent information from Don Weatherburn suggests that even that category's increase is declining as petrol prices come down. I will obtain further information for the member.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Rural Affairs. What is the latest information on action the Government is taking to deliver a state-of-the-art electronic communication to some communities in rural and regional New South Wales?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the member for her continued interest in and ongoing commitment to ensuring that people who choose to live in rural and regional New South Wales are not disadvantaged.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: This is like NASA. The only way I can get anything is by satellite. I am still waiting for your last promise.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition understands, the tyranny of distance is one of the greatest barriers faced by rural and regional communities. Over the years there have been far too many examples of communities being eager to grow and prosper, only to be hampered by a lack of access to modern technology—also infrastructure and, just as important, roads—that their city cousins take for granted. The Government is determined to make sure that those barriers become a thing of the past.

The Rees Government is delivering $85 million through the Building the Country package. An important part of that package is the Community Broadband Development Program, which has been costed at $11 million. The overall program will cost $85 million, but the Government's $11 million investment will support strong, vibrant and connected rural communities. The Community Broadband Development Program is a community-based model for high-speed broadband. It will deliver affordable, accessible broadband access that is vital for the development of our country communities, and we are already hitting the ground running.

[Interruption]

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease making disruptive interjections.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: One would think that The Nationals would be interested in this information.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We were—the first time.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I will explain why in a minute.

The PRESIDENT: Order! A practice has developed in this House of members acknowledging interjections, which are disorderly at all times. In accordance with tradition the Chair tolerates interjections that facilitate debate and argument. However, the fundamental privilege of the member with the call to speak freely and be heard is breached when other members continually interject. The Chair will not interfere to require members not to interject so long as the interjections facilitate debate and do not cause disruption and infringe on a member's fundamental privilege to be heard.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: I particularly thank the member for the question, and my response should be really important to The Nationals. The Community Broadband Development Program will deliver affordable, accessible broadband access that is vital to the development of our country communities. We are already hitting the ground running. Community consultants are on the job working with the first 11 communities that will be linked to high-speed broadband through this program. The communities include Quambone, which is the home of a former member, the late Doug Moppett, Hill End, Pilliga, South West Rocks, Delegate, Dalgety, Wilcannia, Jubulum, which is near Tabulam, Coleambally, Goodooga and Balranald. All of those communities are among the 2 per cent of towns identified as being unable to link to today's high-speed information technology.

I point out that those 11 towns, eight of which are in electorates represented by The Nationals, are just the beginning. The Government is determined to improve job prospects, social horizons and service delivery in our rural communities right across New South Wales. We are committed to levelling the playing field between the city and the bush. The program is well underway. Community consultation and engagement is now taking place. The next steps will lead to the development of business cases and technical plans followed by the building of the high-speed wireless network. All this is possible because the Government has adopted a whole-of-community approach—an approach that allows the sharing of State, federal and local government assets to the benefit of our community. Access to fast reliable broadband will allow the rural and regional communities to benefit from improved educational and health resources, new trade opportunities and better communications.

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

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Access to fast, reliable broadband will allow rural and regional communities to benefit from improved education and health resources, new trade opportunities and better communications. Businesses will benefit from improved access to online services, including finance and banking, research and information. From a position of isolation, these communities will now be able to reach out and grasp trade and business opportunities across Australia, or indeed across the world, and do so at Internet speeds that will not disadvantage them against their city-based competitors. The Community Broadband Development Program, along with the rest of the Building the Country package, is a solid commitment from the Rees Government to our friends in rural and regional Australia.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question is addressed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment. Is the Minister aware of recent reports that tourism operators in Port Stephens are concerned that new marine park regulations could force businesses to fold? Is it a fact that businesses operating water sports and dolphin and whale watching cruises have claimed that they are being subjected to new regulations by the Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park Authority? What is the Government doing to protect these businesses? Will the Minister ensure that no business is adversely affected by these park regulations?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: That is an interesting question. I recall being on one of those cruises, enjoying the dolphins and various activities that are provided in Port Stephens. I thoroughly recommend it to those who have not done it. In any event, I will refer the question to the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer. Given that Premier Nathan Rees recently made a major announcement that a corridor for the future construction of the Bells Line of Road expressway across the Blue Mountains is to be quarantined, why has no funding been allocated in the State budget for the project? When will funding be allocated for this vital infrastructure project?

[Interruption]

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Members opposite remind me so much of my children. When my kids are fighting I say, "Look at the red truck", and they all look at the red truck. When I wave a bit of plastic in front of members opposite they are amazed. And it glistens in the light!

The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The Treasurer is being completely infantile and irrelevant. He should answer the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask the Minister to be generally relevant.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The New South Wales Government has just delivered its budget with record investment of $62.9 billion in infrastructure over the next four years—in fact, it is the largest amount being invested by any State government over the next four years in job-creating infrastructure—underpinning 160,000 jobs each year. In these uncertain times, with the financial crisis impacting on the whole world and most of our trading partners in recession, it is appropriate that the Government takes the decision to continue funding important infrastructure with record amounts. I am happy to discuss the Roads budget. The history of the Opposition is always to talk down New South Wales. Members opposite are always attacking and talking down New South Wales.

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: We're the Opposition; you're the Government.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I know about the Hon. Marie Ficarra. She does not want to go there—trust me! We have a record Roads budget of $4.4 billion to build and maintain critical road infrastructure across New South Wales, supporting jobs and investing in local communities. This is the biggest road investment program in the State's history—an increase of $400 million or 10 per cent on last year's budget. This record investment will support more than 5,000 direct jobs in construction alone. At a time of global recession, jobs are clearly the Government's first priority. For the information of the Hon. Rick Colless, key features of the roads budget include more than $1.8 billion to build new roads; about $1 billion for maintenance of the State's existing road system; more than $3.1 billion to be spent on rural and regional roads; about $325 million for improvements to the traffic network; more than $700 million invested in the Pacific Highway, representing 16 per cent of the entire Roads budget; and a record $234 million invested on road safety initiatives.

Members should remember that this record Roads budget is on top of record health, community services, and police and emergency services budgets—all the key areas for this Government. It is a record budget at a time of record investment in job-creating infrastructure. This Government is delivering on roads, health, and police and community services, and it is delivering on building more infrastructure than any other State.

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the community response to the $200 million Local Infrastructure Fund?

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Could you answer the question about the Bells Line of Road now?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Did the Hon. Melinda Pavey just wake up? Applications are now open for the New South Wales Government's $200 million Local Infrastructure Fund. This initiative supports jobs and the construction of local infrastructure around New South Wales. It has been set up to bring forward infrastructure projects in local communities and open up new land release areas. The fund has received widespread support across the community. Indeed, I would say there has been almost a stampede. The Coalition is doing its best to talk down programs like this, which support critical job-creating infrastructure. Indeed, Coalition members are now resorting to Malcolm Turnbull's political strategy; they are using fabrications. Here is another Liberal fabrication—one worthy of Malcolm Turnbull. While looking at the Liberal Party website this morning, I learnt that the shadow Minister for Inter-Governmental Relations is claiming:

The Shadow Minister for Inter-Governmental Relations, Chris Hartcher, today condemned Labor's plan to take section 94 funds from councils just to lend the same funds back to councils, sending local government further into debt.

This is a complete and utter lie. I am not sure whether Chris Hartcher has been to the same school of honesty as Malcolm Turnbull, but it is a lie and a fabrication.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: Point of order: The Minister has commenced an attack on a member of the other place and called him a liar. The Minister knows the standing orders. Previous rulings have stated that the term "liar" is unparliamentary. If the Minister wishes to attack another member, he should do so by way of substantive motion and allow an opportunity for reply. To attack another member in this way is cowardice in the extreme.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind all honourable members that offensive words and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections against members of either House are considered disorderly under Standing Order 91 (3).

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The fund does not take section 94 funds from local councils. I assure the House that any such suggestion on any website is simply wrong.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: On a point of order: Mr President, the Minister is flouting your ruling. He is continuing down the same track. I ask you to draw the Minister back to order or throw him out.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I again remind members of Standing Order 91 (3). It is in order to talk about websites and policies but it is not in order to impugn members of either House, suggesting improper motives or making personal reflections.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Clearly the suggestion that the Government takes section 94 funds from local councils is completely wrong. We support councils and encourage them to bring forward infrastructure and utilise section 94, to unlock that leverage against it. [Time expired.]

The Hon. IAN WEST: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Treasurer elucidate his answer?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Government is providing up to $200 million in interest free loans to New South Wales councils to fast track local infrastructure projects. We are simply lending councils the money they need to bring forward local infrastructure, such as local roads and roundabouts that will deliver new housing release areas. We encourage councils to put their section 94 funds to work to deliver infrastructure. Clearly this concept is difficult for some to understand. Indeed, I am deeply concerned that some members would deliberately misrepresent what is a clear policy that has received acclaim from commentators throughout the media and the Local Government Association as a good initiative—one of the many initiatives in the budget that encourages infrastructure. I can only assume that those who have misunderstood the policy—and I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they have misunderstood the policy—will correct the website, which at the moment is clearly not accurate. Support for this important initiative has come from Genia McCaffery of the Local Government Association, who said:

The Associations have long called for the government to provide councils with interest free loans to help fund essential infrastructure projects, so this is definitely a win for us.

The Government encourages local councils to come forward and look at projects such as local roads, roundabouts, traffic flow measures and water, sewerage and other local infrastructure. Priority will be given to projects that are ready to start, in order to get infrastructure built as quickly as possible, and projects in high-growth areas that will facilitate the servicing of new homes in those areas. I am advised that the website had about 800 hits from the time it was posted until last Friday. That is a strong response from local government to this very positive initiative.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Corrective Services. The Minister has stated that the Department of Corrective Services will reduce its overtime expenditure by introducing casual employment into certain correctional centres. In which centres does the Minister intend to casualise a proportion of the workforce? Is it Parklea and Cessnock only, or does he intend to extend casualisation to other centres? What proportion of the workforce in correctional centres is to be employed on a casual basis?

The Hon. Greg Pearce: Sylvia's looking for a job.

Ms Sylvia Hale: Not in that department I am not.

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I encourage the member to make an application for employment because we are always looking for people to apply. The last graduation from the academy had the highest intake of women graduates since we have taken intakes—some 40 per cent. It is a great career and I encourage more people to make the contribution that is made by our prison officers. I wish that the member would sing the praises of what is going on in our correctional system more often rather than attack a system that actually delivers for the people of New South Wales and ensures that our prisons are run effectively, efficiently and securely.

The member seeks to misrepresent the position in regards to casual correctional officers. The Government is not casualising the workforce in corrections centres. We are setting up a position where we have a casual group of workers who are trained to the same standards as every other prison officer in the State to deal with our overtime issues. The Government is committed to driving down the overtime budget blow-out to which I have referred previously in this Chamber. As part of our strategies to deal with that we have been engaging casual correctional officers who are trained through the academy. They undertake the same 11-week training program that all prison officers undertake in this State. They are then placed at a range of locations throughout the State at all our correctional centres to deal with shift failures, that is, people who phone in sick. Rather than have people work overtime, we bring in casual correctional officers.

The Government is not casualising the workforce, because after 12 months, if those officers have successfully completed their period of employment, they are offered permanent employment as prison officers within the correctional system in New South Wales. For the member to imply in her question that somehow this Government is casualising the workforce is to mislead the real essence of what we are doing. We are providing employment opportunities, with casual provisions, that encourage more women to take up a career with prisons. I have spoken to some of the women who have graduated from these courses. Casual work provides them with the flexibility to come back into the workforce, after having left it to raise a family, and select the shifts that they want to work. I make it abundantly clear that the Government is not and does not seek to casualise prison officers in this State. We are seeking to provide employment opportunities and to address a budget blow-out in overtime. We are offering workers after 12 months as casuals to become full-time prison officers.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is directed to the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics records that in the Wollondilly local government area trends in crimes as an average annual percentage have changed from 2004 to 2008, with assault, non-domestic violence related offences increasing by 8.1 per cent and steal from person offences increasing by 15.5 per cent? Further, the annual percentage change from 2007 to 2008 for the offence of steal from motor vehicle is up by a massive 27.6 per cent? When will the Government commit to returning Picton police station to a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week operation?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: As I mentioned earlier, the figures from the Bureau of Crime Statistics show that right across New South Wales the Police Force is doing a wonderful job. The crime statistics show that in the past 24 months 16 of the 17 major crime categories have either reduced or remained stable. The only category that increased was fraud, which, in the main, related to the offence of stealing petrol. The report found that in the past 24 months there were decreases in robbery with a weapon, down 15.9 per cent; robbery with a firearm, down 32.8 per cent; robbery with a weapon, not a firearm, down 19.9 per cent; break and enter dwelling, down 4.8 per cent; break and enter a non-dwelling, down 9.6 per cent; motor vehicle theft, down 11.1 per cent—

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Not in Picton—

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Do you know that for a fact?

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Yes.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Further, the offence of steal from motor vehicle, down 13.4 per cent, and steal from a person, down 8.7 per cent.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Charlie Lynn will cease interjecting and allow the Minister to answer the question.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The report also found that in the past 24 months a statewide increase of 10 per cent in fraud in relation to petrol issues. The Police Force is doing a wonderful job to drive down crime across this State. I said yesterday that it has a $417 million capital works program, of which $100 million has already been spent. Therefore, $317 million remains to be spent over the next three years. Yesterday I referred to police stations that were either in the process of being constructed or being planned, and to land that was being purchased for this purpose. In relation to a police station in the Picton area, I am advised that the Police Force is on track to deliver a new police station in Camden by mid 2011. Design work has commenced and construction is expected to start late 2009. Completion is planned by mid 2011. This, of course, will be dependent on conditions on the site. The station will be located close to the existing station. Council has approved the development application and the Police Force and council will continue to work through these issues in the normal manner.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: My question is addressed to the Minister for Corrective Services. What action is the Government taking to reduce re-offending by female offenders?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for her question and note her strong ongoing interest in this matter. The Government is strongly committed to reducing reoffending in our community. That is why the education and rehabilitation of offenders are key objectives of the Department of Corrective Services. In order to achieve this the department has implemented a broad range of programs specifically aimed at inmates deemed to be at a medium or high risk of reoffending. An unfortunate fact of our criminal justice system is that certain categories of offenders are at a high risk of reoffending. Sadly, young female offenders—and in particular young mothers—constitute one such group. Female inmates are more likely to come from backgrounds of poverty, neglect and abuse, and often have a history of mental health issues linked with family and sexual violence as well as drug and alcohol abuse. In addition, many incarcerated mothers have grown up in an environment of violent parenting behaviour.

As a result, the Government has recognised the need to develop rehabilitation programs for young mothers in prison so that we can help them to turn their lives around and bring about a better future for their children. Mothering at a Distance is an educational program tailored to meet the needs of inmate mothers. Improving relationships between inmate mothers and their children is seen as a way in which to help break the cycle of intergenerational crime and stop participants from passing on their offending behaviour to their children. Mothering at a Distance is a collaborative project between Tresillian Family Care Centres and the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services. The program was developed by Catherine Fowler, who is the chair of Tresillian Family Care Centres and a professor in child and family health.

Between October 2006 and December 2008 a pilot Mothering at a Distance Program was successfully conducted at a number of locations, including Berrima, Dillwynia, Emu Plains and Silverwater Women's Correctional Centre, as well as at the Bolwara House Transitional Centre. The outstanding success of the program has resulted in the Government committing further funding for its operation, which was announced in last week's budget. I am pleased to inform the House that nine inmate mothers were recently presented with certificates at Emu Plains Correctional Centre for having successfully completed Mothering at a Distance. The inmates were the final participants to graduate from a three-year pilot program. Seventy-five female inmates have successfully completed the program during the pilot period and have received a certificate of completion. At the same time, 39 departmental staff members were trained to enable them to facilitate the program. One graduate was quoted as saying that the program helped her develop improved mothering skills in respect of her two-year-old and 10-year-old daughters. Overall the outcomes have been reported as positive for participants and facilitators, indicating that the Mothering at a Distance Program was successful in meeting its primary objective of enabling the women to develop and enhance their parenting skills.

As a result of the program, participants reported improved communications with their children, an increased level of confidence and feeling of worth as a parent, an increased awareness of their strengths and weaknesses in relation to parenting, and being able to better manage being away from their children. These results suggest that the Mothering at a Distance Program is of great benefit to both inmates and their children. I am sure all honourable members will join with me in congratulating all those involved in the program, and in particular the staff of Tresillian Family Care Centres and the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services.

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is directed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer please explain how the Rees Government's community building partnership announced in the budget will not be used as a slush fund by members of Parliament to create photo opportunities in the lead-up to the next election? What procedures and processes are in place—

The Hon. John Della Bosca: Point of order: Mr President, you ruled earlier that imputations against members were disorderly. I draw your attention to the member's question and the most recent sentence he spoke about photo opportunities and the like in relation to a very serious policy presented in the budget. He used the words "slush fund" in particular, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member is sailing close to the wind with regard to using arguments, inferences and imputations. However, as he has not transgressed Standing Order 65 (1) he may proceed.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Thank you, Mr President. I will commence the question again.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member's time for asking his question has expired.

[Interruption.]

Dr John Kaye: I am glad you find that funny, Eric.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: It is not my fault. I will still answer the question. I did not write his question, so the member should not blame me.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Tell us about the slush funds.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Now the Hon. Rick Colless is sailing close to the wind. I got the gist of the question, if not the exact detail of it. This is one of the great initiatives of the budget, and I am happy to talk about initiatives of the budget. I am deeply offended—members know how easily I get offended—because this community building partnership is directly aimed at local community groups.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: The Treasurer is debating the question.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members cannot debate questions but they can debate the issue to which it refers. The Minister is in order.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: This is a $35 million community building partnership and its purpose is to support local jobs, stimulate growth and improve community facilities. The way it works, for the benefit of the House, is that every electorate—whether held by Labor, Liberal, Independent or The Nationals—receives $300,000, and districts with higher unemployment receive an extra $100,000. It is very important and appropriate given the challenge of the global financial crisis and the world recession that we acknowledge that we need to combat unemployment. I am advised that the determination of areas of high unemployment was based on data provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which was derived from the 2006 population census based on 2007 electorate boundaries and cross-checked against the most recent statistical regional data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics labour force surveys.

In the spirit of bipartisanship, we want to harness the knowledge of local members of Parliament through the process so that they can have a say in the allocation of such funds in their local communities. The Government acknowledges that in these tough times we are all in it together and we want to support local community groups. The whole purpose of the partnership is to support community groups, sporting groups, voluntary groups, resident groups—any local group—on the ground that may need some funding for a project they are working on. We want to encourage that and support those local community groups. There is no ulterior motive here except to benefit local community infrastructure. The funds could be used to fix up a local hall, to provide lights at a sporting facility, to erect fencing, to provide drainage—any local community project. What better way to pump money into communities than at the very base level?

Members of Parliament who have supported this partnership include Andrew Stoner, whom I spoke about yesterday as praising this initiative. Members of Parliament of all persuasions acknowledge that there is local knowledge on the ground from members of Parliament. It is appropriate to support community organisations and encourage members to get out and harness their enthusiasm and work together because we are in this global financial crisis together. I am disappointed that there could be any suggestion that this initiative—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Not as disappointed as we are.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: All Coalition members of Parliament welcomed it, Catherine, so do not sit there making cheap points. It is just not reasonable. This is a bipartisan approach to a serious initiative in the budget.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question is directed to the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that the only operating police station in the entire Menai electorate is at the Menai Marketplace shopping centre, which is often closed? Is he also aware that there is neither a list of station opening hours nor any clearly visible signage for the Menai police station beyond the one above the shopfront, far beyond eye level? Given that the Menai Marketplace shopping centre shopfront police station is the only one in the Menai electorate, which includes suburbs such as Illawong, Alfords Point, Bangor, Menai and others, can the Minister explain why it is not open around the clock seven days a week?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: As I explained earlier to the member and he knows full well, police are doing a wonderful job in New South Wales driving down crime rates. Modern policing requires that police do not necessarily sit inside a building all day long; they are out in the field trying to reduce crime. And that is exactly what has happened. Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research figures prove that that occurs. As the member well knows, this Government provides resources and staffing for police. As I said, we will have nearly 16,000 police by December 2011. We provide the overall staffing for the State and it is then up to the Commissioner of Police and his Deputy Commissioners to decide where it is best to allocate those resources. They make those decisions based on crime rates and a number of other factors. They are operational matters that the Government does not get involved with. We make sure we provide police with sufficient resources to allow them to do their job effectively, and there is proof that that is happening.

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I suggest that if members have further questions, they place them on notice.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Yesterday I was asked a question about Shipley Rural Fire Brigade. The member for Blue Mountains, the Hon. Phil Koperberg, recently approached me about securing a site for the Shipley Rural Fire Brigade. I am advised that the Shipley Rural Fire Brigade has disbanded because its existing premises are no longer suitable. Mr Koperberg also advised that Blue Mountains City Council does not have any land in the locality. However, council identified several parcels of Crown land that may be suitable. The Department of Lands has inspected the suggested land sites and has found them all to be naturally vegetated. Therefore, rather than attempt to clear any of the suggested sites, the department has taken the initiative and identified other Crown land in the locality that is already cleared and appears to be suitable to accommodate the Shipley Rural Fire Brigade. I will convey this information to Mr Koperberg as a matter of urgency.

The Hon. TONY KELLY: In relation to comments about Picton made earlier by the Hon. Charlie Lynn, I happen to have the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research figures that were released in April 2009 for the Wollondilly Shire area. They show that the incidence of break and enter offences is down 32.5 per cent and steal from a dwelling offences down by 36.7 per cent. The incidence of one offence, steal from a motor vehicle, increased by 27.6 per cent. The incidence of all other offences remained stable or reduced.

Questions without notice concluded.

The PRESIDENT: During the taking of notices of motions today the Hon. Catherine Cusack gave notice of a motion under Standing Order 52 calling for documents concerning the removal from office and withdrawal of commissions of Mr Tony Stewart, MP. The motion also calls for documents relating to subsequent legal action. As documents relating to the subsequent legal action fall within the administration of Justice, under Standing Order 53 they may only be requested in the form of an address to the Governor. This part of the motion is therefore out of order, and I have directed the Clerk to amend the notice accordingly.

[The President left the chair at 1.04 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly, on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

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

Second reading set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

The Hon. Ian West, on behalf of the Chair, tabled report No. 2/54, entitled "Report on Updating Progress on Railway Level Crossing Safety", dated June 2009.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Ian West.

The Hon. IAN WEST [2.31 p.m.]: I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Ian West and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: According to Standing Order 71, I seek leave to give a notice of motion relating to access to broadband.

Leave not granted.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith relating to the conduct of business of the House this day.

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That, notwithstanding anything contained in the standing or sessional orders:

(a) debate on committee reports be postponed until the next sitting day,

(b) debate on the motion to take note of the budget estimates proceed forthwith and be interrupted after one hour; and

(c) the interrupted debate be set down on the Business Paper for the next day on which debate on budget estimates takes precedence.

Debate resumed from 16 June 2009.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE [2.33 p.m.]: Nathan Rees's weak leadership and incompetence are costing the people of New South Wales—through a recession, more job losses and putting us all in the red. New South Wales Labor cannot blame the global financial crisis for its own failure, including 14 years of economic waste and mismanagement. Nathan Rees has the wrong priorities. For example, he is backing the unwanted Rozelle metro and cutting front-line services while spending taxpayers' money on political advertising. The Liberals-Nationals are putting forward positive and practical plans to put New South Wales back on track. This includes plans for targeted payroll tax cuts and building the south-west and north-west rail links.

The Liberals-Nationals are committed to putting people first, and will build a strong economy that delivers jobs, quality services and infrastructure—which are incredibly important. In this budget we are faced with fantasy projections by a Government that proved it cannot project financial outcomes and financial deliverables. It cannot manage its own finances, it cannot manage expenses, and it has allowed 14 years of infrastructure decay, which has put New South Wales in a position—contrary to the arguments and hectoring of the Treasurer and Government members—where it is poorly placed to make a fast recovery in the current economic climate. That is the key to where this budget has gone wrong.

On the one hand, the Liberals-Nationals have been arguing for stimulus and for positive measures to ensure that New South Wales recovers quickly. On the other hand, the Government has gone for inertia: more of the same and spin about its infrastructure catch-up spending. The global financial crisis has now hit low socioeconomic communities the hardest. One has only to look at Bonds employees and compare their fate with the rescue of many of the corporate highfliers who contributed to the disaster. Bricks and mortar infrastructure needs a deliverable that is more than simply a line used by the Treasurer. The infrastructure being built in this State must contribute to the recovery of the State.

The Liberals-Nationals are looking at projects that will benefit disadvantaged areas and those areas that need jobs and education. That is why we are committed to projects such as completing a north-west rail link and the south-west rail link instead of building a memorial central business district project to the soon to be former member for Balmain, the Hon. Verity Firth. Madam Deputy-President, I am certain you will ensure that the Greens deliver on that. Australia has experienced a long period of growth. Thanks to the Howard Government and the Howard-Costello partnership, the country is in fine form and in great shape compared with many other countries. But New South Wales has not been given the same benefits. Instead, New South Wales is in a difficult position.

I will not speak at length about the key issues in this budget as many of them have been mentioned in other debates. Obviously at the core of this budget is the Government's failure to control expenses. One has only to look at the mini-budget and at last year's budget, where expenses growth was projected at 5 per cent, and at this year's budget, where that figure has blown out to 8 per cent. The fantasy in all that, according to the current Treasurer, is that by 2010-11—in just two years—we will rein in expenses growth to 2.8 per cent per annum, when under this Government expenses over the past few years have been running at about 5.9 per cent growth a year. Unemployment has been increasing at a greater rate than it has been increasing in the rest of Australia. Unemployment across the State is set to rise to 300,000 people—up from 173,000 when Nathan Rees became Premier last September. It is vital to look at the State budget in detail as it explains the tenor of what is happening. The State Government has failed over 14 years to deliver on infrastructure, housing affordability, competitiveness and low taxation—all the things necessary for New South Wales to climb out of this mess quickly. Instead, the Government is setting us up for a major problem.

In table 7.4 of Budget Paper No. 2 the total State sector net debt is projected to rise from $31 billion as at June 2008 to $52.5 billion by June 2013—an incredible rise from 6.1 per cent of gross State product to 11.9 per cent. Examining the general government net sector debt would be more illustrative. Over the past 14 years this Government has fictionally reduced the general government net sector debt by shifting it into the public trading enterprises essentially as its credo or, if you like, key performance indicator as to how it wanted its performance to be judged. That is quite extraordinary considering the enormous amount of debt. Obviously that has the effect of increasing taxes and charges in the community without the opprobrium of admitting that that is what has happened. When the Treasurer says, "My budget is $60 billion plus on infrastructure and there are no new taxes", he keeps hidden from the people that he has shifted the debt and expense into the public trading enterprises.

In the mid-year review published in December 2008, general government net sector debt for 2009 was projected to be $6.7 billion; it is now more than $8 billion, or 2.2 per cent of gross State product. Just six months ago the mid-year review projected that it would be $7.8 billion at the end of 2010. That debt now is more than $12 billion, which represents 3.4 per cent of gross State product compared with 2 per cent in the mid-year review. That is one of many examples of this Government and its successive Treasurers being unable to project growth accurately. Before I conclude, I raise one further issue. This Government intends to rely on a massive increase in tax revenue over the next two years to substantiate its claim of a budget surplus. The projected figures are quite extraordinary. The Government projected a decline of 32 per cent in purchaser stamp duty in 2008-09—which has already occurred—and an increase of 3 per cent in the current financial year, followed by an increase of 44 per cent in the next financial year. So transfer duty will go from $2.7 billion this year to $3.9 billion next year. How realistic is that in the current circumstances? That tells us that the Government's budget figures are complete fantasy, and that we will not see the sort of growth that is required. The Government has driven this State into the ground, and nothing will save this Government.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [2.43 p.m.]: I take this opportunity to speak about the Rees Government's ongoing support for rural and regional New South Wales, particularly for the hardworking farmers that make New South Wales agriculture the envy of the nation—indeed, it is known across the globe for its excellence and sustainability. Many Opposition members claim to speak for our farming communities, but in reality their rhetoric is not matched by their actions. What sets the Rees Government apart from those opposite is that we have put our money where are mouths are and delivered a record primary industries budget that gives rural and regional New South Wales the support it needs to sustain crucial job-creating industries. It is a shame that we do not get any support from those opposite. All they contribute is white noise and obfuscation. We will not be distracted by political games; we are here to get the job done for farmers and to give them support in these tough times for the bush.

I am proud to say that just this morning the Rees Government delivered a further $7 million in drought assistance for farmers. Labor has now spent a total of nearly $500 million over the seven years that our State has suffered from drought. What has the Opposition been doing? Typically, it is not much. While farmers in areas like the Riverina and Wagga Wagga suffer yet another month of torrid drought, the Opposition indulges in scare campaigns for its own political ends. That is cold comfort for farmers in all drought-affected regions, especially for our farmers in the south of the State in Deniliquin, Hay, Griffith and Wagga Wagga who face an even bleaker future, with only a 45 per cent to 50 per cent chance of median rainfall next month. In fact, the Bureau of Meteorology predicts that El Niño weather patterns are expected to grip those areas in the coming months. Do these farmers have the time and patience for the games of the Opposition? No, they do not.

With today's announcement the Rees Government is drilling through the falsehoods of those opposite. Only last week the Deputy Leader of the Opposition claimed that the drought transport subsidy scheme would not be extended, that drought support workers would not continue in their valuable roles and that 75 per cent of rural western lands lease annual rents for the next financial year would not be waived—wrong on all counts. All this and more has been delivered today by the New South Wales Government's rock-solid commitment of continued support in hard times. While the Opposition delivers fear, we have delivered peace of mind for farmers across the State. Peace of mind is also a good way to describe the effect on New South Wales farmers of the Rees Government's record budget spend of $515 million—which is up from $467 million last year and represents a 10 per cent increase. That is great news in difficult economic times for the 98,000 people employed by our primary industries in New South Wales.

I am proud to say that agriculture is front and centre of this record commitment. We are delivering a budget that fosters innovation, science and security for farmers across the State. As part of a responsible and effective budget, this Government has set aside $163 million for science and research activities and facilities. In addition, we will spend $157 million on the Department of Primary Industries Agriculture, Biosecurity and Mine Safety Group. This will include $17.7 million for the ongoing biosecurity upgrade at the Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute. I do not need to remind members how important these services are as our frontline of defence for farmers, orchardists and horse owners whose livelihoods can be devastated by pests and disease. Obviously, these investments will benefit farmers across the State.

I shall conclude by laying out in detail how this record spend will particularly assist farmers in some of the most drought-ravaged parts of the State. Previously in my remarks I mentioned that the farmers of the Riverina region are doing it really tough at the moment. I am proud to say there is plenty of good news for them when we look a bit closer at some of the individual initiatives contained in the budget. As part of our record $45.3 million capital expenditure outlay, we are spending $1.4 million that will enable completion of the current upgrading of research facilities at the Wagga Wagga Agricultural Institute. In particular, it will help to fund a new laboratory for research staff working on soil and plant testing and processing. This funding is part of an overall $2.81 allocation for the upgrade of facilities at the institute. This is a facility for the region that is developing the export potential of our wine industry, our oils industry, and the many cereals grown in the region.

In a region where water is at a premium, $11.4 million has been set aside for climate, soil and organics research—which is wonderful news for an area rightly described as Australia's food bowl that boasts over 25 per cent of New South Wales fruit and vegetable production, 90 per cent of New South Wales citrus products and 80 per cent of New South Wales wine and grape production. Under the Rees Government there is some absolutely wonderful work going on in this area. For example, there is the soil carbon research that is being managed by a Department of Primary Industries researcher, Yin Chan, with a focus on southern New South Wales using long-term pasture rotation trials. This is part of a project looking at long-term in-ground trials to determine soil carbon accumulation through different farming systems.

Furthermore, a number of water-based research projects are being conducted using key sites around New South Wales, including southern New South Wales, looking at the interaction between farming systems and water management in dryland farming systems and optimal management of water. A number of irrigation research projects based at Yanco are examining optimal irrigation layout design and system management in rice farming systems. In fact, one of the Department of Primary Industries Wagga Wagga based researchers has developed a model to downscale global climate projections to enable farmers to see what the broader impacts are at a local level and to determine the implications for their farming systems.

Finally, the Rees Labor Government has also dedicated $29 million to enhance productivity and food security, including driving genetic improvements in our cattle herds and sheep flocks; production systems in horticulture, viticulture and aquaculture that are resilient in the face of major challenges, including climate variability; and productive grazing systems that are adapted to an environment where there is less water. This is another key investment area for the Rees Government. We are helping farmers to adapt their farming practices to the challenges posed by reduced natural resources and identifying opportunities for local farmers in the region to match their productivity to the growing needs of an increased population, both in Australia and internationally. As members of this House can see, the Rees Government is determined to protect agriculture and farmers in New South Wales, especially those in areas like the Riverina who are doing it tough. It is a commitment we are proud of—and a commitment we will see right through to the end. [Time expired.]

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [2.53 p.m.]: The 2009-10 budget delivered by the Treasurer stands as a testament to the culture of deceit that pervades the modern New South Wales Labor Party—a culture of deceit fostered by the "whatever it takes" mantra that has become synonymous with the Sussex Street driven Australian Labor Party political machine, and a culture of deceit that often sadly dominates debate in this place. The 2009-10 budget is a political flight of fancy that has been designed predominately to revive this Government's precarious electoral position. This flight of fancy is best illustrated by the very assumptions that underpin this budget's credibility.

The budget projects expenses to grow by 4 per cent over forward estimates, yet under this Government expenses have been growing at an average of 5.9 per cent over the past 12 years—and at 8 per cent this year. Past performance is undoubtedly the best gauge of this Government's future performance. For years this Government has paid lip-service to reining in expenditure growth. The Government ignored the recommendations of the 2006 Stokes and Vertigan financial audit and failed to implement expense restraint in its own mini-budget in November last year. It has historically failed to rein in expenses, so why should things change now?

A classic case in point is the Government's own policy to limit public sector wage increases to 2.5 per cent last financial year. Yet during this time we have seen average wage increases of between 4 per cent and 5 per cent across the public sector. In spite of this, we see the same 2.5 per cent wages policy trotted out in this budget, and we all know that this is simply not credible. Unions NSW knows it and the Government knows it—we all know it. Yet the Government persists in this charade. Indeed, the recent spate of public service wage agreements locked in wage increases of 4 per cent to 5 per cent not just for one year but for a number of years. In light of this, to suggest that 2.5 per cent is a credible wages policy just beggars belief. Yet still this Government persists.

The budgetary implications of the Government's certain failure to meet its 2.5 per cent wages growth target is spelt out in the budget papers. Table 1.6 shows that a 1 per cent increase in public sector employee-related expenses will increase the budget deficit in 2009-10 by $258 million. This means that a continuation of public service wages growth at 4.5 per cent will blow out the budget deficit to the tune of at least $516 million across the forward estimates. This means that the 2009-10 projected budget deficit of $990 million will blow out to $1,506 million, the 2010-11 deficit will blow out to $632 million and the projected surplus of $86 million in 2011-12 will morph into a budget deficit of at least $430 million.

These deficits will be further exacerbated by the Government's budget announcement that it will favour Australian products in its procurement policy by allowing a discount of up to 20 per cent. If this policy was strictly applied to New South Wales's more than $4 billion procurement program, theoretically it could add another $800 million to the budget deficit across the forward estimates. Add to that the fanciful savings resulting from the Government's Better Service and Value Plan, and watch the deficit explode even further! We are meant to believe that that plan will result in efficiency dividends, increasing from 1 per cent to 1.5 per cent across the budget estimates. Yet it is clear from the Minister's response in question time as recently as yesterday that the Government has no idea of the magnitude of the savings, nor precisely where they will come from. This is testament to the fact that the whole plan was lifted from the Queensland Government website. The Minister just had to change the heading and push print on the photocopier, and shebang: we had a new public service blueprint in New South Wales.

The Government plainly is not serious about this plan. If the Government was serious about public sector reform, why then has it taken more than 14 years for this plan to materialise? Indeed, a similar plan was put to the Government by Stokes and Vertigan in early 2006, yet the Government chose to sit on its hands for 3½ years. To suggest that it will act now to reap the savings that could be harvested by the proper implementation of a creditable public sector reform plan is also fanciful. The reality is that the Better Service and Value Plan is destined to sit alongside its Orwellian cousin, the Better Regulation Office, as a testament to this Government's victory of spin over substance. History shows that it would be foolish to expect any other result from this Government.

In spite of all the heroic assumptions contained in the budget and the historical evidence of the inability of the Government to deliver on its most basic promises, the Treasurer claims resolutely that the budget will be back in the black in two years time. Whilst that is clearly not credible, it is nonetheless worth asking whether the Treasurer will be held accountable in this term of government should the projected return to budget surplus fail to materialise. The answer is no. Any failure on this front will not be exposed until after the 2011 election, which means that this Treasurer will never be held to account. By then it will be someone else's responsibility. If not, we can rest assured that the result will be blamed on external factors outside the control of this Government. Who knows what will be blamed, but one thing we can all be sure of is that this Government will never accept responsibility for its own economic incompetence. How politically convenient! How politically predictable!

Another area of concern in this budget is the massive blow-out in the State's net financial liabilities, as my colleague the Hon. Greg Pearce mentioned, in direct contravention of targets explicitly set by this Government's own Fiscal Responsibility Act. The budget shows that net financial liabilities will increase to 14.5 per cent of gross State product [GSP] as at June 2010. That is 7 per cent above the medium-term target of 7.5 per cent of GSP set out in the Fiscal Responsibility Act, and it is 8.5 per cent above the long-term target of 6 per cent of GSP set out in the Act. Again, it is fanciful to suggest that the Government will meet either of these legislated targets. Moreover, total State sector net financial liabilities will jump from $57.471 billion as at June 2008 to $105.391 billion as at June 2013—an increase of 83.38 per cent over the five-year period.

When combined with the extra debt the State is projected to take on to fund its infrastructure program, this translates to a household debt of $36,000 in three years time, with no plan whatsoever to pay it back. That is $36,000 of debt that Labor has failed to mention to the households of New South Wales that comes on top of the massive blow-out in debt from the Federal Labor Government. One thing Labor is great at is piling on the debt and pretending it has a plan to pay it all back. It will simply max out the State's credit card, yet it calls itself fiscally prudent. What a joke! This budget will also exacerbate the State's long-term fiscal pressures as represented by the long-term fiscal gap. This fiscal gap increased to 3.9 per cent as a result of the last budget and will increase a further 0.4 per cent as a result of this budget to a total fiscal gap of 4.3 per cent of GSP. This is evidence that the projected budget measures are not sustainable over time and that sooner or later the State will pay for this Government's lack of fiscal discipline. There will be a reckoning at some point in the distant future, but not on this Government's watch. So why should it care?

It is typical of this Government to claim that it has presented a fiscally responsible budget when it fails to meet key legislated fiscal targets and continues to increase the State's long-term fiscal gap. It beggars belief. This budget of deception is no more than a shimmering mirage on the sands of New South Wales Labor's economic mismanagement. Just as the parched traveller reaches out in hope for sustenance, the New South Wales public reaches out in hope, only to come up empty handed once more. Perversely, it was the Treasurer who referred to this budget as a "beacon of hope", no doubt a glib reference to Ben Chifley's famous "light on the hill". I fear that this former Prime Minister and, indeed, every Labor true believer would be either turning in their grave or choking on their coffee at the Treasurer's chutzpah. He is fooling no-one, including his own colleagues.

We all heard Michael Costa's judgement on this budget and his confession of his own failings in his time as Treasurer. He, too, has no confidence whatsoever that this budget will meet its heroic assumptions. This budget dresses up unprecedented levels of debt as responsible infrastructure investment. It dresses up years of New South Wales Government excess and inefficiency as an Orwellian better services and value plan. It dresses up a widening fiscal gap and sustained breaches of the Fiscal Responsibility Act as fiscal responsibility. What a shambolic performance by the Treasurer, who lacks credibility on all fronts. This time though he is fooling no-one, except perhaps himself. People have heard it all before—all spin and no substance—and that is why Labor continues to flatline in the polls. Labor's record speaks for itself on every level and more loudly than anything that can be uttered in this place. This budget changes nothing. It is just another public relations exercise, in a long line of public relations exercises, built on deception and the betrayal of public trust that have become the hallmark of this appalling New South Wales Labor administration.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.03 p.m.]: I support the 2009-10 New South Wales State budget. It is a good Labor budget, a budget that has seen record investment in this State—investment in infrastructure, roads, rail, public services, schools, hospitals and our people, and in jobs for New South Wales residents, all during a time of global financial recession. This Government is committed to ensuring that New South Wales can continue to be strong during this financial crisis—strong by supporting jobs and creating public resources that the community needs and from which all members of the community can benefit. Last Tuesday night, with the help of the comprehensive New South Wales budget website—I recommend the site www.budget.nsw.gov.au to everyone—I put together a special edition of my electronic newsletter highlighting our budget achievements.
This newsletter goes to more than 2,000 people, among them many residents in my duty electorates of Sydney, Bega and Willoughby. The response from the people to whom I sent the newsletter was universally positive. From Bega to Willoughby and from Batemans Bay to Surry Hills, these people welcome the investment that the Government is making in their local communities because they can see that by building infrastructure and investing in public services the Government is securing jobs and helping their local communities. Investing in local communities is investing in our local people, and that is what this budget is about. Today I will highlight some of the investment that is boosting the communities of Sydney, Willoughby and Bega.

First, I will refer to education. New South Wales has one of the best education systems in not only the country but also the world. Education is something worth investing in, and that is why the Rees Government has made the biggest reforms to education in a generation, requiring all students to complete their school certificate and to be in education or training until they are 17 years old. But the Government realises that sound policy objectives like this also require solid support and investment to ensure that schools in New South Wales stay world class and that New South Wales students continue to have the benefits of one of the best education systems in the world. In this budget the Rees Government has committed $14.7 billion to our schools and TAFE system. What does that mean for my duty electorates?

In Bega there is $1.857 million for the stage three upgrade of administration, visual arts, staff facilities, sports courts and car park at Bega High School, and $50,000 for the toilet upgrade at Central Tilba Public School as part of the Principals Priority Building Program commitment. There is $8,000 to replace the bubblers at Qaama Public School as part of the Principals Priority Building Program, $25,000 to install drainage and concrete paving at Batemans Bay Public School, $35,000 to upgrade stormwater drainage at Moruya Public School, $55,000 to upgrade stormwater drainage at Pambula Public School and $18,000 to install drainage pits and car park kerbing at Tathra Public School. In Willoughby there is $820,000 for the continued upgrade of classrooms and staff facilities at Chatswood High School. In Sydney there is $1.321 million for the continued upgrade of facilities at Ultimo TAFE and $90,000 for a roof upgrade at Sydney Girls High School. That is in addition to the investment by the Federal Government. The first round of Federal Government funding saw 31 schools in these areas benefiting to the tune of almost $4 million. There is further Federal Government funding of $2.25 million in Sydney, $21.15 million in Bega and $6 million in Willoughby for major capital upgrades, including the construction of new halls, libraries, gyms and classrooms. I note that the Canberra colleagues of members opposite voted against that funding.

In the budget there are also major investments in health in New South Wales. With an ageing population, more births every year and changing population health needs, the budget has committed $15.5 billion to health services, and this will include providing world-class hospitals, giving priority to health areas such as mental health, reducing waiting lists, increasing nurse numbers and improving indigenous health. This budget will also invest $4.8 million to boost maternity services, create additional positions for 38 midwives and six obstetricians, and boost the number of high-risk maternity beds.

In my duty electorate of Sydney $968,000 will be available to provide 11 clinical support officers for St Vincent's Hospital to enable doctors and nurses to spend less time on paperwork and more time on caring for patients, and $352,000 will be allocated for four clinical support officers at Sydney Eye Hospital. Sydney Dental Hospital will benefit from the statewide rollout of digital medical imaging and electronic medical records. In Bega there is $88,000 for one clinical support officer at Bega hospital and $1.9 million for the six-bed interim mental health unit while the new Bega hospital is under construction.

The Hon. Michael Veitch: A new hospital!

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: That is right, a new hospital in a country area. Bega, Moruya and Batemans Bay hospitals will benefit from the statewide rollout of electronic medical records. Members know that I am also the Parliamentary Secretary for Transport and I am pleased with the $7.1 billion allocated in the budget for transport. Investment in public transport in this State is a key priority for the Rees Government. This budget will see $7.1 billion invested in our transport system, including on rail, a new metro and buses.

In Sydney the following has been allocated: $1.04 million towards the $1.24 million project to redevelop jetty 4 at Circular Quay and establish a centralised hub at King Street wharf for the Darling Harbour area Sydney Ferries headquarter operations; $27.33 million for rail maintenance and capital works, including station refurbishments, as well as track maintenance to ensure smoother rides for passengers; $580.8 million for the rollout for the Metro; $108.7 million towards the feasibility study for the West Metro connecting the central business district with Parramatta, which includes $91 million of Federal funding announced in the 2009 Federal budget; $408,000 towards the new emissions reduction technology to reduce bus greenhouse bas emissions; $117.33 million to progress the delivery of 626 new air-conditioned rail carriages; $49.8 million towards the purchase of 90 replacement buses for the State Transit Authority fleet across Sydney; and $19.66 million towards the purchase of 40 growth buses for the State Transit Authority fleet across Sydney.

It is important to note that Eurobodalla Council in the electorate of Bega provided a significant amount—$246,000—for community transport services. These services are a vital link for people in our community. They provide transport for people who are less able to access regular transport services due to physical, social or geographic disadvantage, including our older residents and people with disabilities. The expansion in Bega is very welcome. The Rees Government's investment in public transport is not just about creating better services for the people of this State; it is also about creating jobs. Two weeks ago the construction of the one thousandth bus by Custom Coaches for State Transit was celebrated—all part of a record $250 million investment in new buses by the Government. The first bus that Custom Coaches built for the Government was the Leyland Royal Tiger Worldmaster in 1957. More recently, Custom Coaches won the contract for the largest ever government investment in buses for the construction and delivery of 250 Volvo Euro 5 buses and 255 Mercedes compressed natural gas buses.

This project will deliver new buses for the people of New South Wales but, more importantly, it will support 80 full-time jobs at Custom Coaches, with another 200 down the supply chain. In addition, 60 apprentices will be trained over the life of the contract. This is investment well worth making not just for our people but also for training a new generation of apprentices for the future. In the 2009-10 budget $26 million has been allocated for roads in Bega: $5 million for network development; $18.8 million for maintenance of the Bega road network; $705,000 for traffic and transport management; $1.5 million for road safety; $3 million to continue planning for the realignment of the Princes Highway at Victoria Creek; $2.6 million to repaint the bridge on the Princes Highway at Tuross River; $1.5 million to continue planning for the Bega bypass; and $1.5 million for bridge maintenance work on the Princes Highway at Nangudga Lake. The list extends over two pages. I could refer to all the matters but as my time is limited I will refer to other matters.

The Hon. Michael Veitch: The Opposition might agree to extending your time to speak.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: No, I do not think it will grant me an extension. I am proud to support this budget. It has been developed under very difficult circumstances. Those opposite want to jump on the opportunistic bandwagon and pretend that the current global environment simply does not exist. Either that or they spread discontent and try to wring out negatives from what essentially is a good budget. This budget delivers on infrastructure, education, health and transport. It invests in infrastructure and, most importantly, in the people of New South Wales by supporting jobs, and I commend it to the House.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [3.13 p.m.]: I will start by congratulating the Hon. Greg Pearce and the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox on their approach to exposing economic mismanagement by the State Government right across the public sector, and its flow-on effect to the private sector in New South Wales. I will talk about the two areas for which I am directly responsible as a shadow Minister: policing and matters relating to the Hunter Valley region. There is no doubt that the capital works program is a significant issue for police. In the past few days the Government has referred to the program's so-called funding. But the Government has failed to address the first issue that confronts police in New South Wales, that is, fair pay for a fair day's work—which is all that police ask for.

Today when the Minister for Police was asked to give support and a sign of good faith to police, some of whom listened to his contribution, he failed to do so. He merely said that a lot of things could happen in six days. However, in reality we know that nothing will happen. It is important to hear from the Government about the alternative savings strategies that are being put forward by rank and file members of the New South Wales Police Force. They do not want services cut. They do not want their hard-earned, longstanding entitlements that have been negotiated over many years frittered away. They are prepared to show where savings can be made in the New South Wales Police Force that will meet the demands of the Government and they want to know what the Government thinks of them. The Government is giving no indication because it is waiting for Parliament to break for winter to keep away from the spotlight.

In the capital works program the Government is not giving police a fair day's pay, and if we peel away the myth that the Government is doing positive things in relation to providing police with modern facilities to work from, we find that those facilities are hard-earned community facilities. The Government is not doing police a favour. Many of the stations are old. For example, the cracks in the walls at Kempsey police station are similar in size to cracks found in buildings in Los Angeles after an earthquake. It is a disgraceful situation, and Kempsey police station is just one of many police stations in a state of disrepair. The Government has not addressed the situation at Morisset police station, which is riddled with white ants. Problems exist also at Wyong, Windsor and Raymond Terrace. This Government first promised work on the Raymond Terrace police station in 1996, but still nothing has been done there. The Minister for Police referred to Lake Illawarra. It has been alleged that the Minister's visit to Lake Illawarra recently to attend a photo shoot with bobcats and machinery from a local earth moving company was nothing more than a media stunt. As soon as the cameras were turned off the earth moving gear was packed up, the contractor was slipped a couple of bucks as he left, the fence that was erected to allow the works to commence was dissembled, and that was the end of it. It was a disgrace, and just like a Hollywood movie set.

I draw the attention of the House to the pittance that has been given to fund police services this year. The Government talks about how it supports police and how it has provided additional funding. The Government promised $84 million but it has spent only $1 million on all its projects in Coffs Harbour, Liverpool, Manly, Moree and Tweed Heads. We have been told the five projects are all underway, that everything is fantastic, that it is happy days and cool drinks for police in those towns. However, the fact is that although $84 million is required only about $1 million is available. In effect, those stations have been allocated just over 1 per cent of the funding they need. Stations at Belmont, Deniliquin, Walgett and Parkes were promised funding in the 2007 State election but remain unfunded, and the Government is not talking about those stations any more. But I assure the Government that the community and the Opposition are talking about them. Police in Walgett, in particular, need a safe working environment but this Government is ignoring their concerns time and again.

With regard to the sale and closure of existing stations, the Hon. John Ajaka referred to Rockdale and Hon. Don Harwin referred to Malabar. Mosman has similar concerns. Slowly but surely the Government is starting to sell off police stations around the State because it is looking for cash; a desperate vendor needs money quickly. The Government is prepared to sell off no matter what the cost. We know that it cost the Government approximately $1.3 million to construct Kincumber police station and that it was sold a few years later for approximately $300,000. What an absolute disgrace. The information technology upgrade is also an absolute disgrace. No wonder the Auditor-General is starting to look into the Government's mismanagement of that upgrade. One could be forgiven for thinking that the Government is using the same boffins to work in this information technology area as it used on its transport ticketing scheme, which is an absolute disgrace overall.

With regard to the Hunter, the Government is trying to perpetrate what is really a myth on the people of the Hunter. They have been short-changed time and time again. They get less than 10 per cent of the State's budget whilst contributing much, much more to the State's economy. As the senior spokesperson for the Coalition in that area, I hear time and again the response of business and individuals with regard to how things are travelling across the entire Hunter Valley.

In the last budget the former member for Newcastle, Bryce Gaudry, oversaw the Hunter receiving $1 billion in capital works programs. When Federal funds are subtracted, the State Labor Government is not committing any funds for programs that were not announced in the previous budget. Craig Baumann, who the Liberal Party is proud to have as the hardworking member for Port Stephens, obtained more funding than the present member for Newcastle. Jodi McKay is not getting anywhere near the funds that Bryce Gaudry was able to achieve for Newcastle in the past, so she is no Bryce Gaudry. And when it comes to the entire Hunter Valley she is no Michael Costa either. She is someone who looks for the media opportunity rather than following through with a plan.

I suspect that there will be a mixture of views around the table with regard to the future of the Hunter rail line. This Government has been talking about it for years, and it has only two years remaining in office. It is about time that the Government started to put its feet on the ground and say, "This is the decision that we have finally made", but of course it is in the electorate of the member for Newcastle, who merely keeps playing at the edges and does not want to get stuck into priorities.

Policing is of real concern in the Hunter. A number of meetings have been held in Beresfield and Thornton, which is on the boundary of Maitland and Cessnock, relating to policing issues. I am the only member of Parliament who has bothered to attend successive meetings in this area in relation to policing. As well as attending the press conferences and photo opportunities that arise, members must go to these meetings and listen to the people to understand what is happening in the community. Is it any wonder so many of them are living in fear? One I have been able to facilitate meetings for a number of people who have concerns about policing who spoke with me at those meetings with local police and who have achieved a good outcome. That is what can be done if one attends meetings and talks to people rather than simply turning up for a photo opportunity and walking away from them.

It is extremely important that the Government treats seriously the concerns that people of the Hunter Valley have about the priorities that existed prior to the last State election that seem to have dropped off the radar. The Glendale interchange is crucial. The Coalition continues to talk about the Glendale interchange because it is a significant piece of transport infrastructure—a hub, if you like—that is much needed on the western side of Lake Macquarie. We also continue to talk about the Swansea Bridge. Why do we talk about it? Because it is a symbol of neglect in Lake Macquarie—an area that has been sorely neglected with regard to road infrastructure and policing resources. Again, I am the only member of Parliament who has attended successive meetings in that area at which people have simply asked for somebody to listen to them—for someone to come to Swansea to tell them what the plans are rather than keep playing them off a break. Unfortunately that is what the Labor Party is continuing to do to the long-suffering people of Lake Macquarie.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.23 p.m.]: I am pleased to participate in this debate on the budget 2009-10, which has many important aspects and contains many important projects. The Opposition, because of its role in this Parliament, is often critical of budgets, but I believe that the Government—and particularly the Treasurer, the Hon. Eric Roozendaal—has produced a good budget, given the economic conditions that Australia and the world are facing. We are in an unusual environment. For the first time in my recollection not only are companies going bankrupt—including some of the biggest companies around the world—but also nations are going bankrupt. I have certainly never seen anything like that before. I congratulate the Treasurer and the Government on being able to maintain and produce a good budget in such a climate.

Over the next four years the State Government will invest $62.9 billion in its building program. That is $62.9 billion on roads, rail, hospitals and ports. Included among a number of important projects is the controversial Sydney Metro, which I find difficult to justify, given the amount of transport that is available in that area from Sydney to Rozelle. I suggest that if one had to pick an area that did not require a Sydney Metro, that would be it. It is one area that does not need such a service. I believe it is the Government's strategy, in its master plan, to expand the service some time in the future, otherwise it could not justify building such an expensive underground railway. However, that is one of the projects that the Government has included in its budget.

Other projects include further upgrades to the Pacific Highway, which are long overdue, and expansion of Port Botany, an important project in relation to jobs and the New South Wales economy. We must have an efficient port at Port Botany, and the ports along the coast of New South Wales, in particular, Newcastle and Port Kembla must be expanded. Also the Government is continuing with the redevelopment of the Royal North Shore Hospital, which is urgently needed, and Liverpool hospital. I remember the many complaints received by the inquiry I chaired into facilities at the Royal North Shore Hospital, which really has reached its expiration date and should have been replaced before now. Surgeons and clinicians at that hospital have been continuing to do a professional job in a very difficult environment. There have been reports of equipment breakdown and cockroach and other insect infestation in hospital wards, which should never occur in any hospital, let alone in a hospital of the status of Royal North Shore Hospital. The redevelopment of and expenditure on Royal North Shore Hospital are long overdue and I urge the Government to make that a priority this year.

The budget is broken down into allocations for the various departments. The Health budget will be $15.1 billion; the Education budget $14.7 billion; the Transport budget $7.1 billion; the Roads budget $4.4 billion; the Community Services budget $1.6 billion; the Police budget $2.62 billion, and there is a record $903 million emergency services budget. I congratulate the Government on ensuring that emergency services have the funds and modern equipment they need to do their very important work. It is a very encouraging result and I know for the most part that that was as a result of the leadership and hands-on approach of the relevant Minister, the Hon. Tony Kelly.

Another positive aspect of this budget is the New South Wales Housing Construction Acceleration Plan. It will provide a 50 per cent cut to stamp duty per dwelling for all newly constructed dwellings up to the value of $600,000 purchased in New South Wales from 1 July to 31 December 2009. That will mean a saving of up to $11,245 per dwelling for people buying property, and that includes investors. First home buyers will also continue to receive a benefit from this budget. They will receive an additional $3,000 for the purchase of newly constructed dwellings up to 30 June 2010. That means total benefits available to first home buyers will remain at up to $41,990. That is a very large amount and a great encouragement to newly married couples to step out in faith and buy their first home rather than pay rent. The rent money is dead money whereas they will be able to pay off their own home provided they can maintain their employment and income. It is the best way to build up a solid foundation for the future.

There is also an innovation in the budget of $35 million for the Community Building Partnership to support local jobs, stimulate growth and improve community facilities. Each of the 93 electorates in New South Wales will be eligible for $300,000 and there is an additional $100,000 for districts with higher unemployment. I believe that is a very positive initiative and it fits in with the Federal Government's stimulus plan because obviously that amount of money in each district will be spent in ways that will increase employment opportunities and help generate funds in those areas, certainly in country areas where there may be a downturn in the economy. They will certainly appreciate the investment of new money. To assist local councils, $200 million will be available in interest-free loans so they can also develop local infrastructure projects. Again, that stimulates the economy and provides further jobs. In addition, there is a new Government purchasing plan, which will give more than 500,000 New South Wales small and medium-size businesses preferred treatment in putting local jobs first.

I am pleased that the Government is continuing with its cuts to payroll tax, which is a tax on employment. It is not a good tax. I know it is hard to cancel these taxes once they are introduced but hopefully it can be phased out over time. The cuts to payroll tax will save New South Wales businesses $2.7 billion over five years.

This budget has many positive aspects and I believe it will be of great benefit to the people of this State. I remind the Government that some people who may have been saving an investment property for their retirement are unemployed and can no longer meet the land tax payments. I urge the Government to review the hardship aspect in regard to land tax to make sure that people are not being victimised.

Pursuant to resolution business interrupted and set down as an order of the day for a future day.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [3.33 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 129 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the Crime (Administration of Sentences) Amendment (Private Contractors) Bill 2009, be called on forthwith.

I am seeking leave of the House as a matter of urgency to complete the consideration of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment (Private Contractors) Bill 2009. On 5 March this year the House agreed to allow the introduction of this bill as a matter of urgency. I spoke in detail about the bill on that day and do not propose to canvass the contents of the bill now. When the bill was introduced in March, an inquiry was being conducted by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 into privatisation of prisons and prison-related services. Despite that inquiry being underway, the Government announced that it would proceed to privatise the Cessnock and Parklea prisons and the court escort service regardless of the outcome of the inquiry.

Since the bill was introduced and second read in March a number of things have changed that make it urgent that the House now complete its deliberations. The Government has announced that it will not proceed to privatise Cessnock and that it will delay, possibly indefinitely, privatising the court escort service. Despite the recommendations of the inquiry, the Minister has announced that the Government will proceed to privatise Parklea. A list of preferred tenderers has been announced and the tender process is proceeding as we speak. It is urgent that the House consider this bill now because it is the last chance for the House to demand proper parliamentary scrutiny of any proposed contracts before such contracts are entered into. The tender process will be completed and the contracts signed before the Parliament resumes for the spring session.

The report of the inquiry by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 spends some time on the issues associated with privatisation and there were clearly divergent views on the committee about the merits of privatisation. I, for one, remain opposed. There was agreement on the committee, however, in relation to the need for proper transparency and accountability in any contracting process. An entire chapter of the committee's report, chapter 6, deals with contract transparency, monitoring and accountability. The report notes that, "A general theme of submissions to the Inquiry was the public's concerns regarding the lack of transparency, and perceived lack of accountability, of private prisons."

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: As I understand it the motion is about why it is urgent to deal with the matter. What happened during the committee process on this matter is irrelevant as to whether it is urgent and should be debated in the House now. I believe Ms Hale should be addressing the matter of why this motion is urgent.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I do not want to take up the member's time but I again remind honourable members that the matter before the House is a procedural motion. Therefore, the only comments that are in order are those that relate to why this item of business should proceed and other items should consequently be delayed. Members should therefore confine their remarks to why their item is more urgent than others rather than the substantive motion.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: This matter is urgent because the Government is about to enter into a contract with one of the tenderers. It is relevant that when doing so the Parliament should be assured that the Government is cognisant of the contents of the report of the committee and particularly the emphasis on the need for transparency, for the contract details to be made available and for the key performance indicators to be made public. It is important that before these contracts are signed the House indicate to the Government the importance it attaches to these items. Therefore, I believe that the considerations of the committee are very germane to the question of relevance and urgency in the determination of this matter.

The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment (Private Contractors) Bill 2009 is about whether the contract for any privatisation of prisons or prison-related services should be subject to approval by the Parliament. If it is not debated today the House will have abrogated its responsibility to properly consider this important issue before the Government proceeds to enter such contracts. I urge members to support the urgency motion.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [3.38 p.m.]: The Liberal-Nationals Coalition will not be supporting Ms Sylvia Hale's motion to suspend standing and sessional orders. The inquiry undertaken by General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 was a long and detailed matter that involved many days of hearings, the taking of evidence from a large number of people, and the preparation of a lengthy 200-page report, which was tabled only recently. There are mechanisms by which these matters are dealt with, in particular, for matters as important as this, that give the Government an opportunity to respond to the report.

Essentially, Ms Hale's motion to suspend standing and sessional orders is an attempt to bring on debate on the report rather than the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment (Private Contractors) Bill. However, she talked only about the report and not about the bill. Let us look at the report and at the deliberations that occurred in May this year when the draft report was considered. Ms Sylvia Hale moved about 90 detailed motions relating to recommendations and to other issues in the report. Ms Sylvia Hale moved:

That paragraph 3.145 be amended by inserting a new sentence to read:

Many submissions clearly indicated that the issue of private versus public operation is an issue of major concern.

Other motions simply sought the deletion of an individual word. After hours of deliberations Ms Sylvia Hale did not move one motion relating to the passage of the bill the subject of her urgent motion today. Not one word was said about the bill and no motions were moved to amend the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act. If this matter is so urgent and of such substance one would have thought that, after all those hours of discussion, Ms Hale would have waved that flag. She waits instead until the second last day of this session to indulge in histrionics.

The Hon. Michael Veitch: One might think there was a Senate election.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: One might think that other motivating factors caused Ms Sylvia Hale to move this motion today. Sadly, this matter is not urgent, in particular, when we take into account the important bills that have to be considered over the next two days—bills relating to education and to freedom of information. Instead, we have this grandstanding from the Greens. As I said earlier, the Liberal-Nationals Coalition will not be supporting this motion.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.43 p.m.]: Mr Trevor Khan's earlier contribution—in which he severely misrepresented this matter—prompted me to contribute to debate on the motion moved by my colleague Ms Sylvia Hale. Ms Sylvia Hale clearly set out the need to debate this matter urgently. Mr Trevor Khan, who is good at confusing issues, said that this motion related to the report of General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3 in an attempt to avoid dealing with the privatisation of prisons. Members of the Coalition and members of the Government, who will vote against this motion to debate the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Amendment (Private Contractors) Bill, are muddying the waters—at least that is what Mr Trevor Khan was doing—on the privatisation issue.

Clearly, members in this place should have an opportunity to debate this matter, and that is all that my colleague Ms Sylvia Hale was seeking to do. She does not want to debate the committee report. Ms Sylvia Hale introduced a bill that is similar to a bill she introduced relating to the privatisation of the Snowy Hydro Corporation, which in the end was passed by both Houses. Today we have set out a similar model that both Houses would be required to debate—the approval of a contract before the privatisation of prisons proceeds. Clearly, that matter is urgent and Mr Khan refused to acknowledge that fact in his contribution today. This issue is urgent because of this Government's rush to privatise prisons.

I was disappointed by Mr Khan's distortion of the facts. I know that there is considerable disagreement about this issue but at least we should debate it on its merits and take into account the points made earlier by Ms Sylvia Hale rather than putting up a smokescreen. Opposition members are trying to walk on both sides of the privatisation road. I support the motion moved by Ms Sylvia Hale. This matter is urgent. All members should be in a position to debate legislation on the Notice Paper relating to privatisation. We must consider that legislation which, if passed, would enable a full discussion and debate about the privatisation contract. If members do not agree to this motion we will be denied that possibility.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.
Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.54 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 198 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the 311 bus service, be called on forthwith.

This matter is urgent because the New South Wales Government has changed the 311 bus route, which has isolated many people in their homes and caused them great hardship. I urge members not to trivialise this matter because it involves a bus route. The bus route is important to many people. I urge members to acquaint themselves with the degree of hardship caused by the changes to the 311 bus route. This urgent matter needs to be debated today because tomorrow the House will rise and not return until September—a lengthy period of time to wait before debating this important issue and for the Government to consider restoring the bus service. The matter can be rectified simply now as a matter of urgency.

The 311 bus route is the only public bus available for the residents of Elizabeth Bay and Woolloomooloo to access the city, Circular Quay and Central. Potts Point residents also rely on the 311 bus service, especially those who reside close to Woolloomooloo. The new route has been changed to start at Gresham Street as the closest point to Circular Quay and no longer traverses the Ithaca Road, along Billyard Avenue and Onslow Avenue loop. Elderly and disabled residents, and those with small children, either will not be able to make the uphill climb or will have great difficulty in accessing the nearest bus stop at Greenknowe Avenue.

These changes are inhumane and the Government needs to quickly reconsider its decision to restore the 311 bus route loop at Circular Quay to ensure that the bus does not stop at Gresham Street. The area around Elizabeth Bay is one of the most densely populated areas in Sydney with 1,300-plus units along the route and many older residents relying on the bus service. The percentage of residents aged over 65 years residing in Elizabeth Bay is 17.8 per cent, which is more than double that for the city of Sydney at 8.2 per cent. Clearly, those figures underline the urgency of this matter because they demonstrate that many people rely on the bus service, particularly those with reduced mobility and without private transport. These people are committed to leading an independent lifestyle, but the changes to the 311 bus route make that lifestyle much harder and in some cases impossible. I have met with many of its residents, who have told me stories of how hard it is for them now that that particular loop in the bus route has been removed.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: my point of order is that Ms Rhiannon is speaking to the substantive motion and not outlining the reason why this matter is so urgent that it should take precedence over government business today.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I have ruled on numerous occasions in the past that arguing that a matter is urgent under Standing Order 198 (1) is not the same as arguing that it is important. Presumably, members would not place items on the Notice Paper if they did not regard them as important. The matter before the Chair is a procedural motion and the only comments that are in order are those that relate to why one matter should proceed and other matters should consequently be delayed. Accordingly, the member will confine her remarks to arguing why this item is more urgent than others, rather than address the substantive motion.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The numbers of residents reliant on the 311 bus service demonstrate the urgency of this matter. Many people now are isolated in their homes because of the changes. Clearly, the bus service needs to revert to its original route. I urge members to vote to bring the matter on as a matter of urgency because every day that passes adds to the hardship of these residents. Many people have told me of elderly residents now isolated in their homes because they have to walk up a steep hill to Elizabeth Bay Road or climb about 79 steps from Onslow Street to Macleay Street to reach a bus stop. Surely that demonstrates to Ms Fazio and to other members that this is a matter of urgency. Every day it becomes tougher for these people. [Time expired.]

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [3.59 p.m.]: I oppose this motion being treated as urgent. Last week when we considered private members' business, Ms Rhiannon had the opportunity to bring this issue forward as a matter of urgency. She chose not to do so and to pursue other matters that she considered to be more important to her campaigns at that time. While I understand that Ms Rhiannon has invited some people who are affected by this change to attend in the public gallery today, I do not believe that makes the matter more urgent than the Government business on the Notice Paper. I urge members to oppose the motion being treated as urgent because this matter cannot be resolved solely in the domain of the New South Wales Government. Action is required by the City of Sydney council to restore the bus service. Ms Rhiannon's approach is deficient in saying that this matter is urgent and must be dealt with today because of the winter recess. The changes have been in place for some time.

I ask members to reject the motion calling for this matter to be debated urgently simply because Ms Rhiannon is calling on the wrong party to change the current arrangements for the 311 bus route. Ms Rhiannon should be lobbying the City of Sydney council instead of wasting the time of the Parliament by not dealing with Government business and debating a matter that I recognise is of great importance to the residents who used the 311 bus route previously. I believe that the Government business on today's Notice Paper is more important to the general population of New South Wales.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [4.01 p.m.]: Clearly this is an urgent matter that should be dealt with today. There is no doubt about that. I understand from the Hon. Trevor Khan's comments why the previous motion was not urgent, but this is a very different situation. I have to say I am shocked that the Government is opposed to debating the motion. This is just another demonstration that Government members do not care. That is the clear message the Government keeps sending to the elderly and to people with any form of disability or immobility. Government members just do not care because the matter is not urgent to them. However, it is urgent to the people who are affected, and it is an urgent matter.

Each day can make a huge difference to the residents who use this bus route. Only two sitting days remain in the autumn sittings of Parliament and then the House will adjourn for two months. This motion particularly affects the elderly and those with restricted mobility. We are talking about an area with steep hills, steps et cetera, and one day makes a difference. I would hate to be the person responsible for the death of a resident—God forbid—from a heart attack because the bus was not available and that person had to walk up a hill that most people would struggle to climb. On that basis alone, I urge members to vote in favour of the motion.

Ms SYLVIA HALE [4.02 p.m.]: I will not speak at length. This is clearly an urgent motion. It is important that the Minister for Transport, Mr David Campbell, is made aware of the House's view on this matter so that he can take immediate action to reinstitute the previous bus service. As far as I can see, reinstitution of the bus service is only a question of using a smaller bus that would be able to navigate the previous route adequately. The matter is urgent for the reasons outlined by my colleague Lee Rhiannon and by the Hon. John Ajaka. It is unconscionable that people, particularly vulnerable people, elderly people and people who are incapacitated in some way, will be placed in a position of not being able to leave their houses to do their shopping because there is inadequate public transport. This is a blot on the Government's record. The Government already has an appalling record with regard to public transport, but this must be one of the lowest and most despicable moves the Government has made. It is absolutely urgent that the service be restored.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Point of order: This is a procedural motion. It is about establishing urgency, not abusing the Government or trying to debate the substantive motion, which we will have to debate because the Opposition now has decided that prisons are not important but the 311 bus is. Albeit the House will pass the motion for urgency, in the meantime I would like to have a proper debate about whether it is urgent, given the other motions that are listed on today's Notice Paper.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind members that the House is debating a procedural motion. The issue is why one item of business is more urgent than other items on the Notice Paper, and members should confine their comments to that issue.

Mr IAN COHEN [4.04 p.m.]: In relation to the matter of urgency, I continue on my road to Damascus—according to the Hon. Amanda Fazio—regarding people with disability, less mobile people, the elderly and others. The Greens have received representations on this matter, and the same people who made those representations went to the Minister's office in an attempt to capture his attention. In the interim, a number of crossbenchers—if not all of them—wrote to Mr Campbell requesting that he pay attention to the matter. We have not received a reply. Many avenues of redress have been pursued, and we will continue on that course, but this is an important issue for people who are less able and less mobile than some. Given the efforts that have been made to explore every other avenue of redress, it is appropriate to debate the issue in the House today as there will be no further opportunities to do so during the forthcoming recess of several months.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [4.05 p.m.]: This was a mistake made by a bureaucrat. It must be changed. I have met with people from the area. It is an urgent matter.

Question —That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Motion by Ms Lee Rhiannon agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 198 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.13 p.m.]: I move:

1. That this House notes that:

(a) the 311 bus is the only bus available for the residents of Elizabeth Bay and Woolloomooloo to access the city, Circular Quay and Central,

(b) Potts Point residents, especially those who live closer to Woolloomooloo, also rely on the 311 bus service,

(c) on 26 April 2009 the Government introduced changes to the 311 bus service including removal of the Ithaca Road, Billyard Avenue and Onslow Street loop, plus the termination of the service at Gresham Street instead of Circular Quay,

(d) these changes have left a large number of local residents isolated and in some areas housebound,

(e) these changes were introduced with no prior consultation and in the face of vigorous local protest,

(f) more than 14,000 residents live in these areas, and if Darlinghurst and King Cross are added, the population of this extended area served by the 311 is about 25,000,

(g) in Elizabeth Bay, which is the area directly affected by the removal of the Ithaca Road, Billyard Avenue and Onslow Street loop, the percentage of residents over 65 years is 17.8 per cent, which is more than double the percentage for the city of Sydney, which is 8.2 per cent,

(h) elderly residents must now walk up a steep hill to Elizabeth Bay Road or climb 79 steps from Onslow Street to Macleay Street to reach a bus stop,

(i) at the western end of the route there is now a 200 metre walk to Circular Quay and even further to the Opera House, which, of an evening, is a potentially threatening journey for older pedestrians, and

(j) many tourists who visit Circular Quay and Elizabeth Bay House have traditionally used the 311 bus to get there, and many local visitors to Elizabeth Bay use the service to avoid traffic and parking problems.

2. That this House calls on the Government to:

(a) reinstate the Ithaca Road, Billyard Avenue and Onslow Street loop on the 311 bus service, and

(b) return the terminating point for the 311 service to Circular Quay rather than Gresham Street.

The points set out in the motion clearly establish the case for the 311 bus service to be restored to full service from Circular Quay with the loop around Elizabeth Bay. The Government should note the two key action points in the motion and the Minister, Mr Campbell, needs to respond to them. This debate would not have been necessary if the Minister, when he met with the residents, had given a clear commitment that the 311 bus service would be restored to full service. However, he failed to do that so we have had to bring on this debate as a matter of urgency.

The two action points in this motion are the call for the Government to reinstate the Ithaca Road, Billyard Avenue and Onslow Street loop on the 311 bus service, and the call to return the terminating point for the 311 bus service to Circular Quay rather than Gresham Street. This issue relates mainly to the residents of the area. The 311 bus service gives them a quality of life and enables them to access shops, doctors and hospitals, visit friends and pick up grandchildren. The issue relates also to visitors to the area, which does not have much parking, and tourists who visit both the Circular Quay area and Elizabeth Bay House. In the past many people jumped on the 311 bus service to travel to Elizabeth Bay House, but that does not happen much now.

There are many reasons that the State Transit Authority must reverse its decision to change the 311 bus route. In July 2008 the State Transit Authority proposed changes that entailed serious cuts to bus transport in the Sydney Buses eastern region. I understand that the authority received more than 300 letters and various petitions with more than 400 signatures from users of the 311 bus route, asking that the proposed changes not be made to that route. I have set out the bus route, and it is worth considering the issue of the buses. The State Transit Authority and the Minister have argued that the buses simply do not fit and the long buses cannot manoeuvre through the streets. That is not good enough. Smaller buses are available. Buses have been travelling on this route for about 80 years. Over the years the service has expanded as the area has become more densely populated. Indeed, it is the most densely populated area in Australia, and the 311 bus service is needed badly.

It is worth remembering that the 311 bus is the only public bus available for the residents of Elizabeth Bay and Woolloomooloo to access the city, Circular Quay and Central station. When I met with residents who have been disadvantaged by this cutback many of them said that in the past they went to the Opera House for a special night out, at least once a month, but are no longer able to do so because it is a considerable walk from Gresham Street to the Opera House. The case is clear. The motion sets out why the 311 bus service is needed. As we have so much business to deal with, I will leave it at that. I urge members to support the motion because it will send a clear message to the Minister that the issue needs to be resolved. Indeed, it can be resolved easily. It is the right thing to do not only for the residents but in terms of quality public transport for the city.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [4.17 p.m.]: As indicated earlier, the Opposition supports this motion. Indeed, the shadow Minister for Transport, Gladys Berejiklian, has moved a similar motion in the other place. The Opposition has serious concerns about the way the Government has dealt with this matter. This is another example of the Labor Government, in its usually haphazard fashion—without any real consultation, without prior warning and without consideration of continued process—simply changing the timetables and routes of buses, ferries or rail services to suit itself. Forget the residents of New South Wales; as long as the changes suit the Government and the bureaucrats that is all they care about. On 26 April 2009 the Government introduced changes to the 311 bus service without taking into account the real needs of local residents. The Government could not care less about the residents; it has made that clear today by opposing the motion to bring on this debate.

The previous speaker made it clear that the 311 bus service is the only bus service available to many residents of Elizabeth Bay and Woolloomooloo for access to the city, Circular Quay and Central station. Potts Point residents also rely on the 311 bus service. More than 14,000 residents reside in the area, and almost 18 per cent of them are over 65 years of age. Tourists to our city also rely on this service. I cannot understand how the Government, in such an arbitrary manner, can simply change a long-term bus route, removing one loop completely and terminating the service at Gresham Street instead of Circular Quay. Where is Minister David Campbell? Why has he allowed this to happen? Worst still, after the commitment he gave to the residents he has done nothing, and the Government will oppose this motion in complete disregard of his earlier commitment.

In this area many residents, particularly the elderly, do not own or drive a motor vehicle and there is a clear shortage of street parking. In this day and age, when the Government should be encouraging travelling to the city via public transport, what is it doing? It is doing the exact opposite. It has made it virtually impossible for a large number of people to access the city. Many residents rely on buses as their only means to access shopping for food, attending doctors and hospitals, and staying in contact with family and friends. The real gem is that the State Transit Authority has claimed that the new wheelchair-accessible buses are too low and will not fit around the loop. Instead of trying to resolve that problem, the Government has simply eliminated a large section of the bus route—but that has made the problem worse.

The Government's view is it is better to have no bus than a bus that is accessible to these residents. That is the way this Government handles these issues. It will not attend to them properly and could not care less about finding a solution. This is the same government that managed to waste more than $100 million on the Tcard fiasco but it cannot provide a bus service for those residents. It is a joke. This situation affects not only the 311 bus route but other transport throughout New South Wales. This matter can be remedied immediately. The Government should support the motion. It is a joke for the Government to blame all its woes on the City of Sydney council. Public transport is the Government's responsibility. Please act for the sake of those residents.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [4.21 p.m.]: Ms Lee Rhiannon approached me earlier seeking my support for the motion. I said that as I was a signatory to a letter to the Minister I would first seek a reply from him and that if one were provided there would be no need to move the motion. One week ago the crossbench received a representation from a lovely group of female residents of the area. Mind you, not one of them looked over 50 to me, although they were supposed to be elderly.

The Hon. Don Harwin: How many of them carry guns?

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Probably none, but maybe some. We were told how many steps it is from the former bus stop to the present bus stop. Obviously I am not a fit person and would probably struggle with the distance, so I have strong views on the matter. I will support the motion because the Minister furnished background notes—on plain paper with no letterhead—which is not a reply. I know that members of the Legislative Assembly sometimes regard the Legislative Council as a bit of a drag on progress. However, all crossbenchers wrote to the Minister in good faith and I expected to receive a reply, which did not happen. In those circumstances, we will support Ms Lee Rhiannon's motion.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [4.23 p.m.]: I oppose this motion. I say at the outset that both Ms Lee Rhiannon and the Hon. John Ajaka have not been completely honest with the House. Transport Minister David Campbell gave a commitment not to reverse the change to the 311 bus route but to look at the issues that were raised. He did not give a commitment that the route would be changed. The issues raised by both Ms Lee Rhiannon and the Hon. John Ajaka show a complete lack of understanding of public transport planning and administration. Ms Lee Rhiannon said that we should get rid of long buses. The Government has a rollout program of new buses to improve public transport across Sydney. It is not possible, practical or feasible to try to run one or two old buses on one particular route, as Ms Lee Rhiannon suggests. I know she has no experience in administering anything much but Greens preselections, but the simple fact is that companies run a fleet of buses, not small, individual buses designed for just one route.

Ms Lee Rhiannon said that the Government has been running the same buses on that route for 80 years, which is clearly not the case. The one argument I found completely uncompelling was the excuse that the walk from Gresham Street to the Opera House is too far for these poor, hard-done-by people when they make a rare excursion to the Opera House. If they can afford to buy a ticket to an event at the Opera House, they can afford to catch a taxi from the Opera House to Elizabeth Bay. The Greens motion is simply a misrepresentation of the facts. The 311 bus route was changed after significant consultation with local residents—which my colleague will talk about later. It is simple: the new-style buses being run out of the bus depots that service this area cannot make it around the loop.

City of Sydney council has been approached to remove a few parking spaces so that the new buses can be used, but it has not complied. It would be better for Ms Lee Rhiannon to try to convince the Greens councillor on City of Sydney council to lobby the lord mayor rather than to pull a stunt in this Chamber. But if Ms Lee Rhiannon does not have confidence in Councillor Harris it is a reflection on the Greens and not something that should be raised in this Chamber. The Hon. John Ajaka revealed that he does not have any concept of what he is talking about. I know he complained that he had been thrown in at the last minute to deliver a speech on the motion. He offered the excuse that the new buses cannot go around the loop because they are too low. The fact is that new buses are low so that they are accessible for people with mobility problems, and for wheelchairs and prams. The buses cannot get around the loop not because they are too low but because they are too long.

In response to the impassioned plea from the Hon. John Ajaka, my one comment is that I did not know he was a graduate of the National Institute of Dramatic Art. I find his new-found passion for the people of Elizabeth Bay a bit rich. I have sympathy for residents who can no longer use the bus service but I think their campaign is misdirected. They ought to be talking to City of Sydney council to get parking arrangements in the bus loop changed so that the new buses fit, rather than coming here at the behest of the Greens and being used as tools in Ms Lee Rhiannon's Senate campaign. I urge members to oppose the motion. The Government has a strong commitment to public transport. It will have 300 new buses on the road by the end of next year, on time and on budget. We simply cannot pluck one or two old buses from a fleet that will no longer be maintained and use them on a bus route to suit the convenience of a very small number of residents. The Government will not countenance that proposal.

I urge members to be realistic in their consideration of this motion and not support what is obviously a stunt by Ms Lee Rhiannon. While we probably all have sympathy for people who can no longer access public transport services that they are used to having, we should turn our attention to the people of New South Wales who do not have an issue with walking 400 metres to a bus stop because there is no bus in their area. That is an issue.

The Hon. John Ajaka: That is your fault.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I respond to the Hon. John Ajaka by reminding him that the Greiner Government closed train services in New South Wales—we have opened new ones. I think the members opposite are just showing how two-faced and hypocritical they are. They must be feeling very cold this winter because they are snuggling up to the Greens so much that it really is quite unconscionable.

Mr IAN COHEN [4.29 p.m.]: I have listened with interest to all the contributions in this debate, and I will not go over material that has already been covered by Opposition members and Ms Lee Rhiannon. The argument that has been made is quite clear, but I wish to add a few points. The first is that we are talking about people living in the inner city, where we are trying to encourage public transport use. These people are asking for public transport, and I think they should be applauded for wanting to use those facilities and for living in an area that is advantageous to them and their community—the inner city.

I invite the Hon. Amanda Fazio to come for a walk with me on the pathways that have been referred to; they are damned difficult to negotiate. I walk them regularly. I also pushbike the area. It is a very hilly, steep area, and I am appalled by the disparaging comments made about people with mobility issues in terms of their parking at the end of Gresham Street or at Circular Quay. Generally speaking, able-bodied people often do not recognise the difficulties that disabled or aged people encounter when dealing with just simple things such as getting public transport. To them this issue is very important.

I am appalled also by the reaction of the Minister to a joint letter from the crossbench members. As is our role in this place, we discussed this matter at a crossbench meeting some time ago and decided to write a letter to the Minister before moving this motion. Call it grandstanding if you like, but we decided to take this lobbying action, knowing that the representations of these same people to the Minister had fallen on deaf ears. That clearly indicates where the Labor Government is at. Interestingly, I recall being in a similar position to that which these residents find themselves—when I had an injured knee on one occasion. When I was working I generally took the 381 bus, which looped off Bondi Road. That is also an intensely-populated area, and I am sure that everyone—Government and Opposition alike—would encourage people living in that area to use buses rather than private transport for what is a relatively short distance to town. The 381 bus route looped from Bondi Road to Fletcher Street, Denham Street and back to Bondi Road, and people had an opportunity to catch that bus along that route.

When the 381 bus route was removed I made representations in Parliament to Carl Scully, who was then the Minister for Transport, and his office contacted me. There was only the main road bus route, which was difficult for me to get to in my condition at the time. I could imagine people coming from near Tamarama, which is a very steep area, to the tiny local shopping centre, where they could buy a paper or drop off dry-cleaning, and then get on a bus nearby. Having to go another 400 metres to the main road required additional effort for people rushing to get to work and so on. The Minister heard what I was saying and reinstated that section of the route. I think the buses were less frequent, but they came around the loop, and that provided a service to more people.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: They should have voted Carl in as Premier.

Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection. In hindsight they may have done well to do that. Minister Scully reinstated that route; it was a simple thing, and I thanked him officially in the Parliament for that. But we are getting no response now from the Labor Government despite reasoned, polite and appropriate submissions from the crossbench. We have got to this point today in the House not to grandstand, but because of necessity. I certainly support the motion.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.34 p.m.]: I realise that by debating this motion we are cutting into the time allocated for Government Business over the time remaining today and tomorrow. It is a dilemma. However, after meeting with the residents I am of the view that we cannot ignore their plight. As has been stated, the crossbench sent a joint letter to the Minister simply asking him to say, "Yes, I will restore the bus route and the original buses while the matter is being further investigated." That is all he had to do. With the stroke of a pen the matter could have been resolved. But the response of the Minister is that he wants the status quo to remain. He has made a brick wall response—that is, no response.

The motion is very simple. It calls on the Government to reinstate the Ithaca Road, Billyard Avenue and Onslow Street loop on the 311 bus service and return the terminating point for the 311 service to Circular Quay rather than Gresham Street. I know that there are a lot of practical problems, that the Government is being blocked by the City of Sydney council and for some reason by Lord Mayor Clover Moore, but those problems are matters for the Government and the city council to resolve. The Government should simply restore the bus route while discussions are conducted about parking areas and so on. Clearly the Minister has underestimated the physical problems faced by residents in the area. He has shown a lack of compassion, a lack of concern and a lack of intelligence. Therefore, we support the motion.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.37 p.m.]: No-one denies that access to public transport is of vital importance to every individual who relies on that transport, but some of the comments made by members in this debate today were quite outrageous. It has been suggested that there was no community consultation, that there were no discussions about the issue. I have been intimately involved with changes and issues surrounding the 311 bus route since last year. The issue is not as simple as people have made out today in this debate. There are issues about the size of the buses. It is true that we are upgrading our buses, and we are doing so because we want all of them to be accessible to people with prams and people with mobility issues. The difficulty is—and we are trying to achieve a balance in all of this—that the new buses cannot negotiate the loop. The reality is that the only way that the 311 bus can get around the loop is to change parking arrangements along the route. It is simply incorrect to suggest that the Government—

Ms Sylvia Hale: You could change the bus.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: No, actually we cannot change the bus.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Well, why did you buy one that was inappropriate?

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: To suggest that we could simply change the bus—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Duncan Gay and other members will cease interjecting. Members agreed to this matter being debated so presumably they are of the view that it is important. The member with the call is entitled to contribute to the debate without interruption.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: If the answer were as simple as just changing the bus, the Minister would have done that. This decision has not been taken lightly. The Minister has had to balance a whole range of concerns. For members to suggest otherwise is merely an exercise in opportunistic political point scoring and playing up to particular people in the gallery today. It is absolutely wrong to suggest that the answer can be found in changing the bus; wave a magic wand and the problem is solved. Managing a bus fleet is complex: it is about getting people in and out of the city and about buses negotiating the very small streets around Elizabeth Bay. If an older bus were put back on the route, those who currently are able to use the service would be completely locked out because the older buses do not cater for their needs. They would have no voice in this debate whatsoever. Those who would miss out on the service because they would be unable to access the old buses are not here and we cannot talk to them about it.

I want to take members through what has happened. All of our bus routes undergo periodic review. The contracts of the Ministry of Transport require each operating region to implement an integrated network plan within the first three years of the life of its seven-year contract. Community input is vital to any review of bus services. That is why State Transit and the Ministry of Transport went to the public for their views on the proposed changes to the 311 bus service. During June and July 2008, comprehensive public consultation took place on proposed changes to the eastern suburbs bus network, which included alterations to the 311 route. The network review was guided by the underlying principles of strengthening it and providing simpler, more direct and regular services to meet the needs of the community.

Approximately 3,200 submissions were received in this overall review. To suggest there was not public consultation is simply false. The community gave its views, including its views on the 311 bus route. State Transit listened and included feedback in the planning process. As a result, not all of the original proposals put out to the community for consultation on the 311 service were adopted.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Trevor Khan to order for the first time.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: The community asked State Transit to retain access to Central Station and to retain the use of Elizabeth Street and William Street. These links have been maintained. However, the termination of services at Gresham Street and the removal of the Billyard Avenue loop in Elizabeth Bay have proceeded. One of the key reasons these changes needed to be made to the 311 route was to enable the introduction of the new, low-floor air conditioned buses to meet the needs of parents with prams, the elderly and less mobile passengers.

As I have said before, there is the issue of parking. Members cannot deny that with the small streets around that area and the large number of apartments, parking is an issue. Anyone who has spent any time in that area knows that. There are real problems also with illegal parking. I am advised that bus drivers have had to call the Roads and Traffic Authority and go doorknocking around the streets on some occasions to get the bus around the loop because vehicles are blocking the route. That situation cannot be sustained on any bus route in this city; it would not facilitate the operation a reliable bus service, which the public need.

State Transit and the New South Wales Government would like to run the buses around the Billyard-Ithaca-Onslow loop. However, the City of Sydney has refused to agree to changes to parking or to provide bus zones that meet the requirements of the Australian road rules to facilitate modern buses. We cannot get away from that fact. State Transit raised these issues with the council as long ago as October 2008 but the council has refused to accommodate these requests. It is ridiculous that the Lord Mayor and the City of Sydney prefer to accommodate parked cars than parents and the very people who are in this Chamber today who need access to that loop.

The Government calls on the Lord Mayor to make the changes required so this loop can be reinstated. In the meantime the current hours of operation and frequencies on route 311 have been maintained. I am also advised that walking distances remain within bus service planning guidelines. I understand that it is a hilly area and that it is difficult for some people. However, it is within the guidelines and it is the same standard that applies to all bus routes across Sydney.

With regard to the relocation of the central business district terminus for the 311 route to Gresham Street, I am advised this alteration was required to ease congestion around Circular Quay. Again, no-one in this House can deny how busy the Circular Quay bus interchange is. The Government and State Transit are trying to manage a huge volume of buses in that area. The new terminus is one block back from the original terminus and follows the successful transition of a number of other routes to Gresham Street. It is expected that these changes will substantially reduce the overcrowding of services at Circular Quay.

It is important to inject some reality into the decisions that have to be made about this bus route. This is one bus route of many. There has been considerable public consultation and the Minister has listened at length to a number of different representations from members in both Houses, including those on the crossbenches. He has also met residents about this issue. There is no easy solution. We need to provide bus routes that are accessible to as many people as possible and that means there is a need to upgrade to new buses, and that means that we need to change that loop. We need to work with the City of Sydney to remove those parking spaces to make that happen.

There was no need for this debate to come on today. The Government is well aware of the issues facing residents in this area and we are taking them very seriously. To suggest otherwise is simply false and outrageous. The Government is not in a position to support this motion because the situation cannot change even if this motion is passed. There are practical realities related to that. We continue to try to work with the City of Sydney and call on the City of Sydney to get serious about allowing access to that loop, which will require the removal of parking spaces.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I thank members for respecting the right of members to speak freely and be heard. I now invite Ms Lee Rhiannon to reply and ask that she be accorded the same respect.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.45 p.m.], in reply: Thank you, Mr President, for your comments. The debate has certainly established the need for a full restoration of the 311 bus service. I note that all members acknowledge sympathy for the difficulties that the residents are facing with the loss of the current service and, while there was a variation in responses after that sympathy was extended, it is important to acknowledge that everybody who participated in the debate recognised that people are facing real difficulties in this area because of the loss of parts of the 311 service.

The contributions of Ms Penny Sharpe and Ms Amanda Fazio exposed the bankruptcy of the Government's arguments that masquerade as transport policy. That unfolded clearly because there was an attempt to blame the Sydney city council. As our cities become more dense and problems arise that need to be resolved, planning and transport are clearly a challenge. The Government has an enormous responsibility. The State Transit Authority manages these buses and the outcome here is that they did not plan properly for the upgrade of the buses. Ms Sharpe's comments have clearly exposed that, and I will deal with that in more detail.

My colleague on the City of Sydney council, Greens Councillor Chris Harris, has been working extensively on this issue with the residents who are campaigning for the restoration of the 311 bus service, and he has brought a co-operative style to trying to achieve that end. I had hoped Ms Sharpe and Ms Fazio would acknowledge that rather than try to shift the blame to the City of Sydney council. There are challenges here but the challenges can be easily met. If a bus service has existed for 80 years, surely we can continue to have that service. Life should improve, not go backwards. We understand that there are 35 car parking spaces that need to be removed. That really is not a big issue because there is so little car parking space there in any event. If that will facilitate public transport, we need to move on it. It is the Government that has failed. It has failed because it did not purchase a shorter bus that is wheelchair accessible when the service was upgraded. I was amazed at Ms Sharpe's comments that the Government could not do anything about the buses. The design fault lies with the Government. There are shorter buses that are wheelchair accessible and they should have been built—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: I am having difficulty following Ms Le Rhiannon's speech because of the continual conversation of Dr John Kaye in a loud voice. I ask you to direct him to cease his conversation.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask all members to desist from having loud conversations in the Chamber.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: This bus size issue is critical to the return of the 311 bus service. I agree with Labor members who said that we should not be debating this issue. We should not have to take up the time of the House debating one small bus service in this city. However, the Greens had to do that in order to get this Government to do the right thing. It should be remembered that a number of bus services in Sydney that are currently operating short buses will require them for many years to come. Why can those buses not operate on the 311 service? As Labor members are having difficulty with this matter I will place on the record all those bus services in Sydney that have short buses that could be used on the 311 service. The bus services that operate short buses include: the 309, the 315, the 316, the 323, the 324, the 325, the 326, the 327, the 355, the 374, the 379, the 380 and the 389.

Some of those buses could be allocated to the 311 service to restore it to its full capacity and to alleviate the hardship being suffered by many elderly people, some of whom are quite active and some of whom have serious mobility problems and who thus have great difficulty climbing steep stairs. This debate was useful. Labor members who contributed to the debate said that the Government wanted to resolve this issue. The Government can resolve this issue by providing short buses and by working things out with City of Sydney council. This Government is on the record as saying that it wants to sort out this issue. We know that the Government has to get rid of some parking spaces. It should bring back short buses and restore this service and let members get back to doing their job.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Dr JOHN KAYE [4.59 p.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 142 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter on papers regarding Tillegra Dam, be called on forthwith.

This motion seeks the concurrence of the House to allow the moving of a motion to seek publication advice from Independent Legal Arbiter Sir Laurence Street in relation to the assertion of privilege by Hunter Water on documents relating to the construction and planning of Tillegra Dam that were obtained by the House under Standing Order 52 on 26 November 2008.

Obviously, we dispute that privilege. This motion is urgent because a decision on Tillegra Dam is being made as we speak. Despite what is claimed, appropriate planning was completely absent in the decision on the Tillegra Dam project. Prior to the announcement on 13 November 2006 no public planning document supported Tillegra Dam. Suddenly, the Government says such a document exists. This motion is urgent because the matter needs to be resolved before Tillegra Dam proceeds. This matter is urgent because damage is being done to the public credibility of the planning process. Every day we continue planning Tillegra Dam without working out the origin of the decision is another day of damage to the credibility of the planning process in this State. This procedure is unprecedented. Never before has the House denied the right of the independent arbiter, Sir Laurence Street, to have his advice published. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. DON HARWIN [5.00 p.m.]: The last point made by Dr John Kaye is exactly why this issue is urgent. Never before has the Government stopped the publication of advice on a disputed privileges claim for which the New South Wales taxpayers have paid. Under Standing Order 44 the member has tried repeatedly to have this matter dealt with formally. Obviously, we are all tired after a late-night sitting, but this matter is serious and its urgency should be supported.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Motion by Dr John Kaye agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 142 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

Dr JOHN KAYE [5.08 p.m.]: I move:

1. That the report of the Independent Legal Arbiter, Sir Laurence Street, dated 20 January 2009, on the disputed claim of privilege on papers relating to Tillegra Dam, be laid on the table by the Clerk.

2. That, on tabling, the report is authorised to be published.

I do not intend to speak at length on this matter. It is clear that the motion refers to the Independent Arbiter's report on the claim of privilege. The matter has been before the House on a number of occasions when the Government has refused my right to move it as formal business. Therefore, I have moved the motion today.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIR: I report the receipt of the following message from the Legislative Assembly:

MR PRESIDENT

The Legislative Assembly informs the Legislative Council that it has this day agreed to the following resolution:

That Gerard Francis Martin be appointed to serve on the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption in place of Richard Sanderson Amery, discharged.

Legislative Assembly Richard Torbay
24 June 2009 Speaker

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.10 p.m.]: Earlier I indicated my support for the legislation. The reforms before the House are some of the most significant reforms to freedom of information legislation that have been produced. They are very important and it has been disappointing that members chose to spend the afternoon debating a whole range of other issues rather than this very particular and very important legislation. Last week, following the introduction of the bills, the Government published its final response to the Ombudsman's report. The response shows that the Government is implementing the overwhelming majority of the Ombudsman's recommendations. The response includes a table that cross-references each of the Ombudsman's recommendations against the relevant provisions of the bills. Moreover, the response includes a detailed discussion of the key issues that were raised in submissions.

Last week Ms Sylvia Hale asked the Attorney General whether he was confident that the Government had had ample opportunity to consider all the submissions that had been made. I am advised that all of the submissions have been considered carefully. In fact, a number of quite significant revisions were made to the bills in response to public submissions and I will highlight a few. For example, the Opposition raised a concern about the proposed power in the exposure draft bills for the Governor to remove the Information Commissioner for misbehaving. While the Government disagrees that this power would politicise the office or fetter its independence, in good faith the Government has removed the power from these bills. Similarly, many local councils and some other stakeholders raised concerns about the confusing overlap between the Local Government Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

Accordingly, the Government has now endorsed the Ombudsman's recommendation that these regimes be consolidated. This will streamline access to council documents, with all applications being covered by a single regime. The Government also has revised the bills to include new provisions covering information that is held by the private sector when services are provided under contract on behalf of the Government. This is another recommendation made by the Ombudsman. There is a range of other smaller changes as well that pick up useful suggestions that were made in submissions. For example, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre suggested that the legislation should explicitly require that "open access information" be available on a website when this is feasible. The bill now explicitly requires that to be done. The Australian Society of Archivists has suggested that the offence of destroying or concealing records should be expanded to include altering records. The Government has made that change also.

The bills now before the House represent the combination of an extensive process of public debate and consultation. It is important to note that the reforms also have been informed by similar debates occurring elsewhere. In developing this legislation, close consideration was given to the Solomon review that was undertaken in Queensland. That review also included an extensive public consultation exercise. The Government also looked closely at the proposed amendments that have been put forward by the Commonwealth Government in its exposure draft legislation. Again, there has also been broad public consultation on those reforms.

Critically, the passage of these bills should not be seen as the end of the process: Rather, it is the beginning of an ongoing process of review, consultation and debate. Unlike the current Freedom of Information Act, the new legislation requires a full review to be conducted after five years of operation. This review is required to be conducted in consultation with the Information Commissioner. In addition to this full review, the joint parliamentary committee is to be charged with keeping all of the public interest considerations and exclusions under continuous review. The committee's work will ensure that the provisions do not become locked in place. It will ensure that there is an ongoing forum for debate, and it will ensure that the provisions of the legislation remain relevant and up-to-date.

These reforms are all about openness and transparency. The manner in which these reforms have been developed is itself a demonstration of how an open and transparent process can lead to better public policy and better legislation. It has been a process in which all interested stakeholders have been able to participate, and in which all voices have been heard. It is also a demonstration of how proper public consultation does not impede the timely implementation of reform. The Government has moved swiftly and decisively in response to the Ombudsman's report, but has done so without compromising openness and public consultation. This is an excellent package of legislation. I commend the bills to the House.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [5.14 p.m.], in reply: I thank members who contributed to the debate. I also take the opportunity to again thank all those who participated in debates outside of this place, especially those who made submissions on the exposure drafts. A number of issues have been raised during discussions and during the contributions made by members during the debate. I will deal with those as I proceed with my remarks. First of all, the Government is alive to the need to set up the Office of the Information Commissioner in the right way so that it is properly staffed, resourced and supported to get the job done. The Government is considering transitional arrangements to ensure that the office is set up in the right way.

The Leader of the Opposition said in another place, "We will not oppose the legislation, but we make it clear that this area will be subject to further changes", if elected. One change he foreshadowed was: "… we believe that the office of the Information Commissioner should be located in the office of the NSW Ombudsman." Today, the Leader of the Opposition in this House, the Hon. Michael Gallacher, again said that the Opposition would ensure that the commission's office was located in the Ombudsman's office. It is important to note those comments for a number of reasons.

The Government already has outlined the reason why the office is proposed to be set up as a separate office. The proposed Office of the Information Commissioner will go beyond the traditional role of the Ombudsman. The recommendations of the Ombudsman envisage an office that was considerably wider in scope compared to the functions that the Ombudsman currently undertakes. It is about establishing a true champion of open government who will work closely across government agencies to promote best practice for information disclosure. It is important to remember that this issue was the subject of discussion by other people. The Ombudsman wrote a report, but members should bear in mind that in recommending that the position should be established in his office, the Ombudsman obviously had an interest, and noted that he had an interest, in ensuring that the office remained with him. However, other people have a right to express their views as to where the office should be located, and the Government has a responsibility to acknowledge those views and respond to them. The Law Society said:

The appointment of a separate statutory position will lift the profile of the Act within agencies and in the community and will assist applicants in the use of the Act.

The Law Society also stated:

The separate statutory position of Information Commissioner is the better approach to oversee the administration of the [legislation]. This is particularly so in view of the powers of the Information Commissioner … These powers are not appropriate for the NSW Ombudsman to have.

They are the views of the Law Society. Jim Wood, AO, QC, of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, stated:

The Information Commissioner should be, and should be seen to be, an independent champion of the public's right to know and have access to Government Information.

Those bodies noted that it does not seem logical to subject such an office to the control of another officeholder, such as the NSW Ombudsman. The New South Wales Privacy Commissioner, Judge Taylor, said this:

To me there are sound policy reasons for separating the Information Commissioner, who may have privacy related functions, from the Ombudsman.

One important observation I make is that the Ombudsman noted in his report the desirability to have privacy brought within the purview of the Information Commissioner in the longer term. The proposal to have the Privacy Commissioner's functions incorporated co-jointly with the Ombudsman predated the Ombudsman's report. When that was floated as an idea the New South Wales Opposition opposed it. Members opposite said it should not occur because it would downgrade the position of the Privacy Commissioner. In essence, this legislation is establishing an independent office that will enable us in the longer term to incorporate the Privacy Commissioner, to meet the objections of those who did not believe that privacy should be incorporated into the Ombudsman's office, but at the same time facilitate the new office being able to discharge the wider range of functions suggested in the Ombudsman's report.

The Government makes no apology for the proposal to establish the office of the Information Commissioner as an independent office with a commitment of significant additional resources to ensure that it discharges its mandate. The Opposition, due to a lack of either work acumen or willingness to say that the Government has got it right, is simply posturing. I am glad that the other contributors to this debate, particularly the Greens and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, agree with the Government. In relation to the power to remove, it is important to note that when the Government released exposure drafts bills in May they included a power for the Governor to remove the commissioner for misbehaviour. It was not an open-ended power to remove the Information Commissioner. The grounds upon which the removal could have taken place as set out in the exposure draft were defined and narrow. And as they were defined and narrow it meant that in the event that an attempt was made to remove the Information Commissioner on any of those bases it would be subject to judicial review.

Objection was taken and, frankly, there was a ridiculous commentary that this was a proposal for the Government to hire and fire at will. That is not the case, and it never was the case. When there is a power to remove on the grounds of misbehaviour or incompetence, anyone knows that that power can only be utilised when the particular conduct meets the test. In any event, it is important to acknowledge that a removal power of that nature is not uncommon among statutory officers. For example, the Director of Public Prosecutions is an officer who has managed to function for a large number of years, and the power of removal in the Director of Public Prosecutions Act is of that nature. Of course, it is the case that any public official, whether they report to the Government or to the Parliament, should be able to be removed from office if they engage in serious wrongdoing.

However, having noted all those matters, it is important to put on the record that concerns were raised that the power could be seen to politicise the office. I do not believe there is any substance to those concerns but they were raised. Although the Government did not agree, it has accommodated the Opposition's concern by removing that power. The bill now provides that the commissioner can only be removed on a resolution of both Houses but enables a temporary suspension of the commissioner pending Parliament's consideration of the motion to remove the commissioner. That power is very limited. Suspension can only be for the single purpose of bringing the matter before the Parliament. The bills provide that a motion must be presented to the Houses within seven sitting days with a full statement of the grounds for the suspension.

The suspension is only temporary. If Parliament does not remove the commissioner, the suspension is lifted after 21 sitting days, and a suspension can only be on the grounds of misbehaviour, incapacity or unexplained absence from office. The suspension in no way undermines the commissioner's independence. Exactly the same power of suspension applies to the Auditor-General, and no-one could possibly suggest that the Auditor-General is anything but scrupulously independent. Of course, one hopes that a circumstance would never arise when the power would need to be exercised, but it is clearly within the realms of possibility that something could happen on a day that is not a sitting day that would justify removing a commissioner, albeit temporarily. If that happens and the Information Commissioner refuses to step down, the Government, the Parliament and everyone else would be absolutely powerless to do anything about it.

Members should remember that the Information Commissioner has significant statutory powers, including the powers of a royal commissioner. The commissioner can enter any government premises, and access and inspect any records he or she likes. The commissioner is given broad and coercive investigative powers. These powers should not be misused. The suspension power in the bill is about ensuring appropriate accountability and due process. At the end of the day the exercise of any power of suspension will be scrutinised by Parliament when it comes to consider the motion for removal. Frankly, the notion that this power somehow politicises the office is nonsense.

The legislation is not simply an upgrading of the Freedom of Information Act. It is an entirely new model. I recall being asked by Ms Sylvia Hale on another occasion about the process that led to the exposure draft bills, the contributions that were made in response to those exposure drafts and the opportunity to consider the content of those comments. Let me remind the House of the process leading up to this legislation. The Ombudsman decided that he would conduct a review of the legislation. An issues paper was issued for people to consider and then make contributions in relation to how the review should focus its attention. The Ombudsman then prepared a report on that review. The Government considered that report and outlined its response. It also put out an exposure draft bill for public consultation and invited further submissions relating to the exposure draft and the Government's response. In light of that further contribution from the public, the Government put this bill before the House.

There has been ample opportunity for people to make contributions and for those contributions to be considered, firstly, in the context of the issues paper issued by the Ombudsman, then in the context of the report handed down by the Ombudsman, then in the context of the Government's response and the exposure draft, and then finally when the legislation was introduced into the House. A large number of people made comments. As I said, the Greens, who will put forward a series of amendments and ask members to consider, did not make a submission on any of the issues that caused them concern in relation to this matter. I say that, notwithstanding the fact that there was a very long period in which people had opportunities to make their views known. While I have been critical of the Opposition's response to the issue to some extent, the Opposition made submissions to the Ombudsman and to the Government in relation to its views on this legislation. So there were more than adequate opportunities for any person with a view as to how the new model should work to put forward that view. There was no attempt to constrain the debate. However, the Government had a timetable that it was keen to see fulfilled to ensure that the process for public submissions did not derail the Government from the opportunity of introducing the legislation before the end of the session. I make the point that there were ample opportunities for contributions, for people to make their views known, and to enable us to have this legislation considered before Parliament's rising for the winter recess.

I make a point about what I regard as a particularly absurd criticism from Ms Lee Rhiannon. Members will recall that in her contribution she said she was concerned that the review contemplated in this legislation was a review by the Minister, that it was a statutory review of the legislation after five years. She said such a review should be done by the Information Commissioner, but in the same breath she criticised the Government for not having conducted its own review of the freedom of information legislation and having to wait for the New South Wales Ombudsman to conduct the review that she says the Government should have undertaken in the first place. One cannot marry those two points. Ms Lee Rhiannon is so obsessed with criticising whatever we do; it does not matter what approach we take, there will be criticism from Ms Lee Rhiannon. On one hand, she cannot say that the Government failed to undertake a review and was forced to act and undertake a review, and then criticise the Government for providing for a statutory review by the Minister within five years when she thinks the review should be done by the Information Commissioner.

That is the sort of logic that Ms Lee Rhiannon wants this House to follow. This model places the public interest as its central unifying feature, including a very clear presumption that more disclosure, greater transparency and enhanced openness is always in the public interest. These bills have been subject to exhaustive public commentary. They are the most progressive regime for public access to government information in the country. I commend the legislation to the House. I thank all members who have contributed to their content, and I look forward to discussing the amendments that have been foreshadowed during the Committee stage.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

Consideration in Committee set down as orders of the day for a later hour.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Treasurer) [5.31 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2009 is the latest in a series of bills to amend Acts administered by the Office of State Revenue. This is to ensure that the legislation is current and consistent with best-practice tax administration. It makes amendments in five broad areas to provide revenue protection measures and address tax avoidance practice; provide tax concessions for duties and land tax; improve administration of first home benefits under the First Home Plus and First Home Owner Grant schemes; improve administration of fines enforcement; and clarify provisions in State revenue legislation to align them with current practices and interpretations. It also makes a number of legislative changes arising from the mini-budget. It enacts the Federal Government's First Home Owner Boost Scheme, which is administered by the New South Wales Government and requires State legislation. The bill makes substantive amendments to the Duties Act 1997, the Fines Act 1996, the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000, the Land Tax Management Act 1956, the Petroleum Products Subsidy Act 1956 and the Taxation Administration Act 1996. The bill also makes consequential and statute law amendments to various other Acts. I will deal with the amendments to each principal Act in turn.

The bill implements the decision announced in the mini-budget on 11 November 2008 to replace the land rich provisions of the Duties Act with a landholder model. From 1 July 2009, under the new landholder model, transfer duty will be payable when a 50 per cent or more interest is acquired in an unlisted company or unit trust that owns land in New South Wales with a value of $2 million or more. The bill imposes duty on the acquisition of 90 per cent or more of a listed entity or widely held trust with 300 or more investors. A concessional duty of 10 per cent of the transfer duty otherwise payable is provided, rather than the full duty rate charged by Western Australia and the Northern Territory. This provision will not commence until 1 October 2009 to allow those affected extra time to get ready for the new provision. To provide consistency with the tax treatment of direct transactions, landholder duty will apply to the acquisition of land and goods.

I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

In response to representations by professional and industry groups, the bill includes changes to raise certain thresholds and harmonise more closely with other jurisdictions. In addition, the bill includes several other integrity and revenue protection measures. The bill introduces a general anti-avoidance provision for duties.

Over the years, adopting provisions that specifically address identified avoidance practices has successfully protected the duties revenue base. Unfortunately, new schemes increasingly being used are to avoid significant duties liabilities on one-off transactions. To combat these practices, most Australian States and Territories have introduced general anti-avoidance provisions for duties in recent years. The challenge for these provisions is to ensure that a taxpayer who is confronted with alternative methods of achieving the same end is not guilty of tax avoidance merely by choosing the option with the lesser tax liability.

The bill adopts a general anti-avoidance provision similar to the provisions in other States. This is built around the concept of a person entering into a scheme for the "sole or dominant purpose" of tax avoidance in circumstances where the scheme is "artificial, blatant or contrived". The experience to date indicates that provisions of this nature operate as a deterrent to avoidance schemes, such that the provisions rarely need to be invoked or litigated. Any assessment pursuant to the provision would be subject to the same objection and review process that applies to other assessments by the Chief Commissioner of State Revenue. The provisions will apply only to duties liabilities arising on or after 1 July 2009.

The bill implements two other revenue protection measures for duties. The first is to clarify the basis upon which duty is paid on transfers of the goodwill of a business. A liability to transfer duty on goodwill requires a relevant connection with New South Wales. In cases where the business also operates outside New South Wales, the value of the goodwill is apportioned. A recent decision of the Supreme Court identified some deficiencies in the current provisions. The bill clarifies those provisions by adopting provisions similar to those currently operating in Queensland and Western Australia. Once a relevant connection to New South Wales has been established, the apportionment provisions will continue to ensure that duty is payable only on the New South Wales proportion.

The second measure both protects mortgage duty revenue and ensures an equitable result for mortgages relating to property both in and outside New South Wales. Mortgage duty has been abolished on owner-occupied housing and investment housing finance taken out by natural persons. The remaining mortgage duty will be abolished on 1 July 2012. In the interim, anomalies in the current New South Wales law would create significant inequities and avoidance opportunities. The bill removes these anomalies. The bill provides that duty is payable by reference to the New South Wales proportion of the total property used as security at the time of each duty liability point. To eliminate the possibility of double duty, an optional duty credit is provided in some instances. A liability will arise on the making of an initial mortgage, the addition of further securities, and on the making of advances of money. These changes will ensure that mortgage duty is payable on no more or less than the New South Wales proportion of the security for advances at each liability point.

The bill makes two changes to ensure that the First Home Plus scheme is received only by genuine first home buyers. First Home Plus provides a duty exemption or concession on properties valued at up to $600,000. The bill clarifies the eligibility criteria relating to whether the applicant and his or her spouse have previously owned residential property. The bill also introduces a measure to assist in recovery of duty on ineligible transactions. Approximately $10 million in duty and penalties is reassessed on First Home Plus transactions each year and approximately $8 million in grants and penalties on the First Home Owner Grant Scheme is required to be repaid each year. In cases where a person who has received a concession or exemption is subsequently found to be ineligible, such as where the applicant fails to satisfy the residence requirement, the bill provides that the unpaid duty is a charge on the land. This will enable a more consistent process for recovery of duty and grant moneys.

The bill provides minor extensions of three duties concessions. The first will correct an anomaly in the concession for certain conversions of title to land. The second will extend the concession on a transfer of dutiable property between custodians and sub-custodians under managed investment schemes. The third will ensure the exemption from duty for transfers of property following the breakdown of a de facto relationship continues to apply following the referral of State powers to the Commonwealth. The emergency service levy to fund the State Emergency Service commences on 1 July 2009. Consistent with an existing provision in the Duties Act that specifies that the fire service levy is included in the amount of premium for insurance duty purposes, the bill provides that the emergency service levy is also part of the premium. A complementary amendment is made to the Insurance Protection Tax Act 2001. The bill also specifies that insurance duty on trauma and disability policies is calculated at 5 per cent of the total premium, to remove uncertainty as to the applicable rate. The final change to the Duties Act made by this legislation is an update to the list of Crown bodies that are subject to duty. That list is included in the principal Act, and the Duties (Crown Immunity—Application of Act) Order 1998 is repealed.

The First Home Owner Grant Scheme identifies six criteria to determine whether an applicant is eligible for the grant, and an applicant's status in relation to some of these criteria can change during the application period. For example, an applicant may not be an Australian permanent resident when buying a home but may obtain that status before applying for the grant. Since the scheme's commencement in 2000, the practice of the Office of State Revenue had been to determine eligibility at the date of application, being the date on which the applicant declared the truth of the facts contained in the application. However, since a decision of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal in 2008, applications are now determined at the commencement date for the transaction, such as the date contracts are exchanged. The Act as currently worded remains ambiguous, and other State and Territory revenue offices have variously interpreted the same or similar provisions in different ways. The bill amends the Act to confirm that an applicant's compliance with the eligibility criteria for the grant is to be determined at the commencement date for the eligible transaction.

The bill implements the Commonwealth Government's announcement of an extension to the First Home Owner Boost, which provides additional assistance to first home buyers until 31 December 2009. This is in addition to the $7,000 First Home Owner Grant provided by the New South Wales Government and to the $3,000 New South Wales New Home Buyers Supplement, which was extended in the budget until 30 June 2010. The bill also implements the mini-budget announcement to introduce a cap on grant payments, limiting eligibility to the grant to homes valued at no more than $750,000. This provision will come into force on 1 January 2010 once the Commonwealth First Home Owner Boost scheme ends.

The Chief Commissioner of State Revenue currently has the power to correct a decision to pay the grant within five years of that decision. Experience has now shown that this is insufficient time when dealing with cases of fraud and identity theft, which may not come to light until many years later. The bill allows a decision on the grant to be varied or reversed more than five years after it was made if it was based on false or misleading information provided by or on behalf of the applicant. This is consistent with provisions allowing reassessment of duty under the First Home Plus scheme. The bill also clarifies the circumstances in which information obtained in administering the grant may be disclosed. Disclosure to the Commonwealth will be permitted for the purposes of the First Home Saver Accounts scheme, and disclosure of information for the purpose of legal proceedings will be limited to proceedings arising out of the administration of the First Home Owner Grant Act or a taxation law.

I turn now to the Land Tax Management Act. Where land is jointly owned and one of the joint owners is exempt from land tax, the exemption applies only to the interest held by that joint owner. Other joint owners remain liable for their interest in the land. An example is where one of the joint owners is a Commonwealth Government body, which is exempt by the operation of a Commonwealth law. However, there is uncertainty about how the land tax liability of the joint owner who is not exempt should be calculated under the legislation, particularly where the other joint owner is entitled to constitutional immunity. It has been past practice to assess the non-exempt joint owners on the value of the property reduced by the proportionate interest of the exempt joint owner. The bill amends the provisions relating to the assessment of joint owners to confirm the current practice. The bill also clarifies that where a joint owner is immune from State taxation by the operation of Commonwealth law, the immunity does not extend to the interests of any other joint owners.

Land tax is a first charge on land, and the charge remains with the land until the tax is paid, even if the land is sold. These provisions also apply to company title land where the home unit company owns the land and building, but the shareholders are deemed owners of each individual unit for land tax purposes. As a result any land tax owed by the owner of one unit would be a charge on the entire property. It is not reasonable to place a charge on an entire parcel of land owned by a company due to a single defaulting deemed owner. It is therefore proposed to amend the Act to exclude land owned by a home unit company from the land tax provisions imposing a charge for unpaid tax. Since 1987, lessees of Crown land have been deemed to be the owners of the land for land tax purposes.

The whole of Lord Howe Island is vested in the Crown, so lessees of land on the island are potentially liable for land tax. Most of the land leased by the Lord Howe Island Board would be eligible for exemption as the principal place of residence of the various lessees, or as land used for primary production. However, a small number of parcels of land could be liable for land tax, including leases used for commercial purposes. Land on the island is not valued on a regular basis, nor are values recorded on the Register of Land Values maintained by the Valuer-General. Therefore, lessees would be unaware of any potential land tax liability, and no lessees have ever been assessed for land tax by the Office of State Revenue. Furthermore, the commercial use of land on Lord Howe Island is limited by the island's World Heritage status and is strictly regulated by the Lord Howe Island Board.

The limited valuation information that is available suggests that land values on the island are generally below the land tax threshold. Any revenue generated from land tax would not be sufficient to justify the additional costs of maintaining valuations on the Register of Land Values. The bill therefore provides that the whole of Lord Howe Island is excluded from the application of the Crown lease provisions of the Land Tax Management Act. The exclusion is backdated to the introduction of the liability on lessees in 1987. The land tax exemption for a person's principal place of residence continues to apply for one year following the death of an owner, to allow time for the executor or administrator to administer the estate. However, the concession applies only to residential land that does not include a strata lot or a residence located in a non-residential building, such as a flat above a shop. The bill clarifies that any land that was entitled to an exemption or concession because it was used and occupied by the deceased owner as a principal place of residence is entitled to continuation of the exemption or concession for one year after the death of the owner.

The mini-budget foreshadowed that the petrol subsidy in northern New South Wales would be abolished if Queensland went ahead with its proposal to restrict its subsidy scheme to Queensland residents only. The Queensland Premier has now announced that Queensland will abolish its petrol subsidy from 1 July 2009, and legislation was introduced into the Queensland Parliament on 16 June. The bill provides for the abolition of the New South Wales petrol subsidy on 1 July 2009, in line with the announced Queensland abolition. In order to prevent recipients from increasing their last subsidy payment by bringing forward sales of product, the subsidy payable for June sales will be capped. This is achieved by limiting claims to either a 10 per cent increase on the average subsidy payable for sales in the previous 11 months of 2008-09, or a total claim of $10,000, whichever is greater.

I turn now to changes to the Taxation Administration Act. Taxpayers who fail to pay the correct amount of tax are liable to pay penalty tax and interest on the amount of tax outstanding at a rate that includes two components—a market rate and a premium rate. Currently, the market rate is adjusted on 1 July each year, based on a rate published by the Reserve Bank during the preceding May. To ensure that the rate more closely reflects market interest rates, the bill provides for automatic quarterly adjustment of the market rate component from 1 July 2009. The bill also clarifies the circumstances in which the penalty rate can be reduced for a voluntary disclosure by the taxpayer.

The bill implements improvements to the administration of fines and penalty notices by the State Debt Recovery Office. A penalty notice enforcement order is the first step of enforcement action by the State Debt Recovery Office following the failure of a person to pay or otherwise deal with a penalty notice. An enforcement order may be annulled if the person was unaware of the penalty notice or was unable to take any action in relation to the penalty notice. In these cases the person has the right to pay the penalty amount without incurring additional enforcement costs, or to dispute the alleged offence and penalty in court. Evidence has emerged that the annulment process is being abused to delay court proceedings or to delay the imposition of driver licence demerit points.

The amendments in the bill will require applications for annulment to be made within a reasonable period after the person became aware of the penalty notice or became able to take action, and will allow annulment in other circumstances only if the person had no prior opportunity to obtain a review of the liability. The bill also limits the circumstances in which payment of the penalty notice amount without enforcement costs is an option. These amendments retain the current wide grounds for annulment but prevent delays and other abuses of the process being used to avoid liability for the fine or demerit points. Currently, any amounts paid under a penalty notice enforcement order must be refunded when the order is withdrawn or annulled, even if amounts remain unpaid under one or more other orders made in respect of the same person.

The bill authorises the State Debt Recovery Office to allocate any overpayments towards unpaid amounts under other enforcement orders of the same person, and requires the State Debt Recovery Office to notify the person of the allocation of the funds. The Fines Act specifies that fines and costs, when recovered, are payable into the Consolidated Fund unless another Act authorises payment to a specified body or account. This may conflict with another provision authorising the State Debt Recovery Office to deal with amounts collected in accordance with commercial arrangements with various government and statutory bodies. The bill confirms the authority of the State Debt Recovery Office to pay fines revenue to the body on whose behalf the fines were collected under those commercial arrangements. To simplify administration of the arrangements, it is further provided that the State Debt Recovery Office can retain the agreed fee rather than requiring that amount to be invoiced and paid back to the State Debt Recovery Office.

Finally, the bill makes a number of minor statute law amendments to the principal Acts and to the Betting Tax Act 2001, the Health Insurance Levies Act 1982, the Payroll Tax Act 2007 and the Unclaimed Money Act 1995. Most of the amendments contained in this bill have been the subject of consultation with professional and industry bodies, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants, CPA Australia, the Investment and Financial Services Association, the Law Society of New South Wales, the Property Council of Australia and the Taxation Institute of Australia. I thank those organisations for their valuable contributions to the drafting of this legislation. The amendments introduced by this bill will improve the legislation and administration of a wide range of taxes, benefits and fines administered by the Office of State Revenue, as well as other measures previously announced. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [5.35 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in debate on the State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2009. I do so noting that this bill arises from mini-budget measures introduced by the Government in November and gives effect to various miscellaneous amendments across a range of taxes that the State Government administers. In particular, I note that the objects of the bill are to amend the Duties Act 1997—and there is a whole range of amendments in that regard—as well as the Fines Act 1996, the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000, the Land Tax Management Act 1956 and a range of other Acts in order to give effect to the mini-budget measures announced last November. It is worth noting at the outset that the bill imposes new taxes or increased taxes upon New South Wales residents. When speaking to the appropriation bills that were debated earlier in this Chamber, the Treasurer trumpeted that there were no increased taxes in the 2009-10 budget. But this is the bill that contains the taxes that the Treasurer sought to hide by omitting them from the appropriation bills.

I note that the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 was cognate with the appropriation bills and, amongst other things, removed stamp duty in relation to caravans. The measures in that bill reduced taxation, but in this bill we find the nasties. They have been put into a separate piece of legislation so they are not linked directly with the budget bills. Indeed, one need only reflect on the mini-budget to remember the pain that New South Wales residents suffered at that time. The mini-budget was brought on by the resignation of the former Treasurer, the Hon. Michael Costa. I will not reflect too keenly upon the pain inflicted at that time. It certainly was a most challenging period for the new Treasurer and the new Premier, and the people of New South Wales certainly paid a very high price. I remember particularly the reactions when a number of infrastructure items were cut. That pain was inflicted in order to restore some balance in the budget. At the same time we saw the introduction of a range of measures that were meant to put balance back into the budget, so that instead of expenses outstripping revenues by 1 per cent, as has occurred over the past number of years, there was some balance between revenue and expense growth.

The measures that were called upon at that time are contained in this bill. I note in particular the significant expansion of the transfer stamp duty tax base as a result of the proposed amendments to change the measure from a land rich to landholder model. It is estimated that this change will bring about additional revenue of approximately $20 million, although one would question whether the amount raised by the amendment could be significantly more. I note particularly that these provisions have been modelled on the 2007 rewrite of the Western Australian Duties Act introduced by the former Carpenter Government and that the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory have since introduced similar provisions. Victoria's legislation is similar to the current New South Wales land rich legislation, while Queensland has a land rich approach for companies and a landholder approach for trusts.

By way of background, the land rich provisions were introduced into the Duties Act in 1986 as an anti-avoidance measure to stop property transactions being structured as corporate or trust transactions to avoid paying stamp duty. The current test for companies is two-fold and the requirements are landholdings in New South Wales of $2 million or more and landholdings comprising 60 per cent or more of the value of all assets of the company or trust. I note that under the proposed changes the 60 per cent test will be abolished so that all companies and trusts holding land worth more than $2 million are covered.

Under the new scheme, duty is payable on corporate transactions when, for an unlisted company or unit trust, an interest of greater than 50 per cent is acquired and, for a listed company or unit trust scheme, an interest of 90 per cent or greater is acquired. Once a person is above the relevant threshold, any increase in their holding will also attract duty. For unlisted entities, duty is calculated on the basis of the percentage holding in the entity multiplied by the rate of duty that would apply to the value of all landholdings and goods owned by the entity in New South Wales. I note in particular that this will increase the level of duty payable by companies and trusts, and that the changes have been resisted by people and organisations that represent companies and trusts more widely.

The Property Council of New South Wales has calculated that the implications of the increase in duty will be a five-fold or ten-fold increase in some situations, which is indeed a significant imposition for New South Wales taxpayers. The Property Council put together a number of transaction examples to demonstrate the increase in duties that would apply. One involved the acquisition of a retail store with $7 million in assets and 25 employees that owns its own building worth $4 million. Under the old provisions, the company would pay $21,000 whereas under the new system with these changes the payment due would be $214,490. That is approximately a ten-fold increase in duty, which would be a very large imposition for companies or trusts caught by the new provisions.

I note also that the bill implements changes to the First Home Buyers Scheme. The bill clarifies the eligibility rules for First Home Plus, the stamp duty concession for first home buyers; places a cap of $750,000 on eligibility for the $7,000 First Home Owner Grant from 1 January 2010; and deals with insurance stamp duty. Members will remember that the mini-budget introduced a $39 million emergency services levy to fund the State Emergency Service. That is to be included in the definition of "premium" for insurance policies and the calculation of insurance duty. Whilst a similar approach has been taken for some time with the fire services levy, it is arguably a tax on a tax and is certainly a new tax for holders of insurance policies.

I note that insurance duty is levied at between 5 per cent and 9 per cent, depending on the type of insurance, and that the new stamp duty will raise an additional $3 million per year approximately. Whilst the State Emergency Service will certainly spend this money on very important community services, I note that there has been a transfer of the Government's obligations in this regard. Previously the approach taken to the State Emergency Service levy involved the Government paying much more to support the service. This responsibility has been transferred to the insurance industry, with funding now provided through insurance duty. It is most unfortunate, as the obligations in this regard have also increased for local councils. This transfer of responsibilities from the State Government to the insurance industry and local government is regrettable. It simply puts more strain on local government and on insurance holders, who will have to pay increased levies through their insurance policies.

That is regrettable, particularly in the current economic climate. We have seen the trouble caused by a number of major natural disasters on the North Coast and by bushfires, and insurance plays an important role in rebuilding affected communities. These types of imposts are simply an additional cost for everyday householders. I think it is more suitable that they be borne by the Government, given the public service provided by the State Emergency Service. Another area affected by the bill is mortgage duty, which has been abolished on residential property and investment housing and will be abolished completely on 1 July 2012. The bill abolishes the 1.2¢ a litre subsidy for fuel transported across the Blue Mountains by rail, which was announced in the mini-budget.

The bill also facilitates a number of minor amendments. I will not go through them in detail except to note that a number of the changes increase the cost of doing business in New South Wales—which is probably one of the major problems with the bill. That is understandable as the Treasurer was making a cash grab in November. Times were difficult then and they have worsened since. Many businesses are still having difficulties. These are further imposts that will be a distraction for existing businesses as well as a barrier to new businesses coming to New South Wales.

We have heard a lot of rhetoric from the Treasurer in relation to jobs and the importance of supporting jobs, and the fact that the 2009-10 budget is a jobs budget. The reality is the nasties that have been hidden away in this separate bill do exactly the opposite. The Treasurer is sighing because that is just one of the sad realities. No-one likes bad news, but this is the bad news bill—and it contains a lot of it. I note that a number of parties have strongly condemned the bill. The Property Council strongly opposes the legislation, as does the Investment and Financial Services Association, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, the Shopping Centre Council of Australia, the Insurance Council of Australia—which is particularly unimpressed with the emergency service levy provisions—and a range of other interested parties.

On the basis that the bill's provisions will deliver a major tax increase on corporate transactions and be a serious disincentive to investment in New South Wales relative to our competitors, particularly Queensland and Victoria, the Opposition will oppose the bill. We believe that essentially there is a lack of honesty and transparency in relation to revenue-raising measures. That is particularly borne out by the fact that the bill was not included with the appropriation documents for the 2009-10 budget. Whilst the Treasurer might argue that these provisions came out of the mini-budget in November, it is interesting to note that the bill that preceded this one—the State Revenue Legislation Amendment Bill 2009—was cognate with the appropriation bills. However, this subsequent bill, which contains the nasties—the increased taxes that the Treasurer did not want to acknowledge in the budget process—is not a cognate bill but is nonetheless being considered contemporaneously by the House.

I think it is a little bit rich—not land rich—that the Treasurer has sought to do this without raining on his parade and his ability to say that there are no new taxes in this budget. All that does is confirm the business world's cynicism about this Government and this Treasurer and their inability to put New South Wales and New South Wales business first. It continues the paradigm under which this Government operates, where it sees business consistently as a cash cow to be milked rather than as a means to drive the economy forward to provide the necessary revenues we all seek to build a better community. These are the philosophical differences between us. I will not dwell on them too much tonight, but they are a gulf between us. In the interests of brevity I simply note that this is a very bad impost on business, and accordingly the Opposition will oppose the bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE [5.50 p.m.]: If the State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2009 signifies an ideological divide, it is very clear which side we are on. We are on the side of a fair tax system that collects revenue in order that the State can operate in a reasonable fashion. In our analysis, this bill does exactly that. It fixes a number of issues relating to revenue-based measures and makes them fairer. In some cases, it increases the tax collected but it does so by cracking down on loopholes and opportunities for people to avoid paying duties and taxes. I have to say—and I am sure the Treasurer will say it in his speech in reply to the debate—that in as much as an Opposition should be opposing and criticising the Government and pointing out where it is making mistakes, it also has an obligation to do so in a fashion that explains to the people of New South Wales how the Opposition would do it differently. It is not appropriate for an Opposition to say it is wrong to collect revenue here, it is wrong to close that loophole there and it is wrong to collect taxes, and then also say that it is going to spend a certain amount of money here and there. There needs to be some accounting between the failure to close tax loopholes and the increased expenditure.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: It is a bit rich you lecturing us, John.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I acknowledge the interjection. I do not think it is rich at all. I think it is entirely appropriate. We have been to every election that I have been involved with, which is a large number, with fully costed election promises. We never make promises that we cannot cost or cannot find ways to finance.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: You will never be in government, mate.

Dr JOHN KAYE: That is your supposition, Mr Mason-Cox, but it is really up to the people of New South Wales as to whether that happens. I turn now to provisions in the bill that refer to the administration of first home buyers benefits. There are a number of technical matters and clarifications that are important but that do not bear largely on the nature of the scheme. The biggest issue announced in the mini-budget last year was the introduction of a $750,000 cap on eligibility for first home owner grants from the beginning of 2010. This is a step forward in order to target first home owner grants so that they achieve the most positive outcome in improving affordability for those people who otherwise would find it difficult to enter the home ownership market.

There remain question marks about how much of the assistance to homebuyers disappears in inflated house prices. First home owners, and homeowners in general, receive all sorts of grants and assistance. While the Greens strongly support easing the way for people to become homeowners—it is an important component of people's security in old age and an important aspiration for many people—it is vital that we focus whatever financial assistance is given on making things more affordable, not on inflating house prices. That said, it is probably less true now that the first home owner grants end up in profits through inflated house prices for those who are selling houses, given the depressed state of the property market. When the market returns to boom, housing prices are generally set by what the purchasers are prepared to pay, or at least by the vendors' view of what the purchasers would be prepared to pay. In effect, vendors push up the price to take into account first home owner grants and other assistance such as First Home Plus and so on. Our concern is that public money ends up as private capital gains.

There is also a huge risk that these sorts of assistance packages will increase the heat on the property market and make housing less affordable rather than more affordable. It is a perverse outcome that is not apparent at first, but because too many of these mechanisms push up house prices they drive people out of the housing market. As policymakers, we need to have an open mind about how to assist first home owners. Certainly, increased investment in social and public housing and planning instruments that support affordable housing are more effective and efficient supports for home buyers as they take the pressure off prices at the lower end of the market.

The second set of provisions in the bill refers to improved fines administration. This is largely to prevent abuse of the demerit points system by people delaying payment of fines. It is important to close this loophole to restore integrity to the traffic infringement system. The legislation also eliminates a number of loopholes in the State taxation system, including introducing a general anti-avoidance provision for duties. It is extremely important that we stop the haemorrhaging of duties through people seeking to avoid their payment. I want to ensure the immunity from State taxation enjoyed by the Crown does not apply to non-exempt landowners who own land jointly with a Commonwealth authority. We seek the Treasurer's assurance—which we are sure he can give us—that this will not adversely affect Aboriginal land councils or other traditional Aboriginal landowners. We have already been given to understand that, but we would like the Treasurer to put it on the record, if possible, when he replies to the debate. We ask him to give the House the assurance that the measure does not target Aboriginal land councils, which in some cases own land jointly with Commonwealth authorities. We have been given an informal explanation, but we view this as an important matter and it should be put on the record.

The last provision I wish to address is that of moving New South Wales from a land rich to a landholder model for assessing stamp duty liability. This measure was announced in the mini-budget last year; we supported it then and continue to do so. The land rich provisions are complex and provide opportunities for those who are seeking to avoid paying stamp duty or reduce their stamp duty liability to manipulate landholdings, not by changing their landholdings but by disguising them. We understand that the landholder model will reduce opportunities for that and as such we support it in order to restore and increase fairness in stamp duty revenue collection. The Greens support the legislation.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.59 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2009, which contains a number of procedural measures that will maintain and improve legislation administered by the Office of State Revenue. Many of the proposals will increase consistency of legislation and administration with other States. The bill covers five main categories, the first of which is the administration of first home benefits—an issue that is strongly supported by the Christian Democratic Party. We also support the introduction of a $750,000 cap on those who are eligible to receive first home owner grants from the beginning of 2010, as this was an area in which grants were manipulated. These grants are not intended to assist millionaires. A cap of $750,000 might be high, but at least it makes it more reasonable.

The second category in this bill relates to the need to improve fines administration. The third category is the elimination of loopholes in the State's taxation system. The bill contains a number of provisions to prevent people avoiding payment and it reforms the provisions imposing mortgage duty to improve simplification and equity. These provisions will ensure a reduction in penalty tax allowed for those taxpayers who make a voluntary disclosure of a failure to pay the correct tax, but those provisions will not apply to a taxpayer who has received a tax assessment. The legislation will also ensure fairness through concessions applied to State taxes and it will clarify and extend a land tax concession applying to the former principal place of residence of a deceased owner—a positive provision in this legislation. It also provides for a minor extension of duties concessions for conversions of title to land, and for transactions within managed investment scheme structures.

The bill contains a number of other minor miscellaneous improvements to State revenue measures. I support the move by New South Wales from a land rich to a landholder model of assessing stamp duty liability. Another matter of concern relates to the number of calls I am receiving from people who have holiday homes as part of their retirement plan, which appears to make them land rich but in reality they are cash poor. That situation would be greatly accentuated if they lost their jobs. A landholder could be paying rent for one property and own another property, but because he or she was unemployed that land tax could not be paid. The people who have complained to me have said that the land tax hardship provisions do not seem to be operating fairly. I ask the Government to give serious consideration to ensuring that those hardship provisions are reasonably applied to assist those who are unemployed. Some arrangements should also be made to enable the deferment of land tax, and other provisions must be implemented to ensure justice for those people. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Treasurer) [6.02 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their interest in and their contributions to debate on the State Revenue Legislation Further Amendment Bill 2009. This important piece of legislation maintains the various Acts administered by the Office of State Revenue. It also implements a number of other decisions that have previously been announced. Importantly, this legislation will improve the administration of first home benefits, clarifying aspects of eligibility and extending the Federal Government's First Home Owner Boost, which the New South Wales Government administers. It is worth labouring that point. The First Home Owner Boost is a critical element in the development of the First Home Buyers Scheme.

The Rudd Labor Government extended the First Home Owner Boost until September at full rate and it will then be halved until December this year. However, in order for us to implement those provisions we have to get this legislation through the House. We have seen a massive improvement in the number of first homebuyers in the market. In fact, we have had three record months. In the most recent month of May around 7,300 people took up first homebuyer benefits—7,300 new homebuyers out in the market. That dovetails nicely with this Government's First Home Owner Boost of $3,000, which it announced would be extended until 30 June next year to encourage and support first homebuyers, combined with other initiatives in the budget relating to the halving of stamp duty. The changes to New South Wales tax law will eliminate loopholes—it is important to have an honest, clear, understandable and transparent tax regime in this State—improve equity and increase the simplicity of our tax system. These are important objectives in the legislation. The changes will also ensure our tax system is fair by having concessions apply in the right places.

I will deal now with the matters that were raised by Opposition members. I reject any suggestion that this legislation is an attempt to grab at additional revenue. That is simply not true. These measures are about ensuring that New South Wales has the best revenue laws possible and they will implement a number of announcements that were publicly debated in the mini-budget process. Of course, the mini-budget was the critical stepping stone that enabled us to bring down the well-received record infrastructure investment in last week's budget. The mini-budget was the stepping stone that enabled us to increase revenues by around $3 billion and to implement savings of $3.3 billion. That important stepping stone led to the delivery of a budget that has been acclaimed and supported by everybody in the community—everybody other than the Opposition. It is important that State revenue laws are constantly reviewed and updated to ensure that New South Wales has best practice legislation for first homebuyers, taxation and fines. This bill makes those improvements.

I am advised that existing exemptions in the land tax legislation for Aboriginal land councils will remain. Those exemptions will not be disturbed by the amendments in this bill, which I am sure will ease the concerns of members who raised issues relating to that important matter. I am disappointed that we have not received the support of the Opposition, in particular, for the Federal Government's First Home Owner Boost. Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan's budget provided additional support for first homebuyers and I am deeply disappointed about the position taken by Barrel O'Farrell—

The Hon. Greg Pearce: That is the second mistake that you have made. You also made a mistake yesterday.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Are you keeping count, Greg?

The Hon. Greg Pearce: You mixed up the words "budget" and "surplus".

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I checked Hansard and I did not.

The Hon. Greg Pearce: You did.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I reject that aspersion on Hansard. Referring to the First Home Owner Boost, it is critical for us to maintain the Australian dream of owning a first home, which is such a part of Australian culture. It is disappointing that Opposition members are opposing the First Home Buyers Scheme and the dream of all Australians to own their own homes. It is disappointing and economically and fiscally irresponsible, and it is not what a so-called alternative government should be doing. Clearly, it is irresponsible, and that is why Opposition members will stand condemned. This is an important bill for the future of this State and I commend it to the House.

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

The House divided.
Question 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. Eric Roozendaal agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

Message received from the Legislative Assembly returning the bill without amendment.

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to resolution this day, a report of the Independent Legal Arbiter Sir Laurence Street dated 20 January 2009, on the disputed claim of privilege on papers relating to Tillegra Dam.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.17 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos: 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 will permit the public reporting of school results in new national student tests on a nationally consistent basis. This bill will further cement the Rees Government's policy of providing meaningful information to parents about school performance—and do so in a manner that is educationally responsible.

The bill is also necessary to implement the agreements reached by the Council of Australian Governments in 2008 and by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs known as MCEETYA.

All State and Territory Governments and the Commonwealth have agreed that for the first time in 2009 there will be nationally uniform reporting about the results of individual schools.

MCEETYA endorsed the principle that "The provision of school information to the community should be done in such a way as to enhance community engagement and understanding of the educational enterprise".

The capacity to report on the results achieved by schools in the New South Wales education system has been the subject of a Regulation since 1997.

This prevents the publication of school test results in a manner that ranks or otherwise compares the results of individual schools. It also protects the publication of results that reveal the results of particular students without their consent.

The Rudd Government was also elected on a platform of greater transparency about school performance.

In 2008 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to implement a new school performance reporting framework from 2009.

COAG agreed that greater transparency and accountability for the performance of our schools is essential to ensure that every Australian child receives the highest quality education and the greatest opportunity to achieve through participation in employment and society.

COAG also agreed that high-quality accountability and reporting is important for students, parents, carers and the community.

This reporting framework encompasses:

· streamlined and consistent reporting on national progress

· an annual national report on the outcomes of schooling in Australia

· national reporting on performance of individual schools to inform parents and carers and for evaluation by Governments of school performance

· plain language student reports to parents and carers and

· an annual report being made publicly available to each school community on the school's achievements and other contextual information

· performance indicators about progress towards achieving agreed outcomes and

· specific reporting on outcomes for indigenous students and students from low socio-economic status communities.

This was a historic national decision, but it also reflects developments that have taken place in New South Wales over the past 10 years or more.

It is important to understand some of this history to appreciate why the Regulation on publishing school results—unique in Australia has been in place, and why this bill retains its best elements.

Since 1997 all public schools in New South Wales have been required to publicly report about their performance, and in particular to publish information about their performance in externally conducted tests such as:

· the Basic Skills Tests in literacy and numeracy in primary school

· the English Language and Literacy Assessment test and the Secondary Numeracy Assessment Program ELLA and SNAP—in junior secondary

· The School Certificate and the HSC in senior secondary

The Basic Skills Tests, ELLA and SNAP have since 2008 been replaced by equivalent tests under the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy—or NAPLAN.

Since 1997 schools have reported their literacy, numeracy and other external test results in Annual School Reports that also let schools explain their performance in context.

Over time, a culture of frank disclosure of performance has grown.

So by 2007, every school Annual Report was required to include the school's performance over time, with optional reporting against the State average. More than 60 percent of schools also reporting their test results against a group of schools with similar background characteristics. And hundreds of schools proudly publish their reports on their websites.

A key concept in these reports is that of mandatory "value added" and growth reporting. If we examine the performance of a group of students in year 10, for example, how does the same group of students perform in year 12?

If a group of students in the bottom third of performance in year 10 reaches the State average by year 12, then the school has added value.

Take one example of a 2008 report from one Sydney high school without naming the school.

The report frankly illustrates both in text and in graphical form how students performed in the HSC in comparison with the same students' performance two years earlier in Year 10. The report clearly demonstrates that their average achieving students have improved the most by Year 12, while their higher achieving students performed at about the same level as they did in Year 10. Of concern, the report clearly indicates that the school's lower achieving students did not perform as well in Year 12 as they did in Year 10. This will be an issue of focus for the school over the next year.

There is frank disclosure of both good performance and lower than expected performance in the same school. That is vital for the school community to know in order to take steps to improve, without sacrificing what it does well. Such information would be completely hidden if all that were reported were a single number on a simplistic league table.

Over the last decade schools have become much more comfortable in understanding their performance using hard data.

In many schools, involving teachers, parents and students in analysis of the school's performance has become a very tangible way in which the school community can come together to support student achievement.

We have been able to achieve honest reporting to parents about the school their children attend, without allowing the potentially harmful and destructive effects of crude and simplistic league tables.

Since 1997 the Regulation under the Education Act has provided that school results relating to individual schools will not be publicly revealed in a way that ranks or otherwise compares the results of individual schools.

That is, the method in which a publication of school results will occur is not to be one that allows, in a single publication, direct comparisons between individual schools.

The publication of a single school's results in an annual report does not infringe this requirement. Nor does the publication of a school's results in comparison to measures like the State average or the average for a group of schools. But such comparisons differ from league tables. They do not allow a school's achievement to be whittled down to a single score.

What is wrong with a league table?

Well, we briefly went through that experience in 1997 here in New South Wales.

Following a Freedom of Information request, the Tertiary Entrance Rank of the top student in every school was published. (The Tertiary Entrance Rank was a predecessor of the University Admissions Index or UAI, now replaced by a national index).

Only one school in the list had a top student whose TER was below 50 percent.

A photograph of that school's Year 12 was printed on the front page of a metropolitan newspaper under the heading "the class we failed".

It was immensely hurtful and distressing to those individual students—to have their performance publicly revealed and criticised so that their identities were known.

This was not an analysis of their performance. It was public humiliation, pure and simple. That is the worst consequence for a school community if a crude league table is published.

The league table concept is one that labels whole schools as either winners or losers. It is unfair, damaging, hurtful, anti-educational and not in the public interest.

All State and Territory Ministers have endorsed the important principle that public reporting should not be by way of crude league tables.

Instead, the national agreement replicates the best features of the system we have developed in New South Wales—individual reports for each school with rich information, rather than a single numeral.

The protocols agreed by MCEETYA Ministers on June 12 specifically State that "Governments will not publish simplistic league tables or rankings, and will put in place strategies to manage the risk that third parties may seek to produce such tables or rankings."

The new Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority—ACARA, a body that works to MCEETYA direction—will be supplied with the information necessary to enable it to publish relevant, nationally comparable information on all schools. That body will be subject to protocols and directions endorsed by MCEETYA.

ACARA will make public information on each school in Australia Government and non-Government. This will include a page of information about each school's performance, compared to a grouping of schools with similar characteristics.

Information about the schools within relevant groupings would be separately publicly available.

It will include national testing results and school attainment rates, student population characteristics, teaching staff and financial resources.

The information will be published on ACARA's website.

This will not be a simplistic league table. Rather, it will be conceptually similar to information that has already been made public by New South Wales schools for some years in their annual school reports.

This has occurred consistently with the Regulation and without any of the undesirable effects of simplistic league tables.

Because an argument may be made that provision of the results to ACARA by educational systems may of itself amount to publication in a way that allows comparisons of individual school results, there is some risk that it would breach the current Regulation.

If the Commonwealth then went on to make the relevant results public, that Government may also potentially be in breach of the existing Regulation. There is doubt about whether ACARA would be constitutionally beyond the Regulation's reach.

This amendment will provide certainty by permitting New South Wales to provide such information to the Authority if it is done in accordance with a national protocol or arrangement to which New South Wales is a party.

A further constraint that the bill would overcome is a 1997 protocol as part of the New South Wales public school teachers award. This provides that the Department of Education and Training is not to "publish or broadcast, or aid in the publication or broadcast of any information or achievement which allows comparison between individual students or which will allow schools to be ranked in any publication or broadcast". That restriction may prevent New South Wales providing the information to the Commonwealth because there would be no absolute control over how third parties published or broadcast publicly available information.

The bill therefore overrides this provision of the award.

The bill will continue to provide protection to the results of identified individual students. Their results will not be published without the consent of them or their parents, except in the context of recognition of excellent performance as currently occurs for HSC results.

To be clear, the bill allows de-identified data about individuals to be provided to ACARA for the purposes of analysis. National discussions have confirmed that the information enabling matching of particular students over time will be destroyed after the analysis is performed. These security safeguards will guard individual students' privacy in accordance with the requirements of the bill.

The existing regulation also prevents third parties from obtaining information from Government in the form of a league table under Freedom of Information legislation. This will continue under the provisions of this bill. The Government has formed the judgement that this is one of the cases where the public interest in publishing the information in a particular form is clearly overridden by the public interest against this.

This information will be retained as an overriding secrecy law within schedule 1 of the new Government Information (Public Access) Bill 2009 introduced by the Premier yesterday.

Finally, the provisions of the existing Regulation, subject to amendment, are moved into the principal Act. This is to ensure they cannot in future be watered down by Regulation without the agreement of both houses of parliament.

This bill gets the balance right.

It builds on the record of increasing transparency about school performance. A record New South Wales is proud of.

Parents in New South Wales should have the right to detailed information about the performance of their child's school.

Information that presents a fair comparison of their school's performance against other similar schools. Information that will be used to drive continued improvement in school performance. And to target additional resources to the schools that need them.

And at the same time it leaves in place in New South Wales the protections that have been developed to prevent simplistic rankings that are not in the public interest. It is vital for the education of children across New South Wales that this bill is passed urgently by this Parliament.

New South Wales is required to provide this data to the Commonwealth under the terms of the national education agreement.

Tied to this national agreement is $4.8 billion in funding over the next 4 years.

That's around $1.2 billion per annum, or roughly 20 percent of the annual cost of employing public school teachers and other school staff.

It is necessary to pass this bill now to be able to provide the relevant data to the Commonwealth in accordance with the agreed time line. That information needs to be provided to the Commonwealth within weeks to enable national publication towards the end of the year.

If the State does not provide the data in accordance with the agreed time line, it will not satisfy the conditions for receipt of the funding. In short, failure to pass this bill would place this funding in jeopardy.

And more fundamentally, it would deny parents access to information about the performance of schools to which they should be entitled.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [6.17 p.m.]: I speak to the Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009 on behalf of the Liberal-Nationals. The Coalition supports wholeheartedly the efforts of our wonderful teachers in our schools. We support public education and choice. We support most passionately transparency in government and information. However, I stress at the outset that the Opposition does not support transparency with negative consequences—transparency that is not considered carefully. It would be negligent for us to support the publication of school league tables, to which I will refer shortly.

The Opposition supports this bill to allow funding to flow from the Federal Government to the State Government for our schools. We support the bill because we were given assurances in the other place from the Minister that the provisions of this legislation will not allow the generation of simplistic league tables. The bill will amend the Education Act by overturning an existing regulation prohibiting the Department of Education and Training from publishing data that could be used to generate league tables. The bill is introduced in response to the Commonwealth's requirements that more school data should be made available as part of the 2008 National Partnership Agreement.

The Opposition does not oppose the bill. We do not want to risk schools missing out on any funding, and there are serious funding implications that are attached to this bill. Some of those implications may impact on the flow of Federal Government funding. We are talking not about Rees Government funding of education but about Federal Government funds that are flowing into schools. We certainly do not want to get in the way of that money flowing to schools. In that context, I refer to the National Partnerships funding to New South Wales, which includes quality teaching, funding to low socioeconomic status [SES] school communities, and funding for literacy and numeracy. The Opposition does not want to get in the way of funds flowing from the Federal Government to the Rees Government, but we certainly want some assurances around the implications of supporting the bill.

The Opposition has serious concerns about the publishing of simplistic league tables and their ranking of schools. For the information of those who may not be aware of simplistic league tables, I point out that they are tables in which something is ranked, such as a football team might be ranked in a league table. They rank schools on basic information, not on holistic or complex information. The ranking is based on simple information that does not have any other context and the tables do not contain any other information. They simply rank a school in terms of performance. League tables and simplistic league tables are potentially damaging to schools, and they are opposed by almost everyone in the education community.

A democratic society that cares about the education of its young people should not be opposed to giving information that is transparent and based on a whole school community. Information should be available to governments so that schools and teachers can be supported in delivering the best educational outcomes for their school. However, meaningless league tables are the wrong way to obtain information. They do not inform the public or parents. The Opposition absolutely opposes simplistic league tables. It is important when discussing choice to establish that choice is available. We cannot say that we want choice and then create a situation in which choice is not available, which occurs in some communities in New South Wales. We must make sure that every school in New South Wales is supported in offering the best educational outcomes that are possible for the students and their school.

Openness and transparency are good concepts. Parents have a right to know about the school performance of their children and the performance of their school. Listing schools in terms of basic scores is not providing the right type of information. Parents need information to inform their decision on where they will send their children to school, but that information needs to be provided in a context. For some schools in some low socioeconomic or country areas, there are no choices. If a country community has one high school, that is the only high school that children who live in the community will be able to attend. What benefit is there in listing a ranking for that school? We know where the system can go wrong.

The legislation is necessary because in the past simplistic information has been produced that caused enormous anguish and heartache for students, teachers and parents of one particular school. The type of information that was published by the media was a discussion about a class that had failed, based on Higher School Certificate [HSC] results. That information led to legislation prohibiting the Department of Education and Training from publishing or releasing data that can be used in league tables. It also led to regulation that is one of a kind. The legislation was introduced for a reason—so that simplistic league tables could not be introduced. We are now in a position in which the Federal Government is demanding more information.

The Minister should provide ironclad guarantees that a repeat of that school's experience will not be possible. It is a bit of a hard stretch to suggest that the media will not look for data about students and schools in a search for the best and worst performances or that some schools will not be singled out. I cite the remarks of Brian Croke from the Catholic Education Commission in a recent newspaper article in which he stated that league tables "of some sort are inevitable once data for all schools is publicly available in a common format". The Federal Education Minister, Julia Gillard, and her State counterparts throughout Australia say that they do not support simplistic league tables or rankings, but when data is collected from schools it seems to be inevitable that some organisations, perhaps the media, will make comparisons and judgements.

There is a capacity to prevent information from being produced and published, but how can we in New South Wales be assured that available information will not be published in some type of format? The New South Wales freedom of information laws and requirements are different from those of the Commonwealth laws and rules relating to freedom of information and the publication of information. It is important to not compare one school with another, and we should not compare this bill without discussing the unique situation each school is in. For example, is it fair to compare a school in a remote part of western New South Wales of low socioeconomic status with a school in metropolitan Sydney? If any comparisons are made, we should compare apples with apples. Professor Gordon Stanley told the Sydney Morning Herald that the experience in the United States of America shows "an enormous manipulation of data" since schools were asked to show "adequate yearly progress". The article also reported Professor Stanley as saying that "this made it difficult not to corrupt the professional process". He also stated:

We could well end up with a similar situation to the UK, where you get a whole industry created around improving performance on the tests rather than necessarily improving students' learning skills.

We know that with this type of regime, people tend to teach to meet the test so that good outcomes and scores are achieved. We find that teachers, instead of focusing on holistic education, quite understandably focus on the test and will not look at the broader education of the student because the test will be what the student is assessed on, and that also forms the basis of comparison between schools.

Recently I read an article about what goes wrong when crude or simplistic league tables are produced. In the United States of America a suburban Atlanta principal resigned recently because he was caught cheating in relation to student tests. He was jailed and fined. The student tests in four schools in that state were altered in an effort to boost the performances of those schools. That is a worst case scenario, but it shows the level of pressure and what might happen.

[The President left the chair at 6.30 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [8.00 p.m.]: Ranking similar schools is meaningless. Each child in each school is unique. Simplistic league tables show only one small aspect. Therefore the curriculum is often distorted to work towards testing, knowing that the outcome could be misrepresented and mis-presented in terms of a simplistic league table. Testing in schools has a valid role in an educative environment, but the role is that of a diagnostic tool. Testing enables us to assess a child's ability, a child's grasp of concepts. We can then use that testing as a mechanism for putting resources in place strategically and in the right way to deal with any problems that might be occurring, any gaps and any other issues.

Schools already receive data, and they present quite a lot of data to parents about individual children. Certainly, information to parents should be forthcoming. However, data that is not surrounded by other information is data only for the sake of data, and it encourages an environment of blame and shame. One person who is familiar with the negative impact of data publishing is the former New South Wales Director General of Education and the former Chief Executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in England, Dr Ken Boston, who said:

The UK Government's approach to the key stage tests has sucked the oxygen from the classrooms or primary schools. In all but those schools principled enough to resist the pressure put on them, the primary school curriculum has become a dry husk. The teaching program focuses on what is to be tested and on practicing for the tests, because the future of the school is dependent on the result. The necessary enrichment at primary level is impossible so long as the key stage tests continue in their current form and with such high stake consequences.

There is evidence in countries such as Chile, Denmark, England, New Zealand, Scotland, Sweden and America of increased socioeconomic and/or racial segregation in schools that has resulted from competition. Interestingly, the Commonwealth's publication entitled "Principles and Protocols for the Collection and National Reporting of Key Performance Measures for Schooling in Australia" from July last year describes the importance of:

… avoidance of harm to members of the community: this could occur where the privacy of individuals would be compromised or where the reputation of an institution or group of people would be damaged through the publication of misleading information or stereotyping.

How things have changed for both the Federal and State Labor governments since July last year! This raises the fact that league tables are based on a narrow part of the curriculum. There is no consideration of teaching students whose skills lie outside academia or teaching life or work skills that they can use once they leave school. Indeed, the former Minister for education was quoted in the Australian as saying that league tables were a "silly idea" and that using literacy and numeracy results to determine disadvantaged schools funding was too simplistic.

This bill also raises concern that the publishing of league tables or school data may result in the marketing of schools as either good or bad schools and the construction of a hierarchy of schools that are in competition with one another. Far from the ideal of all schools being resourced and supported equally, there is the potential for schools in the lowest socioeconomic levels not being able to lift themselves out of such circumstances due to the reputation and stigma associated with a poor league table result. The New South Wales Coalition will be holding the Minister to her word that this bill will not enable the publication of league tables in New South Wales. The Government needs to provide assurances that protections are in place in New South Wales to prevent the creation of simplistic league tables and that information cannot be constructed when that information is passed on to the Federal Government. Earlier today the Minister said:

The protocols agreed by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs Ministers on 12th June specifically state: "Governments will not publish simplistic league tables or rankings, and will put in place strategies to manage the risk that third parties may seek to produce such tables or rankings."

However, we do not know what those strategies might be. We do not know what strategies will be put in place federally. We know what strategies are in place in New South Wales but we do not know what strategies are in place federally to prevent someone from the media, for example, making a freedom of information request for the information. We can only take the Minister's word—it is incumbent on the Minister—that league tables will not be able to be produced and that similar protections are available. We will be watching carefully because she and the Rees Government will have failed if that information is dispersed from the Federal Government.

The Minister could not have been clearer in her assurance to the Parliament that league tables are not a secret agenda. It was clear in her comments that that was not her plan or the Federal Government's plan. We certainly hope that the Minister's word on that is good; if not, the Minister, the New South Wales Government and the Federal Government will be exposed as failing the parents, teachers and students of New South Wales. Indeed, it will be too late because the information will be in the public domain and able to be misconstrued and misused. It is important to make it clear that New South Wales Liberal-Nationals will always support investment in our schools. The Rees Government must not misinterpret our support for this bill. We are supporting this bill because we support funding to schools, and we would not do anything to risk that funding. We certainly support investment in schools.

The investment in schools from the Federal Government will make up a great deal of the shortfall of the Rees Government in terms of its education failings, including poor teacher retention rates and the maintenance backlog in public schools. And I could go on! The New South Wales Liberal-Nationals oppose the publication of school league tables that unfairly compare diverse schools. While we support increased funding for public schools, State Labor deserves no credit at all for Federal funding flowing from this bill. It is Canberra's doing, without a cent being contributed by New South Wales Labor. Mr Adrian Piccoli, the shadow Minister for Education and Training, has been passionately engaged with this legislation and has supported education in New South Wales. He commented today:

Nathan Rees needs to guarantee the people of NSW that not only will there be no "league tables" but he won't use this money to cut his own expenditure on our kids' education.

Parents in New South Wales should have the right to detailed information about their child's performance, and indeed their child's school but that information should be used to improve performance, to effectively provide additional resources where they are needed. Teachers need information in order to produce better outcomes for their students, to assess learning outcomes and to teach accordingly.

The Liberal-Nationals Coalition supports this legislation to allow the funding of education in New South Wales and to make sure that the funding is not jeopardised. However, we will be watching this Government and this Minister and we will make sure she is true to her word and that negative outcomes do not flow with the information that is transferred to the Federal Government.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.11 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009. This bill will permit New South Wales school results from the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy, known at NAPLAN, to be provided to the Commonwealth for public reporting in accordance with national agreements. The Commonwealth has made this reporting a condition of receipt of Commonwealth schools funding worth $4.8 billion during the next four years. There was doubt whether the State Government would cooperate with the Commonwealth, and negotiations have been delayed that put at risk that very large funding for New South Wales. Thankfully, that funding will be freed up to flow to New South Wales schools and students with the passage of this legislation.

I congratulate the Commonwealth Government on its strong stand. The Christian Democratic Party has been lobbied very strongly by the Teachers Federation, independent education groups and parents and citizens associations who strongly oppose the publication of results from tests and any comparisons between various schools. Obviously the Federal Labor Government has also been strongly lobbied but has kept its nerve and put a condition on the funding, for which I congratulate it. I do not know why repeatedly in this House there is an almost irrational response to the publication of school results. The protocol relating to teachers awards in New South Wales prevents the Department of Education and Training from actions that would facilitate such publication. The opposition comes from many quarters but very strongly from teachers. Why are some teacher bodies and unions so strongly opposed to such publication?

In 1997 a comparison was made of Higher School Certificate results, and Mount Druitt High School was at the bottom of the list. We know that the headline in a newspaper, with a photograph of year 12 students from that school, was "Class we failed", which was demoralising. No-one wants to see such a blame-and-shame example. We should be more positive when looking at comparisons between different schools and ask what the results will help us determine. Like schools must be compared with like schools in relation to geography, socioeconomics, and whether students come from a non-English speaking background. For example, the Kings School, with its millions of dollars of resources, must not be compared with a public school in the western suburbs of Sydney. The publication of results can be used in a more positive way for education bodies, governments and others to study the results to determine the problems of particular schools. They can ascertain why schools have problems, whether it is evidence of insufficient resources—for example, insufficient teachers or additional staff—or whether it is because the school is run down and in bad shape.

We know of an almost anti-education environment in small schools with no air conditioning, portable buildings, hot and uncomfortable accommodation that does not provide a positive atmosphere for good education results. The Government can examine a host of factors and deal with them in a positive way so that struggling schools have the necessary resources to achieve greater success for their children. I believe positive results will flow from this legislation. From the time I entered Parliament I supported this in-principle approach, a position which most parents support but is strongly opposed by teachers or teacher unions. I hope this will not be an ideological struggle and that we can work with the Commonwealth and produce good results for the students of New South Wales. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE [8.17 p.m.]: The Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009 is dangerous legislation. If this legislation passes in its current form, it will do massive damage not only to public schools but to private schools, not only to schools but to students, not only to students but to parents and communities. The proposed legislation is based on a series of false premises. It is legislation with a devastating outcome. This legislation is entirely unnecessary and has no discernable benefit. It is being driven out of an ideology that runs through the New York school system, imported into Australia by Federal education Minister, Julie Gillard, and blackmailed onto the States through a threat of withholding funding, all for one effect: so that Julie Gillard can launch her Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority website, which will damage schools.

There is no question. This is a gun held at the head of low socioeconomic status schools. The intent of this bill facilitates the handing over of school results to the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority website, which was set up by the State and Federal education Ministers for the purposes of having a website that contains each school's results. What will happen is that on a single website there will be so-called rich information, which will contain the context of the school. It will also contain the simplistic information. "Simplistic" is a subset of rich in this case. It will contain school results on the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy. It will contain school results on the Higher School Certificate and school results on the School Certificate. Whenever we say that there are rich results on the website we have to remember also that those rich results can be ignored.

An inevitable consequence of putting all those results in one place is that, for the price of a very simple piece of software, at least one media outlet—if not more—will be able to harvest the raw school data results. It is a simple step from harvesting to setting up a database and creating a simplistic league table. It is a very simple matter to aggregate a weighted sum of the school results and create a ranking number, and from there schools in New South Wales will be listed from top to bottom—from one to about 3,000. There is no way that that can be avoided once those results are put on the website unless we take stern legislative measures. The simplest thing is never to put those results on the website. The more complex thing that I am going to propose if the legislation gets through to the second reading is to introduce bans on simplistic league tables in New South Wales. Remember that this is a listing from top to bottom. Remember what "bottom" means. "Bottom" means that you are the bottom of the list. "Bottom" means that your school has failed and that you are at the school that has failed. That is what this legislation will facilitate.

There is a key simple truth about the website that this legislation creates and that simple truth is that, once the results of schools are on one website, simplistic league tables will follow. The New South Wales education Minister, Verity Firth, and Julia Gillard can hardly talk about this topic without saying how opposed they are to simplistic league tables, but if that is true they are loading the gun. All that is required is for a media organisation to pull the trigger and out the other end comes a simplistic league table. It is one thing to say you are opposed to it, but it is another thing to make sure it does not happen. It is not just that they are not making sure it does not happen—this legislation, and their website, is establishing that it will happen.

They are washing their hands of the consequences. They are saying, "We are against simplistic league tables". That is fine. This is a hand-washing exercise that would shame Pontius Pilate. Nothing in the legislation says that there cannot be simplistic league tables. All the legislation says is that the Government cannot produce those league tables. But behind the legislation lies a collection of data, which inevitably will lead to media outlets stripping out the simplistic part of the data and creating those rankings of league tables. This is not just supposition; it is precisely what happened in the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom started with a set of achievement and attainment tables—all well and good—but within a year the BBC, one of the more reputable media outlets in the United Kingdom, was producing lists of the top 201 schools and, yes, the bottom 201 schools. I ask anybody who is thinking of voting for this legislation to consider what it means to be in the bottom 201 schools—what it means for the students, what it means for the staff, what it means for the parents, what it means for the principal and what it means for the community that supports that school, nurtures that school, depends on that school and loves that school to be told, "Your school is in the bottom 201 schools". There is no difference in substance between the United Kingdom's achievement and attainment tables and the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority website being set up by the Rudd Government with the compliance of the Rees Government and with the compliance of this piece of legislation.

Why should we worry about league tables? What is wrong with simplistic league tables? I will give seven good reasons why we should not have them. The first is that it hollows out the curriculum by focusing schools on test results, away from education. Secondly, it damages schools that serve disadvantaged communities. Thirdly, it undermines confidence in schools amongst students, staff and the community. Fourthly, it is inherently unjust and misleading. Having that sort of data in public domain inherently leads to false conclusions about schools. Fifthly, it creates the false impression of accountability. It does not create accountability; it creates the excuse for not having school accountability. Sixthly, it puts pressure on low-performing students to shape up or ship out. In effect, that means to ship out for those students who simply do not have the talent to perform well in tests.

Finally, it is a failure in the United Kingdom and it is a failure in the United States—why on earth are we importing into Australia failed education models? There are successful education models. Countries such as Finland that do brilliantly in education do not go down the route of league tables. In fact, they do not even go down the route of common testing. They go down the route of putting their money, their resources and their focus into education. They do not educate to test; they test to educate. What leagues tables will do is create educating for testing—in fact, teaching for testing.

Let me talk about the hollowing out of the curriculum. The league tables, as I have said before, are based on the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy results, the School Certificate and the Higher School Certificate. By allowing schools to be ranked on the basis of their common results in those tests, the tests become extremely high stakes for the schools. The National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy, as we know, was supposed to be a diagnostic tool for individual students. It was never designed to assess schools by aggregating student marks. Once tests become high stakes then inevitably schools seek to not be at the low end of the testing regime and they will teach to the numbers. No longer will schools be about education; they will be about testing results. Rumours are that a number of schools have begun to teach to the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy, spending months before the test teaching to the program. I am very proud to say that the rumours that have reached me are not about public schools but about non-government schools.

The Hon. Robyn Parker quoted former New South Wales Director General of Education Ken Boston. When Dr Boston left New South Wales after a long tenure as director general he went to the United Kingdom and he became the chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. In effect, it was his responsibility to create the achievement and attainment tables in the United Kingdom. In his farewell media conference he said that the United Kingdom Government's approach to key stage testing had sucked the oxygen from the classrooms of primary schools, and he continued:

In all but those schools principled enough to resist the pressure upon them, the primary school curriculum has become a dry husk. The teaching program focuses on what is to be tested and on practising for the tests, because the future of the school … is dependent upon the result …

The necessary enrichment at primary level is impossible so long as the key stage tests continue in their current form and with such high-stakes consequences.

What Dr Boston is telling us—and this is a man whom this Government and its predecessor entrusted with running the New South Wales public education system—is that he spent 10 years in the United Kingdom setting up and running these league tables, data collection and data publication, and he is sounding a firm warning to Australia: "Don't do it, Australia, because if you do you are going to undermine educational outcomes". But it is not just Ken Boston. Professor Gordon Stanley, the former chair of the Board of Studies who has now gone on to be a professor at a well-known international university and is a well-known expert on education, said that national tests in literacy and numeracy should not be used simply to rank schools. The results should be used to rapidly diagnose and remedy any learning problems identified. He continued:

The interesting issue will be how much ranking of schools and how much focus there is on the national tests as an accountability tool. We could well end up with a similar situation to the UK, where you get a whole industry created around improving performance on the tests rather than necessarily improving students' learning skills …

Testing is really only valuable in so far as it provides timely feedback that will help teachers working with their students.

In effect, what Professor Stanley is saying is that you may end up teaching for the assessment rather than having an assessment of learning. The reality is that high-stakes testing, as proposed, results in destroying the educational outcome. It is not just how things are taught; it is also what happens between key learning areas. Areas that are not part of the high-stakes testing—arts, physical education, and development of the student—will be undervalued and will wither and perish in our schools. Only those schools that are prepared to buck the system and deal with the humiliation will run the risk of not being part of the race for better common testing results. If we value our curriculum, if we value education, and if we value the outcomes of our schools, we will reject this legislation and the league tables that it creates.

In January 1997, Sydney's Daily Telegraph published a front page with a photo of Mount Druitt High School's Higher School Certificate class from the previous year under the headline "The class we have failed". The school's best Higher School Certificate students scored 44.4 out of 100. Three things happened as a result of that. First, the students sued the Daily Telegraph and won. I do not think you can say we failed those students. All we can say is that those students were wonderful kids who went on to do great things. They learnt how to stick up for themselves and not allow themselves, their school or their community to be bullied by Murdoch's media outlets.

Secondly, we learnt that we need to protect schools that do not do so well in test results. That was enacted through section 18A of the Act and clause 4 of the Education Regulation, both of which moved towards prohibiting the sort of naming and shaming that was created by the league tables in New South Wales. Thirdly, we learnt that testing results are useful only if they add value to education. They are of no value in assessing schools as a whole. For 12 years the State of New South Wales has worked hard to avoid humiliating schools because we know that humiliation does not help. When a school is down and gets poor results the last thing we want to do is publicly humiliate them. Those schools need help in the form of resources, teachers and more money. They need new teachers to help them break the bad cycles, but they do not need humiliation because it does not help.

We also learnt that humiliation is usually not justified. Schools do wonderful things. Sometimes the things that schools do that are so valuable do not show up in the common test results. That is not relevant here because life is not about Higher School Certificate scores or National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy scores. Life is about education and transforming students and young people into good citizens, into whole people who value themselves and their friends, colleagues and community. All schools work hard to achieve that. Some do better than others. Some start further up the curve than others. The reality is that humiliating schools because their students do not do well in the Higher School Certificate or the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy is no excuse for not helping those schools. It is no measure of how those schools are really performing.

If there really is a problem and a school is failing, why would we humiliate that school? Why do we not do what we ought to do, which is put resources into that school and give it more teachers, smaller class sizes and new programs? The evidence is very clear. The nation's education Ministers made it very clear what was going on, as the Opposition spokesperson said earlier. I refer to the July 2008 "Principles and Protocols for the Collection and National Reporting of MCEETYA Key Performance Measures for Schooling in Australia". MCEETYA is the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. It is the nation's peak council of Ministers who are responsible for education. In July 2008 education Ministers from around the nation were referring to "The avoidance of harm to members of the community. This could occur where the privacy of individuals would be compromised or where the reputation of an institution or group of people would be damaged through the publication of misleading information or stereotyping."

A core "do no harm" principle was sewn into the data protocols for the collection and national reporting of key performance measures for schools. Fast forward just one year to June 2009 and we get this document, "Principles and protocols for reporting on schooling in Australia". This is the running document for the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. A number of us have been through this document with a fine toothcomb and there is nothing in here that talks about "do no harm". It says reporting should be in the public interest and reporting on the outcomes of schooling should use data that is valid, reliable and contextualised, and many things like that, but nowhere is there any mention of "do no harm". The closest we get to it, which I will come back to later, is the third dot point under "Responsible use of data measuring in Australian schools". It says, "Governments will not publish simplistic league tables or rankings and will put in place strategies to manage the risk that third parties may seek to produce such tables or rankings."

The omission is an admission. The omission of a "do no harm" principle is an admission that what the nation's education Ministers have in mind here will do harm to some schools. Furthermore, it talks about putting in place strategies to manage the risk, not to stop it happening. That is the best they can come up with. They are admitting that there is a risk that third parties may seek to produce such tables or rankings. By their omission they have admitted that harm will be done to some schools. It is very clear which schools they are and what damage will be done.

The third reason for opposing this legislation is that it will undermine confidence in schools. Suppose your school comes out at the 50 percentile in a league table published in one of the major daily newspapers in New South Wales. What does that tell you? It says that your school is just average. The message that you receive from reading the newspaper is that your school is just average. All members in this Chamber know that no school is just average. Every school does extraordinary things. Every school is responsible for making citizens, for making whole human beings, and that is an extraordinary transformation. If we tell children that they go to an average school—or, worse still, tell children that their school is in the bottom 10 percentile—how can we expect students to have pride and engagement in their school when they are told that 90 per cent of schools are better than theirs. "You are going to a loser school." That is the message that the simplistic league tables developed from the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority website will send to students around New South Wales.

Why is it that we are about to embark on a process that tells students that their schools are failing when they are clearly not failing? Why is it we are telling communities that their schools are failing when they are not? Why are we telling teachers that their schools are failing when they are not? The fourth reason for opposing this legislation—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Did you say there are seven reasons?

Dr JOHN KAYE: Yes, but more are coming to me as I speak. The fourth reason is that the league tables are unjust and misleading. Once the league table is set up, the context and like-school comparisons and all the nice words will be forgotten. All that will be hacked out of this website will be the data itself, leaving the simplistic rankings that do not do justice to schools and do not give adequate weight to the work that schools do. It feeds preconceptions and it is based on data that should never have been used to rank schools. The National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy test was designed to diagnose learning problems and learning achievements in students. It was never designed for the task to which the nation's education Ministers are confining it. The Parliamentary Secretary will say that the Greens are blaming Verity Firth for something she is not doing; we are blaming her for the league tables.

[Interruption]

No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will say that but once this Parliament approves that data being put in place we have to take responsibility for it. These league tables will give a false impression of accountability. The numbers alone do not tell the story. Dollars are what are really needed. We will be taking away the real accountability, which should be to members of Parliament, the Government and the Minister for Education and Training.

The pressure on low-performing students would be inexorable. We have seen this in the United Kingdom and in the United States of America, where pressure was placed on schools to ease out those students who brought down school test results. Public education in Australia welcomes all students, regardless of their talents, abilities or interests. It values every student equally because it believes that every student is a young person who deserves the best go in life, and his or her inherent humanity is important to public education. We are placing pressure on schools to disregard their values and to focus purely on creating numbers outcomes.

Finally, the international experience shows strongly that we should not do this. It failed in the United Kingdom and in the United States, and it has caused appalling outcomes in the New York school district under the chancellorship of Joel Klein, who is so loved and supported by the Federal Minister for Education. All that it does is damage schools when they are down. Countries that do not do this perform perfectly well, or even better, in education. I have spoken before in this House about the success of Finland, which does not engage in the foolishness of league tables. Let me refer briefly to why that is happening and let me refer also to the justifications put forward by both the State and Federal Ministers.

The first justification relates to transparency and accountability. New South Wales already has annual school reports. The New South Wales Government should be aware of that as it passes legislation to create annual school reports. Most of those school reports are on websites—and if they are not, they should be. These annual school reports contain test results, like school comparisons—although the like school comparisons could be improved—and context. However, the big difference is that they are not on one website; they are on 3,000 websites around New South Wales. There is no invitation to harvest that data or to create simplistic league tables. But there is accountability to the community, accountability to parents, accountability to prospective parents, and accountability to politicians and bureaucrats.

If members wanted to find out what was happening in Sydney Girls High School or in Leeton High School, all they would have to do was go to their websites and have a good read. School websites make good and exciting reading because that is where schools have an opportunity to tell parents, the community and politicians what they really do. School websites do not contain only test results; they contain all the brilliant things that are done in art and drama, the fabulous things that are done in personal development, the amazing things that are done in sport, and the unbelievable things that are done for children with special needs—things that do not show up on the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy [NAPLAN] and things that are ignored on the website of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA].

The second reason that this has been touted as a good idea, in particular, by the Federal Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, is that we need it to help struggling schools. I am dumbfounded for an analogy. This is a spectacular leap of logic. If we need to help schools that are struggling let us help them. There is no reason to put them onto a public website where they are compared against other schools and told publicly that they have problems. They know they have problems and the department and the Minister also know, so why do we not do something about it? Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile said in his contribution that we need to put them onto a public website.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: I understand the logic.

Dr JOHN KAYE: It does not surprise me at all that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile understands Julia Gillard's logic. It says a lot about the logic of Julia Gillard that it fits in neatly with the logic of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. Putting these schools onto a website will not help them. It will not help to identify those schools that have problems. Teachers, parents and the department know when a school has problems. The third reason that we have been given relates to money. We have been told variously that between $4.7 billion or $700 million—depending on those to whom we speak—will be cut out of education revolution funds if we do not pass this bill. Let us analyse that statement carefully. When did State governments start folding in to blackmail? At what point did State governments suddenly say to the Federal Government, "We will do whatever you want whether or not we like it. We will do it because if we do not you will take away our funds"?

The Hon. Don Harwin: There was a constitutional convention in the 1890s.

Dr JOHN KAYE: There are two key issues in this debate. Mr Don Harwin referred to a constitutional convention in the 1890s. Let us talk about former Treasurer Michael Costa. Michael Costa did not like the way in which New South Wales was being treated with respect to infrastructure funds for the Building the Education Revolution and the Digital Education Revolution. Michael Costa told the Federal Government, "Shove it; we will not play your game." Guess what happened? The Federal Government folded in and gave New South Wales the money. It did that for a really straightforward reason: New South Wales comprises one-third of the population of the nation. New South Wales has—

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: The Coalition Government was weak.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile said that the Coalition was weak. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is wrong. When that happened a Coalition government was not in power; we had a Labor Government in New South Wales versus a Labor Government federally. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is misleading the House. Let me return to the point that I was making. That happened because New South Wales comprises one-third of the population of the nation and New South Wales has more than one-third of the Federal marginal seats. I very much doubt whether a Federal Government would seriously withhold $4.2 billion from public education in New South Wales when it is only a year or so out from an election. In reality, no Federal government would do that. That is posturing; it is a game of poker. State governments play that game of poker exceptionally poorly.

It is time for State governments not to give in to bullying from the Federal Minister for Education and to stand up and say, "No, we will not play your silly game." It is not just the Greens who are saying that this is a bad idea; it is also the Teachers Federation, the New South Wales Federation of Parents and Citizens, the Primary Principals Council, the Secondary Principals Council, the Public School Principals Forum, the Independent Education Union, and the principals representative from the Independent Education Union. But they are just markers for the 60,000 public schoolteachers and the 20,000 private schoolteachers, the 2,200 public school principals and the 800 private school principals, the two million parents and the 2½ million students around New South Wales who are saying with one voice, "We do not want simplistic league tables. We do not need the ACARA website. We do not need this legislation to go through."

Those who vote for this legislation are doing so against what every education expert is saying. They are doing so against what the students, the parents, the teachers and the community are saying to them, and they are doing so against the best interests of the students. They are doing so based on fuzzy logic and misrepresentation of international experience. They are washing their hands of the appalling consequences for low socioeconomic status [SES] schools, and they are washing their hands of the consequences for educational outcomes. I urge all members to reject this legislation.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [8.57 p.m.]: It is with some diffidence that I speak in debate on the Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009 after Dr John Kaye, who is passionate about this issue. The object of the bill is to amend the Education Act 1990 and to amend provisions that are currently contained in the regulations under that Act relating to the prohibition on the public release of school results, including results of national basic skills testing and the School Certificate and Higher School Certificate examinations that disclose the results of particular students or rank particular schools. The amendments will authorise the State to provide school results to the Commonwealth or an authority established by the Commonwealth in accordance with any national agreement to which New South Wales is a party, and for the publication of results relating to particular schools in accordance with any such agreement.

The Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill will implement the agreements reached by the Council of Australian Governments in 2008 and by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. All State and Territory governments and the Commonwealth have agreed that, for the first time, in 2009 there will be national uniform reporting of the results of individual schools. Since 1997 all public schools in New South Wales have been required publicly to report on their performance and to publish information about their performance in externally conducted tests, such as the basic skills tests in literacy and numeracy in primary schools, the English language and literacy assessment test [ELLA] and the Secondary Numeracy Assessment Program [SNAP] in junior secondary. There is also the School Certificate and the Higher School Certificate in senior secondary schools.

Since 2008 the Basic Skills Test, the English Language and Literacy Assessment test and the Secondary Numeracy Assessment Program have been replaced by an equivalent test under the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy [NAPLAN]. In 2007 every school annual report was required to include the school's performances with optional reporting against the State average. I checked a number of schools via their websites and established that most schools found a great deal to comfort them; they were proud of their standing and the way their students and teachers had performed. More than 60 per cent of schools report their test results against a group of schools with similar background characteristics, and hundreds of schools proudly publish their reports on their website. I think what they do willingly is altogether different to what may be done by other people with schools that are unwilling partners.

We are at a critical time in Australian education. Educators, students, parents and policymakers all agree that schools should be accountable, that students should have access to the best possible education and that reporting should be subject to greater transparency. The Federal Government was elected on a platform of promising an education revolution. I support the Rudd Government's commitment to delivering first-class education to all Australian children and to enhancing accountability and transparency in our schools, but I cannot support the creation and publication of simplistic league tables, as they have come to be known. Australia, in particular New South Wales, has the chance to maintain our first-class education among OECD countries, or we can follow the United States and United Kingdom models of publishing league tables, as outlined in detail by Dr Kaye.

My first concern relates to the potential misuse of this data by third parties, particularly by the media and other commentators, who may be tempted to misleading conclusions and build fictitious league tables that unfairly denigrate the performance and operation of particular schools and the work of their teaching and leadership teams. I took the opportunity today to indicate to one of the advisers to the Minister for Education and Training how, if I were a journalist, I could compare schools and publish the results. The adviser indicated that it is possible using the plan I outlined to publish such fictitious league tables. This was clearly evident in the Hobart Mercury of 6 May and the Brisbane Courier Mail of 23 May. While the Mercury issued some cautions, nothing alerted the reader to the errors and false assumptions underlying the printed rankings—for example, the averaging approach the paper took to squeeze the district central schools into the list. The Hobart Mercury scored three Hobart high schools exactly the same, yet ranked them differently.

Professor Gordon Stanley, former head of the New South Wales Board of Studies and an educator of outstanding note, said that in the United States data had been manipulated enormously since schools were asked to publish adequate yearly progress. The possible misuse of the data is detrimental in protecting the privacy of individuals and preventing damage to the reputation of an institution or group of people. The publication of league tables creates an environment of winners and losers, which brings me to my second concern. Competition and choice between schools exacerbates achievement gaps between the rich and the poor and along racial, religious and ethnic divides. All they will do is give us a socioeconomic map of a city like Sydney. International studies show that students from schools of low socioeconomic backgrounds fare worse when there is high social segregation.

When published school results appear, competition between schools heightens and markets rise. Winning schools can then choose which students they will have; losing schools have few means to lift themselves out of the mire. Simple comparisons based on results such as National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy tests affect staff morale, teaching and learning. Rankings like these do not assist students, teachers, parents or schools. My third concern relates to the fact that league tables are based only on test results from a narrow part of the curriculum, such as English and mathematics. Simplistic league tables overlook achievements in the arts, music, science, humanities and social sciences. Hence, we will have an education system that does not foster creativity or critical analysis. We will simply have an educational system that encourages teaching for the test. All my life I have been a strong believer in and committed to what is called a liberal arts curriculum—broad-based education designed to equip a person for a living, not just for a job.

Dr Ken Boston, former Chief Executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in the United Kingdom and former outstanding New South Wales Director General of the Department of Education and Training, found that many young people are poorly equipped for employment, and that these young people generally have good General Certificate of Secondary Education [GCSE] results and come from schools at or near the top of the United Kingdom league tables. Speaking in the United Kingdom Dr Boston stated:

Employers find that, despite their formal qualifications, many young people are unable to communicate simply and well; they cannot work in teams; they lack initiative, enterprise and the capacity to foresee and resolve problems; and they lack a thirst for continued learning and personal growth. They are deficient in the soft skills that form an essential component of each individual's human capital, some of them to the extent that they are in fact unemployable. This situation is not a figment of employers' imagination. It is real and it is a crisis.

Dr Boston criticised the United Kingdom Government's approach to key stage tests, which, as mentioned by two previous members, "sucked the oxygen from the classrooms of primary schools". I ask members in this House: Do we really want New South Wales classrooms to just focus on learning simply for the tests or do we want classrooms that produce creativity, innovation, enterprise and communication? The damage to curriculum provision, students and entire school communities resulting from league tables is well documented in international research and evidence. In the interests of time I will not refer to all the negative experiences in the United States and the United Kingdom. Dr Kaye and other members have outlined those negative experiences. League tables are overtly simplistic and potentially damaging to many schools.

I am amazed at the breadth of opposition in the education community to league tables. As mentioned by other members, they include the Federation of Parents and Citizens Association of New South Wales; the New South Wales Primary Principals' Association Inc.; the Public Schools Principals Forum; the New South Wales Secondary Principals' Council; the New South Wales Teachers Federation; the Australian Education Union; the Australian Secondary Principals Association Inc.; Art Education Australia; the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia; the Australian Association of Christian Schools—Christian schools in Australia oppose this and expect members in this House to support them in this process; the Association of Women Educators; the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers; the Australian Association for the Teaching of English Inc—

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: It is not on my conscience at all.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: No, it is not on your conscience because the Bible tells us that a conscience can be seared. That is what happens when sometimes you get carried away with other objectives. Other educational organisations opposed to league tables include the Australian Council for Education Leaders, the Australian Literacy Educators' Association, the Australian School Library Association, the Australian Science Teachers Association, the Australian Society for Music Education, Business Educators of Australasia Inc, Catholic Secondary Principals Australia and the Independent Education Union of Australia. Could there be any other organised educational gathering or group of people who actually support league tables? I think not.

In conclusion, I support parents and children having choice when selecting schools and in the scrutiny of information about school results. However, I believe league tables are the wrong way to inform students, parents, educators and policymakers. If we go down the path of publishing school league tables, willingly or unwillingly, we should do the same for medical practitioners. Should we not do the same for law firms? I have even considered league tables for members of Parliament. For example, what kind of league tables could be drawn up for members of Parliament? Would all those who expend their logistic support allocation accurately and effectively, and not overspend it—as Stuart Lowe makes sure we do not—get high marks? Would members who talk the most, even if they say little and do not add to the common good, get high marks? Would those who spend the most hours in Parliament House but little time in their electorates get high marks? Are good marks given to those who spend their electorate allowance in the Parliament House wine cellar? It is fitting that I conclude with a quote from Ken Boston in a United Kingdom Times article, in which he stated:

You fatten a steer by providing a full and nutritious diet not by constantly weighing it.

This bill does not have the paramount interests of students, parents or educators in mind. We must not denigrate the lower-scoring schools; we must support and encourage them. Because of the arguments I have outlined, I cannot, in good faith, support this bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.00 p.m.]: The Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009 is loser legislation and we need to turn the tables on it. It is dangerous legislation, as my colleague John Kaye has succinctly set out. The role of the Minister for Education and Training, Ms Firth, is of great concern. Certainly other factors are at play here, but she must remember that this legislation will dog her career; this will frame her work for years, and decades, to come. That is how serious the impact will be on public education, and indeed the education of all young people.

The Minister has tried to duck and weave; she has used various word formulations to try to make out that the bill is not what it appears. These are just machinations. The real intent is serious and she will be ashamed of the legacy of this bill—if she is not already. The legislation sickens me. It is vital to have an education system that allows all young people to gain an education without being labelled winners or losers. When considering this legislation, I thought of the public schools that I attended: Newtown, Kangaroo Valley, Nowra, Bronte and Sydney Girls High. My children also benefited from a public school education. People know the dangers associated with ranking any public school, and they know that this policy is a setback.

It is hard to comprehend that any government, let alone a Labor Government, would push this bill forward with such zeal. League tables are not just an attack on education; they actually damage the very fabric of our society by creating divisions. They pit students against students, and teachers against teachers. There is always a bit of cynicism about the way in which schools in other areas work. That is part of the competitive spirit and how life plays out, but good teachers can play it down. However, when that is the framework and everything fits into that competitive model—with schools ranked from "A" to "F", for fail—it is unacceptable.

It is worth noting the tactics of the Federal and State education Ministers, Ms Gillard and Ms Firth. They must know where the system is leading. They have tried desperately to make out that they have good intentions of improving the education system. It is worth examining Ms Gillard's language. She said that she is out there "to identify the most disadvantaged", that "no-one will be left behind", and the aim is "to compare similar schools to identify those in need of further assistance". At all times she makes out that this is about improving the system when in fact it is the very opposite. The other justification is that there will be "a new era of transparency". It will not be transparency; it is a simplification of the whole notion of education to the point where the divide in our society will be so damaged that it will be hard to repair.

Ms Gillard often talks about the New York experience. Those who back the New York system say in its favour that only 50 of the 1,400 schools in New York were actually rated an "F". In the education system one immediately thinks of "F" for failure; one cannot get away from that. It may be only 50 out of 1,400, but 50 schools still received an "F" rating, and those schools are immediately stigmatised. When Ms Gillard and Ms Firth argue the case, they again speak about wanting to lift student performance and address underachievement. We all seek to do that but this system will not achieve that aim. Those phrases are deceptive about the real outcome.

Although I am concerned about the role of the New South Wales Minister of Education and Training, it is the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who are the flag bearers of the league table push. It is insidious because once that information is on the Internet, as my colleague John Kaye so clearly stated, programs can be used to take that information off the Internet and it can be printed. Schools will be tagged as losers for time immemorial. As to the concept about sharing good experiences and ensuring achievement across the board, teachers already share good teaching practice between schools. That is done regularly. We do not need a ranking system to achieve that goal. I have read speeches from earlier debates on this issue and note former Premier Morris Iemma said that comparing schools in different parts of the State could be quite problematic. I do not think he changed his position. Widespread criticism by many respected educators has been detailed, particularly by Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. I want to add one more voice to those who have given an important critique of this very dangerous legislation. Dean of the University of Melbourne, Professor Brian Caldwell, accused the Federal Government of being hell-bent on creating league tables comparing schools and urged parents to boycott national tests so that the results cannot be used to shame underperformers. I have read about other people who have studied how these league tables play out, and they agree with his view. Professor Caldwell said:

Teachers often spend more time preparing students for the exams at the expense of the wider curriculum.

They do so purely because they are under so much pressure to come up with good results and because their professional standing depends on it. I am not critical of teachers who do that. The system pushes them into it. What happens to schools that are pushed into this system and those at the bottom of the table? Many schools will be held up to ridicule. Dr Kaye reminded us of the disgraceful front page of the Daily Telegraph in 1997, when young people in their final year of school were held up to ridicule. I imagine parents would withdraw their children from schools at the bottom of the table.

The Hon. Robyn Parker: They can't because of zoning requirements sometimes.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection. I remember when my children were young how parents felt pressured as to whether they had their children in the right school and whether they should withdraw them. I believe there would be similar pressure under this proposal, and that parents and citizens associations of schools at the bottom of the table would struggle. Why would parents be inspired to work hard for that school? There is also the victimisation of, and difficulties faced by, teachers at a loser school. It is also documented that schools at the higher end of the table will be under pressure to poach better, well-performing students so they can maintain their ranking. Generally, we would see increasing inequality. It would be deeply disturbing and would have wide ramifications through our society.

The voices of opposition to the legislation are extensive. A letter has been signed by 15 groups, including teachers unions and principals associations, as well as independent and Catholic schools. Dr Moyes provided the details of those letters very well, but I will add just one sentence. A letter to the Federal Minister for Education, Julia Gillard, states, "We write to strongly urge you to take legislative action prohibiting the creation and publication of league tables." It cannot be put more simply than that. Government leaders say that their role is to respond to the community and they travel throughout the State to hold community Cabinets, yet in this instance they have clear indication and direction, which is being ignored.

The President of the Australian Secondary Principals Association, Andrew Blair, stated that league tables would lead to a "narrowing" of curriculums as schools focus on teaching the content of standardised tests. I made that point earlier, and it highlights one detrimental way in which the legislation may play out. We will have a return to that narrow 1950s focus on education and lose the benefits that so many educational professionals and teachers have brought to our education system in recent decades. It is worth noting that the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, have taken great trouble to present their scheme as being much softer and not problematic at all. They have argued that simplistic league tables will not be introduced in Australia. However, their attempts to justify the scheme that they are pushing onto the States have been blown out of the water by what happened in Tasmania.

I must repeat this example because it is so serious. It is a reminder of what will happen when this information is circulated in the community. Let us remember that last October the Tasmanian Premier, David Bartlett, justified his Government's decision to collect this information by saying it "is not about ranking schools or creating league tables." Yet, precisely six months later his assurance meant nothing. The Hobart Mercury published a league table because the newspaper was able to suck out the information and provide a ranking of schools from top to bottom. That alone should have been enough for the New South Wales Minister for Education and Training to say in her party room, "We're not going to do this. This is too dangerous and too destructive of our education system. We're just not going to touch it." Sadly, she did not do that, and we are now debating this legislation that simply goes too far.

It is worth reminding ourselves how far reaching the implications of league tables can be. They can impact upon everything from school funding to teachers' pay. The viability of individual schools will be determined by the basis of so-called student outcomes. The Government is pushing ahead with this legislation because it is tied up with the Federal Government's funding model, and that is dangerous at every turn. I will give the last word to Queensland teachers because this legislation largely deals with the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy, or NAPLAN, testing. Queensland teachers have coined the term "napalm" to describe Labor's new testing regime. They claim that its focus on test results to the exclusion of other aspects of the curriculum kills learning like napalm kills trees. It bombs the whole premise upon which public education has developed and all other aspects of education in this country. This legislation is a disaster. It is a disgrace. If it is passed, it will dog the New South Wales Minister of Education and Training throughout her career.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN [9.14 p.m.]: Everybody brings a different perspective to this type of debate. Although I did not intend to comment on the Education Amendment (Publication of School Results) Bill 2009, I will impart my perspective. When I was in the Army and we had to move every two years, my three daughters went to a Catholic school. Increasingly families have to move from location to location, so children have to change schools frequently. My girls went to Catholic schools because I thought that at least Catholic schools would provide some type of standardisation of education throughout Australia. At one stage they were attending a Catholic school at Penrith but because of my posting to the city we had to move to the eastern suburbs. My three daughters had to drop back a full year because their old school was a year behind the public school curriculum. I questioned that and I was told that there was no standardisation mechanism. Nevertheless, they were a year behind.

In those days I did not know enough about the education system to speak to someone about it, but as a parent I would have loved to have had a system that enabled me to look at the schools and find where I could best place my daughters. We know that parents are prepared to sacrifice almost everything for their children's education. We certainly were; we went without a lot to get it, and I think that is a fairly common point of view. I think parents should have the opportunity to obtain as much information as possible to enable them to make proper decisions in regard to the education of their children. I felt that the education system failed us. It took a long time to recover from that. I do not think that information on schools should be denied to parents who are trying to do the right thing for their children.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.16 p.m.], in reply: The capacity to report on the results achieved by schools in the New South Wales education system has been the subject of a regulation since 1997 that prevents the publication of school test results in a manner that ranks or otherwise compares the results of individual schools. It also protects the publication of information that reveals the results of particular students without their consent. The New South Wales Labor Government introduced these limitations on the publication of data to protect school communities from simplistic league tables.

As my colleague the Minister of Education and Training stated in the other place, we are unequivocally opposed to measures that rank schools in that way. Despite some of the debate tonight, there appears to be furious agreement in the House on this issue. What the Commonwealth will be doing is providing parents, systems and schools with a rich array of data that enables informed decision-making. The provision of that information to parents is crucial. New South Wales already provides substantial information to parents, and has done so for a decade. The new Commonwealth requirements recognise that Australia is a country of 20 million people and that a national approach to the provision of information is long overdue.

This legislation retains our opposition to league tables while maintaining support for the Commonwealth's position on the appropriate publication of data. Despite the endless protestations of Opposition members—on a bill that they have agreed nevertheless to support—New South Wales will be the only State out of all the State and Territory governments that retains its opposition to league tables in legislation. It is the Opposition that is opportunistic and hypocritical in relation to this matter. For 10 years their colleagues at the Federal level introduced pointless reforms, insisting on flagpoles and posters. There was no policy on school improvement from the Howard Government—just self-serving culture wars and continued attacks on public education. New South Wales complied with the then Commonwealth demands because they were preconditions for funding. And what was the response of the New South Wales Opposition to a decade of attacks, underfunding and silly games? It was dead silence and a refusal to engage in intelligent debate but, more importantly, a failure to defend New South Wales schools in general, and public schools in particular.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Catherine Cusack will cease interjecting.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: Now that the Rudd Government has provided significant funding attached to real reform, the Opposition has begun to take notice of Commonwealth education policies for the first time in a decade. Those opposite have finally woken up. Beneath the Opposition's confected outrage lies a deep lack of faith in the performance of public schools. Their words are defensive and their tone is offensive. Every parent has the right to expect that a school will provide the best possible education for their child.

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

The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: My point of order, without acknowledging the interjection, is nevertheless the same as the Hon. Catherine Cusack shouted out, which is that the Parliamentary Secretary is introducing material that is totally outside the ambit of the matters referred to in the second reading debate. The Parliamentary Secretary claims that she is replying to the Hon. Robyn Parker, but no such material was raised by the Hon. Robyn Parker. The Parliamentary Secretary is referring to matters that are completely outside the ambit of a speech in reply. I therefore ask you to call her to order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! By definition, and in accordance with tradition, in a House of review the second reading debate may be wide ranging. In this debate members have referred extensively to the bill before the Chair, to previous governments and even to members in the other place. As the contributions of members to second reading debates may be wide ranging, equally any reply, in this case by the Parliamentary Secretary, to those contributions may also wide ranging. The Parliamentary Secretary may continue.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: As I said, every parent has the right to expect that a school will provide the best possible education for their child. And that ability is evenly distributed across postcodes. Context is important but should never be an excuse. The provision of Commonwealth data will assist schools, parents, systems and governments to allocate funding, make choices, and identify what works and, more importantly, what does not work. I also address the issue of "like school groups" and the Commonwealth protocols. Like schools groups will allow appropriate comparisons between schools serving similar populations in similar communities. Not all communities are the same, but some schools serving similar communities perform better than others. We need to know that, and we need to know why. And members of the public who send their children to these schools also deserve these answers.

The Commonwealth publication of school information will not rank schools on a singe measure. Like school groups are designed to prevent this from occurring. They will allow meaningful comparisons. The Commonwealth protocols are an important additional safeguard. The alternative is for communities, parents and systems to have less information than bureaucrats and Ministers. Parents make decisions about schooling every year. They make decisions on the basis of available information. The bill will assist in this process. It is the height of hypocrisy for the Opposition to come into this place and lecture the Government about league tables and the unfair comparisons of schools. The Department of Education and Training recently received a freedom of information application from the Leader of the Opposition. The freedom of information application seeks, for every secondary school, the number of Higher School Certificate awards and the number of students with a university entrance rank above the median. This beggars belief. In other words, the application seeks exactly the same information that would be used to construct a simplistic ranking of schools—a league table. The Opposition wants to have access to this information for political purposes, but it does not think the public should have access to it.

The school reports that will be published by the Commonwealth will contain contextual information so that the public can make sense of the test results that accompany it. For the Opposition to suggest that parents and school communities could not understand that, frankly, is offensive. The Commonwealth's reports will make sure that comparisons of schools are fair and constructive. The Leader of the Opposition simply wants to be able to rank schools for political purposes. This bill allows New South Wales to provide data to the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth to use it in accordance with national agreements and protocols. It therefore guarantees important funding to New South Wales education. It moves the relevant existing regulation into the Education Act and clearly signals the Government's opposition to simplistic league tables. It demonstrates a balance between transparency and responsibility, and it continues the high standard of education policy produced by this Government over the last decade.

As the Minister for Education and Training stated in her second reading speech, all State and Territory governments and the Commonwealth have agreed that, for the first time, in 2009 there will be nationally uniform reporting about the results of individual schools. The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs endorsed the principle that:

The provision of school information to the community should be done in such a way as to enhance community engagement and understanding of the educational enterprise.

The national agreement replicates the best features of the system we have developed in New South Wales—individual reports for each school, with rich information, rather than a single numeral. The protocols agreed to by the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs meeting on 12 June specifically state:

Governments will not publish simplistic league tables or rankings, and will put in place strategies to manage the risk that third parties may seek to produce such tables or rankings.

The bill gets the balance right. It builds on the record of increasing transparency about school performance, a record that New South Wales is proud of. Parents in New South Wales should have the right to detailed information about the performance of their child's school, information that presents a fair comparison of their school's performance against other similar schools. It is vital for the education of children across New South Wales that the bill is passed urgently by this Parliament. Tied to this national agreement is $4.8 billion in funding over the next four years. That is around $1.2 billion per annum, or roughly 20 per cent of the annual cost of employing public school teachers and other school staff. But this bill is not only about funding. It is also about transparency and a parent's right to know. All parents and communities should be able to use the richest array of information when looking at schools for their children. Once again I place on record the Government's opposition to league tables. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.
Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Dr JOHN KAYE [9.34 p.m.]: I move:

Page 3, schedule 1 [1], proposed section 18A. Insert after line 26:

(4) A person must not, in a newspaper or other document that is publicly available in this State:
(a) publish any ranking or other comparison of particular schools according to school results, except with the permission of the principals of the schools involved, or

(b) identify a school as being in a percentile of less than 90 per cent in relation to school results, except with the permission of the principal of the school.
Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units in the case of an individual and 500 penalty units in any other case.
(5) Nothing in subsection (4) prohibits:
(a) anything authorised to be done by or under a relevant national agreement, or

(b) the publication of the ranking of the schools in the top 10 per cent in relation to the results of Higher School Certificate examinations and related assessments so long as the information used to determine that ranking is information as to the results of students that may be publicly revealed under subsection (6) (c).

This amendment calls the bluff of State and Federal education Ministers, who say that they are opposed to simplistic league tables. In their protocol they state that governments will not publish simplistic league tables or rankings and, more importantly, they will put in place strategies to manage the risk that third parties may seek to produce such tables or rankings. This amendment does exactly that: it puts in place a strategy to manage the risk that third parties may seek to produce simplistic league tables or rankings. The amendment will prohibit the publication of simplistic league tables in New South Wales by stopping people from publishing rankings in newspapers and other documents or comparing schools unless the principals of those schools agree, or publish in newspapers and other documents the percentile of a particular school when that percentile is below 90 per cent, again unless the principal agrees, and it imposes a substantial penalty on individuals and organisations that seek to do so.

This legislation is significant because it does not stop two things. First, it does not stop State and Federal governments doing the things that are authorised to be done by the relevant national agreement, it does not prohibit the passage of data from the State Government to the Commonwealth Government, and it does not prohibit the Commonwealth Government from publishing that data. Nor does it stop the publication of results in the top 10 percentile. That is simply putting into legislation the current practice of the Board of Studies of allowing results to be released, which facilitates media outlets to rank schools according to the number of students they get in the top 10 percentile and only ranking a small number of those schools.

Secondly, the legislation does not interfere with the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority website. In other words, it does not stop the publication of school rankings on that website. Indeed, I doubt whether the legislation will stop the publication of any website because it is State law. As the legislation refers only to newspapers and documents, it will have no impact on websites. I think it would be better if websites could be banned from publishing these results, but that is not within the purview or the power of a State government. The Parliamentary Secretary said the Minister for Education and Training and her Federal colleague have no interest in publishing league tables and that they have protocols in place to stop simplistic league tables from being published. That is good. This amendment seeks to stop third parties—media outlets and others—from publishing simplistic league tables in New South Wales. This is an important, although somewhat limited, protection against the worst aspects of simplistic league tables. It is not perfect because the State does not have the power to stop web pages from displaying school rankings.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: We are against that anyway.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The Parliamentary Secretary interjects that they are against that anyway.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: I thought the Greens were against the banning of websites.

Dr JOHN KAYE: This is not about banning websites. As I said, it is about banning the harm done to individual schools. It is important to understand that this amendment will not interfere with the putative $4.8 billion that rests on the passage of this legislation or the national agreement. It specifically facilitates the national agreement. All it does is put into words the protocol that all State, Territory and Federal Ministers published in June 2009; it simply enacts that protocol. The amendment is simple but extremely important. It will stop the naming and shaming of individual schools in newspapers in New South Wales. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.40 p.m.]: The Government is of the opinion that the Greens amendment is well intentioned but utterly futile. While the amendment is an attempt to prevent media outlets from harvesting and publishing data and constructing ranked lists of schools, it could also prevent the non-government and Catholic sectors from publishing their own data for their own internal purposes. More importantly, it would not prevent the very thing it intends.

Media outlets in other States not covered by this amendment could still publish New South Wales data or include New South Wales in national schools list on their websites. People in New South Wales who read newspapers on the Internet could simply look at the material on the website of any paper in the country. Moreover, the amendment itself is a virtual challenge to the media to produce information that it believes, however erroneously, is in the public interest. It moves the debate from a discussion of school league tables to a discussion about freedom of the press, the rights of the media to publish information, and the public's right to know.

The protocols devised by the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories, with input from education stakeholders, place a significant onus on the appropriate publication of data and the contexts in which schools operate. This is now a national question and a national debate. My colleague, the New South Wales Minister for Education and Training, has made her position and that of the Government absolutely clear. The Government does not believe in simplistic league tables. They are potentially damaging and can present data in a fashion that allows unreasonable and unfair comparisons between schools, and no-one in this Chamber tonight supports it.

To support this view the legislation before the House moves the current regulation to the Education Act. It is a clear signal of the New South Wales position, and New South Wales remains the only State or Territory to act in such a fashion. It is a decisive and unequivocal step. It signals to any party or media proprietor the position of the New South Wales Government and the position of education stakeholders in New South Wales. My colleague the Minister for Education and Training said in the other place today that she would be the first to condemn in public any attempt to rank schools according to single measures, and that she would publicly condemn any production of league tables. The Greens amendment will not prevent the publication of school league tables. It merely attempts to locate the issue in New South Wales and New South Wales alone. This is now a national debate.

The amendment also fails to define the ranking or comparison of schools in a clear enough fashion. Leaving such phrases for the interpretation of courts is needlessly problematic and potentially leads to tangles of argument and litigation. Education matters are not usefully defined and discussed through the legal system. The potential fines attached to this amendment will have no or little affect on the decisions of newspaper proprietors. In fact, they may provoke a deliberate challenge. This debate is only at its beginning. It is not a debate that should be confined to educators, politicians and public servants.

The Australian community has the most to lose or gain by the data that the Commonwealth will provide. It is the community, ordinary mums and dads and their children, who should be at the centre of this discussion. The Commonwealth, the States and Territories must engage in a prolonged education campaign to explain to the community what the new information means and how it is useful. The New South Wales Government and the New South Wales Department of Education and Training will engage in this dialogue with parents who send their children to schools in New South Wales.

Beginning a war with the Australian media regarding appropriate school information for parents sends entirely the wrong message to those whose children attend schools in New South Wales. It begs questions that will be enthusiastically amplified in the media, such as "What is being hidden? What is it that you do not wish the Australian public to know?" The debate about school league tables must take place in the open. The case against league tables is solid and clear. Debate will occur at every school parents and citizens meeting in the country, and at every meeting between parents, teachers and principals. It will occur in articles in the press and professional journals. It is ludicrous to argue on the one hand that transparency is positive and then on the other hand to fine those who would seek to publish information, no matter our opposition to the simplicity of their use of data.

Opposition to league tables and appropriate levels of transparency will become an important and powerful debate in the next few years. It is an overdue discussion because it goes to the heart of identifying quality and sites of improvement. It means that informed debate will occur around both the purpose and the delivery of schooling. The Greens amendment allows the provision of New South Wales data to the Commonwealth and its use of the data. It avoids putting funding at risk. It must be judged on its merits and it must be opposed because it simply fails to address the issue with which it is concerned.

The Greens amendment will not prevent league tables being published in other States or on overseas sites. It may prevent the dissemination of important school information within systems. It does not adequately define what rankings or comparisons are or what they mean. It potentially brings the legal system unnecessarily into arguments about educational performance. It is provocative to the media and may well cause the problem it is attempting to prevent. It moves an important discussion about school quality away from parents and the community and into the courts and the papers. Instead of creating debate about schools, this amendment creates an argument about freedom of the press and the public's right to know.

The Government believes that there are sufficient safeguards in the legislation and the national protocols. The Government believes that the like school group concept importantly contextualises school information. It opposes the Greens amendment because it weakens the substantive argument against league tables and diverts it into a pointless attack on the media. Most importantly, the Government opposes the Greens amendment because it simply will not work. Legislation that will be ignored is poor legislation. I urge the House to oppose the Greens amendment.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [9.44 p.m.]: I again stress that the Opposition opposes the creation of simplistic league tables. The Opposition is concerned about what might happen with the flow of this information to the Federal Government, given that Federal protections are not in place. Protections are still in place in New South Wales but there is no control federally over who might seek information and then use that information to produce simplistic leagues tables. But the Liberal-National Coalition does not want to jeopardise the flow of funding from the Federal Government to education in New South Wales.

In some way the concerns of the Opposition about leagues tables have been addressed by the Greens amendment and I thank Dr John Kaye for his hard work in this regard. The role of the Legislative Council is to improve and strengthen legislation. Dr John Kaye has worked with the Coalition to achieve some outcomes to improve the legislation. The amendment provides more protection but does not go all the way because once the information goes to the Federal Government everything cannot be controlled. However, we can make sure that the situation is strengthened in New South Wales.

Members have heard time and again how the Federal Education Minister has asked the States to put those sorts of protections in place. New South Wales has some protections but there is nothing to stop a media outlet from approaching the Federal Government and seeking the information that appears on the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting website, producing it in a simplistic league table form and then publishing it in New South Wales. The amendment addresses media outlets in terms of print media in New South Wales and puts in place a very clear sanction. It makes sure that simplistic publication will not occur within New South Wales from the information given to the Federal Government.

The amendment does not interfere with the national agreement, and it enacts the protocols that are in place. It does not prevent the flow of information and, importantly, does not put the funding at risk, which is the main concern of the Liberal-National Coalition because the Rees Government and the Department of Education and Training need this funding from the Federal Government. I congratulate Dr John Kaye on working so hard with the Coalition. The Coalition supports the Greens amendment.

Dr JOHN KAYE [9.48 p.m.]: I thank the Opposition for its support for this amendment and I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for her detailed analysis of the Greens amendment. I cannot say I agree with much of what the Parliamentary Secretary said but I do appreciate the effort that went into the analysis. I wish to correct a couple of errors expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary. She began by saying that the amendment would prohibit Catholic and independent schools from being able to have their schools listed or ranked in any way. There are two problems with that statement. Firstly, it relates only to a newspaper or other document publicly available in this State—and "publicly available" has a meaning. Secondly, I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the final words of paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed subsection 4: "… except with the permission of the principals of the schools involved".

Any principal of a Catholic or independent school could give permission for their school to be part of an internal or even an external systemic ranking system if they choose to do so. The Greens encourage them not to do so. We are not taking away the right of any school principal to allow their schools to be ranked in any particular way. The Parliamentary Secretary suggests that this amendment throws out a virtual challenge to the media. I do not think that any law should be perceived as a challenge. Laws are there because they express what society wants. They express a desired collective social outcome, as does this amendment. The collective social outcome has been expressed by the State Minister, the Federal Minister, the ministerial council and the Parliamentary Secretary, so in that sense there is nothing wrong with laws that express the collective desire of society.

The Parliamentary Secretary is correct in saying that there are a number of domains in which this amendment will not work, one of which is interstate and the other is on the Internet. The Greens accept and acknowledge that it is not within the power of the State Government to do that. We have said that this is an imperfect amendment and it would be up to the ministerial council to enact similar legislation in every State and for the Commonwealth to enact legislation to cover the Internet. The Greens will leave this Chamber and start agitating specifically for a national embargo on the publication of simplistic league tables. We will start in New South Wales, which should not ashamed of being the lead State. New South Wales was the lead State against section 18A and the clause 4 education regulation. I make it clear that this amendment simply takes the best parts of existing legislation and regulation and tries to enshrine them in legislation.

I do not think this is war with the Australian media; but if I thought it was, I would be less enthusiastic. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Government underestimate the maturity of the Australian media. This is about showing leadership to the Australian media and the community about what is right and what is wrong. The Parliamentary Secretary, the Opposition, the Greens and Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes have said that simplistic league tables are wrong and we are sending that signal. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke about the protocols, which are fine and wonderful but they refer only to the actions of governments, which I say for the last time. They have no binding influence over the media. We cannot rely on media self-regulation. We saw what happened in January 1997 on the front page of the Daily Telegraph. If we do not have legislation like this in place we will see a return to those days. Getting rid of clause 4 education regulation and existing section 18A of the Act means we will be opening up the floodgates back to the bad old days when individual schools can be named and shamed in newspapers, something which this amendment is designed to stop happening.

I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that we do need, and will have, a debate but we should not have the debate at the expense of schools that struggle, that have high levels of Aboriginal children or that are serving low socioeconomic status communities. Let us have the debate once we have protected the schools, and talk about where we go forward in terms of school accountability. The Opposition spokesperson has said, the Opposition shadow Minister has said outside this Chamber and I have said before that New South Wales already has a high level of accountability of public and private schools with the school reports. The Government put that scheme in place and it needs to have faith in it. Perhaps it is time for the Rees Government to start talking to schools that do not put their annual reports on their web pages, but we already have accountability and transparency. This amendment is to stop appalling things happening in the false name of transparency and accountability.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.54 p.m.]: I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the amendment would have any effect on the agreement with the Commonwealth. Does it in any way threaten Commonwealth funding?

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [9.54 p.m.]: The answer to both questions is no. The issue at stake with this amendment, which the Government agrees is well intentioned, is that it will not work, and that is why the Government opposes it.

Question—That the Greens amendment be agreed to—put.

The Committee divided.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Greens amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an 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 with a message requesting its concurrence in the amendment.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.03 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this bill is to amend the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 to allow for the introduction of two crucial sets of enforcement technologies for driving offences. First, the bill provides for the installation of point-to-point speed enforcement. The technology will enforce only speeding offences committed by heavy vehicles. The technology has been targeted at heavy vehicles because they are overrepresented in serious road crashes. They make up only 2.6 per cent of vehicle registrations and 7.4 per cent of kilometres travelled by New South Wales vehicles, however, they are involved in almost 20 per cent of road fatalities. The point-to-point technology works by having two cameras at the beginning and end of a designated enforcement zone, which will calculate the total time taken by each vehicle to travel the distance of the zone. If the time taken to complete the journey is less than the minimum time that it would have taken to complete the journey within legal speed limits, then the vehicle is recorded as speeding.

Point-to-point speed cameras will calculate a driver's average speed over the duration of the zone. Overseas motorists have found this to be a fairer way of measuring speeding because they are charged only if they exceed the speed limit for a sustained period, not for a one-off momentary lapse. The second part of this bill will provide for the updating of soon-to-be-obsolete wet film red light cameras with new digital red light cameras. The current red light program involves the rotation of cameras between 183 sites. The New South Wales Police Force and the Roads and Traffic Authority advise that occupational health and safety issues are associated with constantly rotating cameras at busy intersections. The current cameras require manual collection and replacement of film. This is resource intensive and also may be dangerous for staff. This bill will allow the introduction of upgraded, new digital red light cameras. The red light camera replacement program is a significant commitment by the Government to improve the safety of signalised intersections. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The upgrade to digital technology is essential to ensure that some of our busiest intersections continue to be protected by red-light cameras.

Crashes at intersections are some of the most serious and devastating accidents. More simply T-bone accidents are caused when one car hits another on its side and the impact is direct.

There is reduced protection for passengers in the back seat and in T-bone accidents they often take the full impact.

Red light cameras are used widely in Australia and internationally and research indicates that they reduce casualty crashes at intersections by about 30 per cent.

The new cameras will also have the ability to detect speed offences.

It is important that we are stop red light running. Put simply, speeding drivers and unsuspecting drivers travelling through intersections is a deadly combination.

The dual function cameras will also be used at a small number of sites. Locations with these cameras will only be used where the greatest road safety benefit can be achieved.

This technology will protect innocent road users from reckless drivers running through red lights, speeding at intersections and, most dangerously, speeding through a red light.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [10.06 p.m.]: The Liberals-Nationals will not stand in the way of the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Traffic Offences Detection) Bill because of the road safety measures contained in it. However, we want to make the following points. Whilst there are road safety components to this bill, it is important to recognise that a major component of the bill is fine collection. It is a revenue-raising bill by another name. Point-to-point camera programs are not the silver bullet to preventing truck-related accidents, as the Government would have us believe. Point-to-point cameras should be used only as part of a suite of options aimed at lowering truck-related road incidents. Increasing the number of police cars and highway patrol officers on our roads and highways is a far more effective way of preventing speeding and truck-related accidents. But under Labor there are fewer highway patrol officers now than there were as far back as in 1984.

Heavy vehicle checking stations are also an important measure, as they check trucks for faulty brakes, overloading and driver fatigue, amongst other things. These checks help identify trucks that may be at risk of causing accidents so that they can be taken off the road. However, in recent years the Government has downgraded truck safety checks. There were 82,173 fewer trucks scrutinised at checking stations last year than in 2007, according to documents obtained under freedom of information legislation. While point-to-point cameras may target speeding truck drivers, they must not replace the existing methods of enforcement. I also make reference to a concern that has been expressed by various community groups, that is, the Government will extend the use of point-to-point speed cameras for heavy vehicles to all vehicles.

Whilst I accept the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary have made observations along the lines that there are no plans to introduce this measure for other than heavy vehicles, it remains a concern to the public that this State Labor Government adopts a method of creep when it comes to revenue collection. I also want to make some comment about the red light cameras. We recognise the need to update the red light technology from the outdated wet film cameras to digital technology. However, the Government's bid to increase the number of fully operating red light cameras from 32 to 200 is underhanded and a blatant attempt to increase revenue.

Currently, with only 32 red light cameras, these are rotated around 183 sites across New South Wales. The bill legislates for an additional 178 cameras, that is, an increase of some 500 per cent over the existing number. Along with this increase, the bill allows for dual red light speed cameras to operate in New South Wales. This will mean that motorists who are caught running red lights can be penalised not only for running the red light, but for a speeding offence over and above that. In essence, one can see the double-dipping component that can arise from what essentially is the one offence. The Government currently collects $11.5 million each year in revenue from red light cameras and with the introduction of the new cameras this amount will no doubt increase substantially. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if she can provide the House with any estimation by the Roads and Traffic Authority as to the amount of revenue that will be derived from the new red light cameras; and, if not, why not?

One might also observe that the move to digital red light cameras has been foreshadowed for some time. It was in December 2006 that the then Roads Minister, John Watkins, announced that digital cameras would replace the wet-film red light camera technology. Over two years later the new technology is apparently now being introduced. Unfortunately, this would seem to be yet another example of a government that is more concerned with creating media headlines than with actual delivery of services and infrastructure.

Might I conclude by making some observation on the selection of sites for the new cameras that are to be rolled out? I note that the placement of speeding and red light cameras in the past has been as a result of consultation between the NRMA and the New South Wales police service, and that has been through the use of criteria known as the fixed speed camera site selection criteria. Apparently these criteria were based on crash and injury accident rates and travelling speeds. This ensured that cameras were installed on black lengths, if they may be so described, being lengths of road with high accident rates. From all accounts, this consultation process has been successful and it is hoped that the Roads and Traffic Authority will continue this process when determining the selection criteria for combined red light speed cameras and for point-to-point cameras. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to confirm that this will be the case. The Liberal Party and The Nationals will be not opposing the legislation.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.13 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Traffic Offence Detection) Bill 2009, which will allow the Roads and Traffic Authority to use point-to-point technology to enforce heavy vehicle speeding and to replace outdated wet-film red light cameras with digital red light cameras that can also enforce speeding. As members know, road crashes are one of the major causes of death and injury in our community. The figures for 2007 prepared by the New South Wales Centre for Road Safety indicate that there were 45,395 recorded road crashes in New South Wales. Of these, 20,319 were casualty crashes. There were 435 persons killed. Last year that figure dropped to 395 and this year we are about 50 ahead of the figure for the same time last year, so it is to the credit of everyone involved in road safety, as well as the drivers of New South Wales, that the death rate has been progressively dropping. The report also indicated that 25,845 people were injured. As to what it costs in terms of dollars, the estimated cost to the community of these road crashes was around $4.4 billion, so it is having a major impact not only on families affected by a fatality or injury but also on our economy, which affects the whole State.

The bill will enable the introduction of point-to-point speed enforcement of heavy vehicle speeding. I have travelled to Queensland in the January holiday period, as I am sure other members have, and semitrailers have sped past—especially at night—when I have been travelling at the speed limit. They are obviously going well over 100 kilometres an hour. The roads are not safe for speeding semitrailers to start with, so the condition of the road and speed makes the situation doubly dangerous.

Point-to-point technology works by detecting a vehicle at the start and end of a length of road and calculating the average speed across the length. The bill will allow for evidence of a vehicle's average speed measured by point-to-point devices to be used to prove that a vehicle was exceeding the posted speed limit. There are also provisions making it an offence for drivers to try to avoid the new system by driving on the wrong side of the road, swerving across lanes, tailgating and turning lights off at night in an attempt to avoid detection at point-to-point cameras.

The bill will also allow the Roads and Traffic Authority to replace obsolete wet-film red light cameras with digital red light camera technology, which is very efficient. Combined red light-speed cameras are already used in Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory and this bill will allow a new provision in the Act for a single device to be approved for multiple functions such as red light and speed enforcement. The combination of red light and speed enforcement will further enhance the safety of some red light camera locations where there is a significant crash problem along the length of the road adjacent to and including the intersection.

The bill has been developed in consultation with the Roads and Traffic Authority, New South Wales police, the Attorney General's Department and the State Debt Recovery Office. There will now be a need, and the Government has announced that it will do this, for a public education campaign to ensure that all drivers of heavy vehicles are well aware of the new system.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.17 p.m.]: The Greens support the bill, which introduces new methods of detecting traffic offences—average speed detection zones that measure the speed of heavy vehicles between two points and the introduction of dual purpose digital red light and speed detection cameras. The Greens have called on the New South Wales Government to provide a time frame for the rollout of new digital red light cameras. The Government has known for a long time that current red light camera technology is inadequate and outdated. Red light cameras do save lives, but the Government has been dawdling for years on introducing digital technology.

The timetable for the introduction of the new technology should be on the table so that the Roads Minister can be held to account if it is not met. This is a key safety provision and it needs to be fully transparent. In 2006 the former Roads Minister John Watkins said he would start the tender process for digital red light cameras. It is now 2009 and the Government is still foreshadowing their installation, awaiting a review of intersections by the New South Wales Centre for Road Safety. Minister Daley said in his second reading speech that his Government would be carefully considering the rollout of combined red light-speed detection devices. They have been considering it for three years. For many years, funding for red light cameras was frozen. Freedom of information requests showed many red light cameras in New South Wales were not working or only operated intermittently. Lives are at risk while this technology is not in place and the Government needs to act quickly. The unpopularity of speed cameras and the potential backlash on drive-time radio is no doubt driving the Government's decision to use the red light camera capacity for only 30 of the 200 new dual purpose digital cameras. Therefore, 170 red light cameras will be operating around New South Wales with their speed camera function lying idle.

When inquiring about this bill my staff received an update from the Minister's office that the program to upgrade school crossings is making progress. But I was not very encouraged by the numbers. I understand that only 10 percent of the 3,100 schools in New South Wales are scheduled to have flashing lights installed at their main school zones because only 100 school zones are upgraded with flashing speed zone signs each year over four years. This low rate of progress remains unchanged after this year's budget, and given that each school typically has more than one school-crossing zone, it seems more like only 5 per cent of school crossings will be getting flashing lights. What is the Government's answer to the parents whose children use the other 95 per cent of crossings when they walk to and from their school?

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: They are not only getting flashing lights, they are getting dragon's teeth as well.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes, I know. The dragon's teeth are really good. It is positive, but you would have to admit—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't admit anything to you, Lee—never.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Fair enough. You should not admit anything; you are a loyal Labor soldier and people respect you for that. About 90 per cent of crossings have still not had the upgrade. It is disappointing that the Government is dragging its feet on installing flashing speed signs outside schools. Children's safety going to and from school should be the priority of this and any Government. We have the Walk Safely to School program, which is great, and I understand that dragon's teeth will be painted at school zones, which are incredibly effective. These low-budget measures will no doubt help improve road safety for schoolchildren. But the Government must stop stalling on this issue and allocate serious money to the program to put speed cameras and flashing speed signs at school crossings and tell us what the time frame is for the rollout.

The other area where the Government needs to increase its efforts on road safety is the upgrading of school crossings and rail level crossings across the State. As a member of Parliament I find it distressing to be contacted by members of the public who have lost their loved ones in road fatalities at country rail crossings and to know that not enough is being done by this Government to fix this urgent problem. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary in her reply to put on the record when the announcement will be made about the rollout of these programs and how long it will take.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.22 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to debate on the Road Transport Legislation Amendment (Traffic Offence Detection) Bill 2009. I note that there is broad support for the bill. A couple of issues were raised in the debate. I do not intend to address them in detail. This bill is about improving safety; it is not about revenue raising. Red light camera sites will be selected using strict criteria developed by the New South Wales Centre for Road Safety. Site selection will be based upon several factors, including fatalities, vehicle speeds and road conditions.

The Hon. Trevor Khan asked a question about current arrangements in relation to consultation with the NRMA and the police. I am advised that there is no intention to change current arrangements in relation to consultation about sites. Some of the sites will be existing sites and some will be new sites. Digital red light cameras also have the capacity to enforce speeding, and some locations will also have speed enforcement. The speed enforcement locations will be determined by specific criteria, including the identification of a length of road around a red light camera location that also has a significant crash history.

This Government has put in place a string of important safety initiatives over more than 10 years. Currently we are fortunate to have the lowest road fatalities for many years, something that this Parliament and this Government has worked very hard to achieve. In relation to the issue of the rollout of programs raised by Ms Lee Rhiannon, I am not in a position to give her a time frame, except to say that they will be rolled out as soon as possible. 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. 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) [10.25 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Ian Macdonald: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The Casino Control Amendment bill 2009 contains a range of straight forward amendments to the Casino Control Act 1992. These amendments seek to achieve a number of aims:

· To extend the casino licence review period from 3 years to 5 years

· To extend the licence period for casino special employees from 3 years to 5 years

· Implement better regulation principles to reduce the regulatory burden on Star City casino and the administrative burden on the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority (the Authority) while ensuring that the effective regulation of Star City is maintained and

· Remove barriers inhibiting the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority the Authority from implementing better and more efficient ways of achieving its objectives.

This bill represents the first of two tranches of reforms that the Government intends to implement regarding the regulation of the Sydney casino.

The second tranche of reforms will be introduced later this year.

It is not the Government's intent or desire to change the 'single casino' arrangement approved by the Parliament.

Let me be clear also it is the Government's aim that the Casino Control Act and its enforcement will continue to ensure that the casino remains free from criminal influence or exploitation that gaming in the casino is conducted honestly and that the potential of the casino to cause harm to the public interest and to individuals and families is contained.

New South Wales has now had a legal operational casino since September 1995. The legislative and related licence arrangements have been successful in achieving the aims of the Government.

This does not however mean the law does not have to be refined and updated from time-to-time. A thorough review of the Act conducted jointly by the Authority and the casino operator has identified a range of amendments to the Act. These are needed to ensure New South Wales has current best practice for casino regulation and does not contain redundant administrative requirements.

Members should therefore note that the changes to the Act contained in the bill before them are refinements to the law. They do not constitute a major new regulatory regime.

The proposed changes will not have a significant impact on individuals the community or any specific sector of the community.

They will not have a significant impact on business by imposing large compliance costs. In fact it is intended that the proposals will result in a significant reduction in compliance costs.

They will not impose any greater material restriction on competition.

And finally they will result in a significant reduction of cost to Government and therefore taxpayers.

An important change introduced by this bill is to change the casino licence review period from every three years to a maximum of every five years.

Under section 31 of the Act, the Authority must investigate and form an opinion as to whether or not the casino operator is suitable to continue to give effect to the casino licence and the Act and it is in the public interest that the casino licence should continue in force.

These statutory investigations examine inter alia corporate structures associates and financial resources. They also involve the conduct of extensive checks with various law enforcement agencies and external regulatory bodies not only in New South Wales but interstate and internationally.

The last two such reviews conducted by the Authority in 2003 and 2006 found that Star City Pty Ltd the licensee has operated in a responsible manner consistent with the objectives of the Act.

These statutory reviews are extremely thorough but they are also extremely resource intensive for both the Authority and the casino operator. Therefore conducting reviews more often than necessary is an unjustifiable regulatory burden on both parties.

Given the Authority's long experience with these reviews and its continuous assessment of the casino's operations the Authority has advised the Government that extending the statutory licence review period from three to a maximum of every five years will not in any way compromise the objectives of the Act or reduce the degree of oversight of the casino's operations.

The Authority's inspectors maintain an on-site presence at the casino on a 24 hour 7 days a week basis. They ensure that the Authority has under constant review all matters connected with the casino.

The licensing by the Authority of "special employees" in the casino is another important facet of the casino's operational oversight. These "special employees" are identified under the Act as those who perform functions such as making decisions with respect to the casino's operations or engage in activities related to the conduct of gaming. Special employees may be involved in the movement of money or chips or the operation or maintenance of the casino's gaming equipment or security systems.

This bill seeks to extend the special employee licence renewal period from three years to five years.

Here again the Authority's long experience in licensing the casino's "special employees" indicates that any risk in extending the licence period is adequately covered by the mechanisms in place to monitor the ongoing suitability of licensed individuals. Such mechanisms include the requirement for the licensed employee to report specified changes in circumstance and flagging on the police database to alert the Authority of criminal charges brought against any licensed casino special employee.

The advantages of increasing the renewal period are:

· Reducing the resources required for the processing of renewals

· Maintaining the ability to determine whether the licensee continues to meet suitability requirements including financial stability

· Continuing to enable the Authority to State with some assurance that its objective of keeping the casino free from criminal influence is being met through the casino employee licensing process

A five-year licence period for the casino's special employees, given the Authority's experience will still enable the Authority to State with assurance that a licensee continues to meet the requirements of the Act.

Members should note that the Act already provides for the automatic revocation of a licence when a special employee ceases to be employed by the casino thereby providing systematic security and certainty for the licensing system.

With respect to the licensing of special employees, as it relates to the operation, maintenance, construction or repair of gaming equipment, this bill will see licensing focussed on special employees activities concerning "approved" gaming equipment. With this change the casino operator will avoid having to licence persons who repair non-critical gaming equipment, for example gaming furniture, which does not have any relevance to gaming integrity. A considerable saving in time and effort for the employees affected the casino operator and the Authority.

Together the proposed changes to the casino licence review and special employee licence period represent substantial reductions in administrative costs for both the casino operator and the Authority without, in any way, reducing the already high standard of regulatory oversight of the casino.

A goal of this bill is 'future proofing' the casino legislation drafting it to accommodate unforseen change and innovation in the commercial and technical environment.

To this end the Government is proposing a number of changes to the Act.

The first of these is to re-define "chips" the main 'currency' on the gaming tables so as to make it clear that it includes virtual chips or any other representation of chips in addition to physical tokens for the purpose of gaming.

Looking at the future development of gaming it is envisaged that players could buy an electronic or stored value card and so use 'virtual' chips at any gaming point whether it be at a table game or gaming machine or to purchase food. Patrons could in this way move their money around the casino without needing to keep changing back to physical cash.

This bill will future-proof the Act with regard to the advent of new technology. For example new technology may make closed circuit television obsolete. The proposed changes in this bill will allow this to happen without the need to amend the Act further.

This bill proposes additional amendments to remove red tape and improve the efficiency and efficacy of the Casino Control Act.

The casino's internal layout needs to change to accommodate gaming trends and changes in surveillance technology. It is therefore proposed to amend the Act so as to simplify and clarify the approval process by making minor amendments to Section 65 of the Act.

The bill contains amendments that will allow the Authority to provide for more flexible layouts. Minor changes to the position of a table or machine will be able to occur without having to process the approval of a complete new layout.

It will also bring certain requirements up to date for example catwalks are no longer a feature of modern casinos.

With respect to the approval of casino layouts it is also proposed to remove a technical anomaly in the current legislation, which prevents the casino operator from applying to change the casino's internal layout. Currently a change can only occur with the approval that is the direction of the Authority. Clearly this is not sensible.

As I indicated in my opening remarks this bill removes some administrative anomalies and introduces efficiencies in relation to the regulation of the casino.

This bill updates the method of changing the casino's boundary so as to be consistent with the process for changing a condition of the casino licence. The proposed amendment gives the casino operator the opportunity to make a submission before an adverse change is imposed by the Authority. It is unfair and unreasonable to continue to allow a situation in which the Authority may reduce or increase the size of the casino on its own accord particularly given the capital investment required by the casino in extensions to the casino.

This bill also introduces amendments that bring the regulation of the casino into line with the other jurisdictions with respect to banking procedures and facilities and internal accounting controls.

Firstly the bill removes the restriction on the casino operator using banking institutions outside New South Wales thereby bringing New South Wales into line with Queensland. Having accounts with banks in other countries can be a competitive point of difference for international high rollers and the Sydney casino needs to be able to compete on an equal footing. Furthermore, this will enable Tabcorp Star City's parent company to operate more effectively in managing its banking arrangements as it is based in Victoria.

The second amendment changes the timeframe for banking cheques where the drawee bank is located outside Australia from within 20 days to within 30 working days. It brings New South Wales into line with Queensland legislation.

An example of the impact of this change can be seen in relation to Tabcorp which operates casinos in Queensland. Without making the proposed change the premium players and junket groups that Tabcorp attracts to Australia are likely to be more attracted to the Queensland casinos than to Star City due to the greater flexibility in their banking requirements in place in Queensland.

This change will also allow the New South Wales casino to remain competitive with Crown Casino in Victoria as there is an extremely competitive market for international gaming business.

It is also proposed to bring the regulation of the casino with respect to the advertising of gaming machines, and penalties for allowing access by minors and penalty notices generally into line with the Gaming Machines Act and Liquor Act respectively.

This bill will allow the casino operator to use more contemporary means of providing information on games played at the casino to its patrons. For example the casino operator will be able to print out a document when requested or display the information at a computer terminal or an electronic kiosk.

Amending the Act to increase penalties for offences concerning minors accessing the casino under section 93 and section 97 from 10 to 20 penalty units bring the laws governing the casino into line with the similar provisions under the Liquor Act 2007.

Finally this bill makes machinery amendments to the Act to clarify matters with respect to the functions of the Authority. This minor amendment removes any blurring the distinction between the Authority's role in regulating the casino and the casino operator's role in managing it. This blurring of responsibilities has at times been problematic.

In conclusion there is strong evidence to suggest that the Casino Control Act is achieving its objectives. The review of the Act conducted by the Authority in conjunction with Star City casino has identified ways in which the regulation of the casino can be made contemporary and more efficient and effective.

The Government believes that this bill makes fundamental improvements to the regulation of the casino to the benefit of its operator the Government and the wider community.

I commend this bill to the House.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [10.25 p.m.]: The Coalition does not oppose the Casino Control Amendment Bill 2009. On 30 October 2007 the Government agreed to conduct a review of the Casino Control Act and, as part of the negotiations, to extend the exclusivity period for a further 12 years, including changes to tax structures, et cetera. The review was conducted by the Casino Control Authority in conjunction with Star City. The proposed refinements do not establish a new regulatory regime; these remain in place. The objects of this bill are to extend the statutory review period from three to five years; to extend the casino special employee licence period from three to five years and to limit their range of activities to operations, the repair of gaming equipment, and to change the notification period for commencing or terminating employees; to refine the process of changing the casino boundary and internal layout; and to update the means of providing casino player information.

The bill will also allow the casino operator to maintain bank accounts in any jurisdiction, including overseas; will increase penalties concerning minors to mirror penalties contained in the Liquor Act; and will make numerous machinery amendments such as a redefinition of "chips", a clarification of the role of the new Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority, including the process of publication of gaming rules, and repeal of the list of internal controls and administration needing approval.

The Casino Control Act 1992 provided for the operation of a legal casino from September 1995. It has been argued that the Act has worked well and that the last two reviews in 2003 and 2006 were straightforward and found that Star City, the licensee, has operated in a responsible manner consistent with the objectives of the Act. The statutory reviews are extremely thorough and very resource consuming of both the authority and the casino. It is considered that holding reviews in three-yearly intervals is unjustified, given the authority's inspectors maintain a 24-hour, seven-day presence at the casino. Given that, currently, reviews are carried out every three years and it takes 12 months to do the review and 12 months to assess it and then it is time to do the review again, the casinos are in the situation of being in a continual period of review rather than having infrequent reviews, as should be the case. The Coalition supports the expansion from three to five years.

The other amendments are considered minor in nature and non-controversial. Some media commentators may seek to make more of this than is the reality. However, there is no diminution of any harm-minimisation measure or control. The bill is not about smoking, problem gamblers and so on. Consultation beyond the casino and the department was not considered necessary. The Coalition will not oppose the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.29 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party does not oppose the Casino Control Amendment Bill 2009, although we oppose casinos in principle. We expressed our opposition to casinos prior to their introduction in New South Wales and our opposition has not changed. In fact, events connected with the casino only confirm our original opposition to the casino. There are still reports of people laundering money through the casino. The casino attracts undesirable persons and people from the criminal world such as those involved in drug trafficking or prostitution. There have also been some tragic cases involving violence at the casino.

This bill does not deal with those events. It is a technical bill dealing with administrative matters. It does not relate to the problems of gambling or harm minimisation, or the other issue that I am concerned about and have raised previously—our State legislation that provides exemptions from the controls on smoking for the casino. The argument is that if we do not provide those exemptions we will miss out on the high rollers who come from interstate or overseas because they want to smoke while they are playing. Again, that is not part of this legislation, but I place it on the record.

This legislation is simple and straightforward. It extends the casino licence review period from three years to five years and extends the period that a casino employee licence remains in force from three years to five years. One strange aspect of the legislation is that it does require the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority to publish on its website rather than in the Government Gazette orders approving the games that may be played in the casino and the rules of those games. I am not against that information being on the website but I believe it is important information and should be published in the Government Gazette.

I think the Government Gazette gave it the imprimatur of being closely monitored and controlled by the State Government, and important matters go in the Government Gazette. I would prefer that that continue. The Government may like to give further thought to having the information published both on the website and in the Government Gazette. Websites are not permanent; they can be hacked, whereas the Government Gazette is printed. I know it may be old fashioned to have something printed in black and white, but I believe the orders approving the games that may be played at the casino and the rules of those games should be required to be published in the Government Gazette.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [10.32 p.m.]: The question of support for the Casino Control Amendment Bill needs to be considered in the context of the corrupting influence of political donations. Star City has won big gains in recent times and once again in the legislation we are considering tonight. The loosening of the regulations under which it operates provides opportunities for the casino's owners to boost its profits. Under this legislation the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Control Authority loses its function of directly supervising the casino. I was interested in the comments by Reverend Fred Nile, speaking about his usual objections to gambling but not to this bill.

The Casino Gaming Authority at least had some semblance of running the casino and working to minimise the problems that accompany casinos around the world, but in this legislation the authority is being stripped of its powers and functions. The casino will now be subject to a comprehensive operational review every five years, not every three years. It can now use virtual chips and bank internationally, not just in New South Wales, to better attract international high rollers. Star City and its parent company, Tabcorp, have donated nearly half a million dollars to the New South Wales Labor Party over the past decade. Now we see this substantial move to reduce regulation of Star City. Does this suggest an unhealthy relationship between the New South Wales Labor Party and two of its biggest donors?

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: No.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the interjection. I do not know how Amanda Fazio is able to state that she knows there is definitely no unsavoury relationship. I was about to say I do not know, but I do not see how she can be absolutely confident that everything is okay and that there is a proper relationship when we consider how much money changes hands and the decisions that have to be made. Casinos in the gaming industry are generous corporate donors to political parties. The Australian Casino Association, which lobbies for the combined interests of the 13 casinos in Australia, has been a regular donor to both major parties. Since 2002 it has donated $13,500 to the Federal Labor Party and $30,650 to the Federal Liberal Party. In New South Wales the Australian Casino Association has given more money to the New South Wales Liberal Party than it has to Labor.

Since 2003 the New South Wales Liberals have accepted 12 donations totalling $17,300. In the same period New South Wales Labor accepted four donations totalling $13,850. Star City and Tabcorp have donated a staggering $448,827 to the New South Wales Labor Party in the past decade. If this were happening in a low-income country or a Third World country, people would say that was corrupt. It would be clearly and simply called that. It is staggering that we have a casino that is clearly associated with criminal activities, which has been documented time and again, and the operators of the casino are handing out money to political parties that then determine the laws governing how that casino operates. And those laws are getting weaker and weaker.

The Greens' donations project Democracy4sale shows that in 2008 the casino donated $110,000 to the New South Wales Labor Government two months before it was granted approval for a $344 million expansion. Again, I have no idea whether there is a connection but that is the conclusion many people draw. In 2007 the casino donated $112,200 to New South Wales Labor just months before it began negotiations over its monopoly casino licence. These massive donations made Star City one of New South Wales Labor's biggest fundraising corporate partners in 2007 and 2008. Again, we do not know whether deals are done but I do not think anyone can deny that the perception of unsavoury deals goes hand in hand with these political donations. This is an ugly story of money and politics and it does not stop at Labor's door.

Coalition party members cannot point the finger. They have also accepted hefty donations from casinos and will be in the same position as Labor if they win government. According to the Australian Electoral Commission, over the past 10 years the New South Wales Liberal Party have accepted $109,000 from Star City and the New South Wales Nationals have picked up $19,500. The New South Wales Liberal Party has taken a further $70,000 in donations from Tabcorp, taking the total donations from the casino to the Coalition to $197,500. At a Federal level, the Liberal Party has accepted $236,000 in donations from Tabcorp since 1999.

The Labor Government has sunk to a new low in delivering for its major donors, punching big holes in what should be a tight regulatory scheme governing New South Wales' only casino. Generous donations from Tabcorp and Star City to the Government and escalating tax revenue are very much the background to this bill, which significantly reduces scrutiny of the casino's operations. This bill risks an escalation in problem gambling, organised crime, money laundering, prostitution, drug dealing and loan sharks. That is what goes hand in hand with casinos. We all know that has been documented time and again.

When the Casino Control Amendment Bill was introduced by gaming Minister Kevin Greene he flagged that a "second tranche of reforms will be introduced later this year". I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to outline in her reply what the second stage of this legislation will entail. This is the opportunity to get it on the record so that we do not have a last minute rush of legislation with little chance for proper scrutiny. I do not believe that that is too much to ask.

Minister Greene also stated that this legislation was a refinement of the legislation following a "thorough review" of the Act conducted by the Casino Control Authority and the casino operator. However, when my staff tried to track down a copy of this thorough government review from the Parliamentary Library, they were told by the authority that there was no formal review, or no report, as such, and that it was more an ongoing review process. This is becoming a common approach to reviews. When one starts to delve into it, it appears that not much more than a few chats have occurred. I wonder what that review process entails. Does the Minister ask the Star City operator how business is going, perhaps at one of the fundraising lunches? It is extraordinary that the "thorough review" that the Minister referred to does not exist.

Bret Walker, SC, was given the job by the Casino Control Authority of regularly reviewing the casino's operations as required by this legislation every three years. His most recent 100-page report was tabled in December 2006. Another report is due in 2009. I wonder if this report, which must be nearing completion, will ever see the light of day now. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could also include in her answer what the "ongoing review process" entails and if the report due in December 2009 will be released.

To explain why the Greens oppose the extension of the three-yearly review of the casino's operation to a five-yearly review, I will outline some problems that the Greens have raised previously about the review process. The 2006 Bret Walker report revealed clear deficiencies in managing problem gambling at the casino. That is worrying. It should have set off alarm bells for everyone, not only Reverend Fred Nile. The 2006 report identified worrying evidence of failures in the responsible service of alcohol, patrons being allowed to gamble for excessive periods and holes in the process of excluding problem gamblers or criminals. Those failures are extremely serious but they have not been addressed; they appear to have vaporised.

Despite these and other concerns, the report recommended that Star City was a "suitable person" to continue to give effect to the casino licence and that it was in the public interest that the casino licence continue in force. I would say it is "business as usual", but it is probably more accurate to say that the usual business involves relaxing the regulations to make business easier. There has been very little effective external accountability when it comes to the casino's operations, with the Casino Control Authority keeping a low profile. These amendments will reduce that accountability even further.

This stands in sharp contrast to the much more interventionist approach taken in New Zealand. For example, late last year the New Zealand Gambling Commission suspended operations at the Dunedin Casino after it was found to have allowed a problem gambler to gamble $6.6 million over three years. It is hard to imagine the New South Wales Government suspending operations at the Star City because of the problems identified in the Bret Walker report with problem gambling, irresponsible service of alcohol and so on. It is worth putting on the record because that is how the system should operate in the State.

The Labor Government could have used its negotiations with the Star City as leverage to reduce problem gambling in the community and in the process won some brownie points. It would not have reduced the casino's profits. Why did the Government not act? The 2006 review of the casino's operations revealed that while gambling for excessive periods of time is recognised as a common characteristic of problem gambling, staff were unclear about when they should step in. Various staff surveyed thought it acceptable to allow patrons to gamble for anything up to 24 hours straight before intervening. The report states:

For VIP services staff, some thought a patron playing for eight or more hours warranted intervention; for another it was the presence of a patron over two shifts, for the VIP Manager it was sixteen to eighteen hours. For a dealer, four hours was enough for her to intervene, a games supervisor believed that eighteen hours at a table did not warrant his concern, an electronic gaming supervisor thought 24 hours deserved her attention. A surveillance operator thought ten hours was a problem and a security duty manager who has been appointed a responsible gambling liaison manager said four or five hours. For others it depended on whether the patron was a local or not.

A casino duty manager recalled that about ten incident reports about patrons gambling for lengthy periods of time had been completed over the past twenty months.

With regard to the irresponsible service of alcohol, Bret Walker notes:

Responsible service of alcohol is of utmost importance in an environment where people gamble. Impaired judgement as a result of alcohol consumption can have disastrous consequences within a casino.

Yet he goes on to observe that at the casino:

The interrelationship between gambling and intoxication was not always well understood.

Star City cannot permit a person to become intoxicated within the gaming area. It is an offence if it or its staff allow this to occur, with penalties of up to $11,000. It is also an offence for the casino to permit an intoxicated person to gamble in the casino. The report notes that Star City is considered by the NSW Police Force to be one of the top 10 venues for alcohol-related incidents in the City Central Local Area Command. A 2004 survey revealed that 40 per cent of surveyed staff were unsure or thought it acceptable for patrons to gamble while intoxicated, and about one-quarter were unsure or thought it acceptable for patrons to fall asleep at an electronic gaming machine. A March 2005 review showed a large number of young patrons gambling while affected by alcohol. An April 2006 review concluded that "standards of policing responsible services of alcohol by staff has lessened". Bret Walker's report concludes:

No disciplinary action has been taken against Star City since 2003 for infringements of its liquor licence.

Yet still he says:

We are satisfied that Star City has in place appropriate procedures to fulfil their obligations in relation to RSA [Responsible Service of Alcohol].

This is extraordinary. How does Star City get away with this? What does it have going for it that makes the Government roll over and have its tummy tickled? The casino is getting away with an amazing laxity in relation to gambling and responsible service of alcohol. This situation does not warrant any loosening up of regulation of the casino's operations. That is the clear message in the reviews. It is simply scandalous that this Government is reducing regulation of the casino. It appears that the Christian Democratic Party, The Nationals and the Liberal Party are signing off on this legislation with the Labor Government. I remind members that the corporate donations are being made and the flow of money is increasing.

The exclusions of problem gamblers and criminals is another serious problem. The report showed that between 1 January 2004 and 30 June 2006, Star City excluded 91 people at the direction of the police commissioner. That is about double the number excluded in the previous there years. In the same period, Star City excluded 661 patrons. That is roughly a 7 per cent drop in the number of patrons being excluded by the casino for problem gambling and criminal behaviour since 2000-03.

The Casino Control Authority failed to exclude any patrons between 2003 and 2006. As I have stated, that is in sharp contrast to the much more interventionist approach of New Zealand to gambling generally, and casinos in particular. In November 2006 the Dunedin Casino reportedly closed its doors for two consecutive days as punishment for failing to take adequate action over a problem gambler. I have already referred to that example. New Zealand's official gambling watchdog, the Gambling Commission, handed out a two-day licence suspension to the casino after it was found to have let a woman gamble $6.6 million over a three-year period.

New South Wales should be moving towards tougher restrictions on casinos, not relaxing our laws. This bill not only makes life easier for the casino but also introduces changes that worsen the casino's impact on problem gambling. The bill redefines chips, the main currency on the gaming tables, to include virtual chips or any other representation of chips, in addition to physical tokens for the purpose of gaming. I think all members know where that is going. Players can buy an electronic or stored value card and use those virtual chips at any gaming point, whether it is at a table game or a gaming machine, or to purchase food. People can move their money around the casino with ease without the need to keep changing back to physical cash. Who will that benefit? Profits will go through the roof.

The Gambling Impact Society has advised me that national and international research supporting the introduction of smart technology to create safer gambling activities is yet to be taken on board by the New South Wales Government. In the absence of that, any easing of the notion of cash access, whether virtual or real, should be considered in relation to harm minimisation and consumer protection. Concern has been expressed about the proposition to create virtual money as problem gamblers have dissociative disorders during the act of gambling. They need to take reality checks in the form of interacting with staff or taking a break from their gambling activity, even if it is only to find new funds.

Of relevance to this story is that if they saw a bit of daylight coming through the windows or they saw a clock on the wall it would help them to break their gambling obsession. However, as we know, those two factors are missing from casinos. The proposition to create virtual money is a matter of major concern. The Greens are strongly opposed to that measure. We need to put in place technical protections to assist consumers to make better-informed decisions about their gambling and use technology to set personal limits on their behaviour. Physical cash is a link to reality. Obviously there are still enormous problems when people gamble. However, when they have to go and get some cash they have an opportunity to register that they have gambled away a lot of money and that perhaps they should take the remaining money home and use it to pay the bills. If that link is removed they are much less likely to think those thoughts.

Physical cash assists people to stay in control, which is supposed to be the basic tenet of the New South Wales Government's policy of creating a culture of responsible gambling. These new measures are totally inconsistent with that policy. The Government should scrap this proposal and maintain consistency with its own stated aims. It would be clear to all members that the Greens oppose the bill. It makes a mockery of the hard work being done in our community to redress the social harm and the social costs of problem gambling. Who undertakes that work? Organisations that are underfunded do the hard yards and they try to support people who end up gambling and losing so much.

The beneficiaries of these new laws are the Government, through increased gaming revenue, the casino, and some high rollers, with the clear losers being problem gamblers, most visitors to the casino and the whole justice system. The only plausible explanation for the Government moving to further loosen casino regulation in New South Wales could well be the contributions from Star City to Labor's war chest. This is one more example of why donations reform is needed urgently in this State.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.54 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to debate on the Casino Control Amendment Bill 2009. I will respond to a couple of issues that were raised in debate. The issues raised by Ms Lee Rhiannon, while fairly typical of the Greens, were not particularly helpful to legislation. The member also raised issues relating to the statutory review period. A review conducted under section 31 of the Casino Control Act requires the Casino, Liquor and Gaming Authority to investigate and form an opinion as to whether the casino operator is a suitable person to continue to give effect to the casino licence and this Act, and it is in the public interest that the casino licence should continue in force.

A full statutory investigation under section 31 examines, inter alia, corporate structures, associates, financial resources, and conducts extensive checks with various law enforcement agencies and external regulatory bodies not only in New South Wales but interstate and internationally. The 2003 and 2006 section 31 statutory reviews, effectively spanning the period from 2000, acknowledge that Star City has been operating in a responsible manner. The casino has been shown to be operating in a manner consistent with the objectives of the Act. The authority supports the statutory review process with a regime of ongoing assessment of the casino's operations. In March 2004 the authority established the Casino Licence Oversight Committee to assess the implementation of statutory review recommendations; review internal controls, processes and staff training to examine any deterioration in standards or any systemic failure; and review compliance with contractual obligations. Given the satisfactory assessment of the licensee in previous section 31 reviews, the ongoing assessment process, and the authority's power to investigate the operator and associates, extending the frequency of reviews from three years to five years will not in any way diminish the effective regulatory oversight of the casino's operations.

Ms Lee Rhiannon asked why the Government was introducing the bill in two stages. Later in the year the Government will introduce additional reforms to the Casino Control Act that include achieving legislative consistency for civil and criminal liabilities regarding patron exclusions, and patron exclusions more generally; consistency with the Commonwealth's Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Act 2006 in relation to the conduct of gambling; removal of a number of anomalies that have arisen from technological developments; and modernising the regulatory framework for the training of the casino's special employees. There are some legislative complexities associated with these reforms. The Government wants to get them right. As such, it will take the time needed to ensure that the legislation is drafted properly before submitting it to the Parliament. There is no conspiracy; we simply want to get it right. I commend the bill to the House.

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

The House divided.

[In division]

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Point of order: I wish to make it clear that I am going to vote against the bill in view of the threat by Ms Lee Rhiannon accusing me of voting in favour of gambling.

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

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of clarification—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Ms Lee Rhiannon will please take her seat. There was no point of order. I remind members that a member may, subject to the standing orders, make a statement during debate on the third reading of the bill.
Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.05 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Mr President—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Chair does not claim to be clairvoyant. However, I remind members that presidents Johnson and Willis ruled that the prime purpose of a third reading of a bill is to ensure a last opportunity to oppose the legislation. The debate on the third reading of a bill should be confined to that question.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.06 p.m.]: On a point of clarification—

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: There is no such thing.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You are not in the chair.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will cease interjecting. Ms Lee Rhiannon may continue.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Continue speaking or continue asking a question?

The PRESIDENT: I ask you to address the third reading of the bill.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: There was a clear need to reject the Casino Control Amendment Bill 2009 at each stage of the debate. It is a bill that sets back overcoming problem gambling. That case was set out clearly. I put on record that I am deeply concerned that Reverend Fred Nile made a statement that I had issued a threat against him, and I ask for that statement to be withdrawn. That is part of the debate and should be considered. I have the right to ask for that statement to be withdrawn. It is a most serious allegation.

The PRESIDENT: Order! This is a complicated matter. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile took a point of order and made a statement as part of his point of order. I ruled that there was no point of order. Accordingly, I do not regard the statement made by the member to be a statement to the House. The member took a point of order and I ruled it out of order.

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

Motion agreed to.

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

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): The Committee will deal first with the Government Information (Public Access) Bill 2009, in relation to which, with the leave of the Committee, I propose to put questions by parts and schedules. There being no objection, I will proceed accordingly.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.11 p.m.]: I move Greens amendment No. 1:

No. 1 Page 2, clause 3. Insert after line 18:

(2) The Parliament intends, by this object, to promote the State's representative democracy by contributing towards the following:
(a) increasing public participation in Government processes, with a view to promoting better informed decision-making,

(b) increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government's activities.

This amendment seeks to strengthen the existing objects clause. As many forces will attempt to restrict access to government information, it is important that this clause is strong and clear. The Act will be interpreted with the objects clause clearly in view. The Greens acknowledge that existing clause 3 is good, but the Government failed to adopt the Ombudsman's recommendation that the objects of the new Act should be "to enable people to participate in the policy and decision-making process of government, to open government activities to scrutiny and to increase the accountability of government." Are the concepts of public participation in policy decision-making and scrutiny of government activities still too big and threatening for the Government to embrace? These concepts are at the heart of a healthy and vibrant democracy and should be reflected in this important bill. Therefore, the Greens propose that the Government adopt clause 3 (2) of the Commonwealth Government's Freedom of Information (Reform) Bill exposure draft, which states:

The Parliament intends, by these objects, to promote Australia's 14 representative democracies by contributing towards the following:

(a) increasing public participation in Government processes, with a view to promoting better-informed decision-making;
(b) increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government's activities.

I commend the amendment to the Committee.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [11.12 p.m.]: The Government opposes the amendment. This is a remarkable position for the Greens to adopt after a 12-month public consultation process on this legislation. Last year the Ombudsman issued a discussion paper explicitly asking for views on what should be the objects of the new legislation and received 70 submissions—not one from the Greens. Earlier this year the Government released an exposure draft bill proposing an objects clause identical to the one in the current bill; 50 submissions were received, but again not one from the Greens. Having played no role in the public consultation and debate the Greens now submit that the objects clause should be amended to reflect their opinion as to the best choice of words. Most ironic of all is that the wording the Greens propose refers to public participation in decision-making when they did not participate in the process. The Government will not support the amendment. The objects in the bill are consistent with the recommendations of the Ombudsman. Obviously, different people might have different views about the precise choice of words, but the current objects clause is clear and strong.

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER (Leader of the Opposition) [11.13 p.m.]: The Opposition indicated during the second reading debate, in addition to an earlier contribution in the Legislative Assembly, that the bill required certain amendments. The Greens propose 26 amendments to these government information bills. The New South Wales Coalition has been given insufficient time—less than a day—to properly work through the objectives and consequences of the amendments. For this reason the Opposition will not support them. Lee Rhiannon called into question the commitment of the Leader of the Opposition in the other place and, indeed, the Coalition's commitment to reform of freedom of information laws. However, not only is the Coalition's commitment to best practice in freedom of information processes well documented—unlike the Greens—but it made a submission to the NSW Ombudsman's review of freedom of information laws and also the Government's exposure draft bills.

The NSW Coalition's submission on the exposure bills has been publicly available on the Department of Premier and Cabinet's website for some time, along with the other 57 or so submissions. In addition to our submission, the New South Wales Coalition met with government representatives to articulate its concerns about the bill, which Mr O'Farrell expressed in his agreement in principle speech. The Greens did not provide a submission on the draft exposure bills. Surely, if anyone's commitment to reform of freedom of information could be called into question, it must be that of the Greens. No contact has been made between the office of the Greens and the office of the Ombudsman about these amendments. Of course, that raises serious questions about the practicality of what is proposed. To assist with the progression of these amendments through the course of debate this evening, I will not comment further on each amendment.

However, when I looked through the amendments after receiving them during the course of the second reading debate I was concerned particularly about the amendment seeking documentation from within the New South Wales police Counter Terrorism and Special Tactics Command and other areas within law enforcement. It appears that by these amendments the Greens are prepared to apply a public interest consideration to seek this information. I do not believe that information collected under the terms of this amendment would be in the public interest. On that basis alone, the Opposition strongly opposes the amendments.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.16 p.m.]: The Government and the Opposition have made some interesting comments despite the late hour. I was disappointed once again with the Attorney General, particularly as we largely agree on this legislation. This bill is an Ombudsman's recommendation, which the Attorney General tried to skate over. He was a little loose in his comments about how things have unfolded because he implies that what the Government is doing is consistent with the views of the Ombudsman. He failed to say that the Government has omitted one key recommendation. The Greens did not provide a submission, but there are many things the Greens do not achieve in the hurly-burly of political life in New South Wales. I would like to do many more things that do not get done. I regret that the Greens did not make a submission, but that does not rule out consideration of our opinion or our participation in dialogue in this Committee stage when different opinions are considered on merit. The Opposition has returned to the old excuse, "We did not have time to consider." Of course, in this last crazy week of this Parliament's organisation many of us often do not have time to consider things as thoroughly as we would like.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: The time for making submissions was a lot earlier than this week.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Mr Khan—

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: These amendments are so comprehensive; you did not draft them in five minutes.

The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Members should not interject and the member with the call should not respond to interjections.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Thank you for that advice, Madam Chair. Obviously, the amendments took time to work through and they were not ready until the last minute due to our difficulties and work pressures. However, we all come into this place and judge things as best we can rather than use poor excuses. The main problem is that the Attorney General tried to skate over the fact that this is a recommendation from the Ombudsman, which should be judged on that basis.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations) [11.19 p.m.]: We are having a startling debate! Yesterday I indicated to the Greens that we were going to debate this legislation today. I requested that if they had any amendments they provide them to us. They were provided to me during the course of the debate on the bills. Notwithstanding the fact that this legislation was introduced last week, exposure drafts and other material were available for people to consult and determine their position.

There will always be different perspectives on emphasis. I believe the bills encapsulate the essence of what has been the product of an exhaustive discussion process emanating from an issues paper that led to an Ombudsman's report, then to exposure bills. There was ample opportunity for people to comment. We now have legislation that is a synthesis of all that discussion. Everyone can have a view on the matter. The Greens did not feel inclined at an earlier point in time to raise these sorts of issues so that not only members of Parliament voting upon this could determine their position, but also stakeholders with an interest in framing the new legislation would have the opportunity to observe that commentary and have input.

One cannot keep talking about public participation in the process then, when given an opportunity for public participation in a process, put something up at the last minute and say, "No, you have to adopt our proposal because it reflects what we believe was best intended by one of the people who was a participant in the process", albeit someone in the position of the Ombudsman.

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

The Committee divided.
Question resolved in the negative.

Greens amendment No. 1 negatived.

The Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.29 p.m.], by leave: I move Greens amendments Nos 2, 3 and 20, in globo:

No. 2 Page 2, clause 4 (1). Insert after line 31:
(a) the Parliament,
No. 3 Page 3, clause 4 (1), line 6. Insert "the Parliament," after "definitions of" in the note.

No. 20 Page 72, schedule 4, clause 1. Insert after line 14:

the Parliament includes the Houses of Parliament and any committee or department of the Parliament, but does not include a member of Parliament in the capacity of a member of Parliament.

These amendments seek to bring the New South Wales Parliament into the ambit of this legislation, as recommended by the NSW Ombudsman. Parliament is defined as including the Houses of Parliament and any committee or department of the Parliament, but does not include a member of Parliament in the capacity of a member of Parliament. I note that the amendment does not include the documents held by members of Parliament. The Ombudsman has advised in his final report that the possibility of including members of Parliament within the scope of the Act should be considered actively in the first full review of the new Act to allow proper consideration of what is a complex issue. The Greens agree that this is a suitable approach, considering the sensitive issue of correspondence between members of Parliament and their constituents.

One would have to say that much of this bill is symbolic. It is a flagship for a new regime of openness. But by leaving out Parliament, the Government is failing to show leadership and really is exhibiting double standards. Premier Nathan Rees has agreed to open up government, but stops at the door of Parliament House in Macquarie Street. By leaving out Parliament, the public can only assume that the Government does not want the light shone on the administration of Parliament; that it wishes to hide behind dubious arguments about independence and that the Government already releases plenty of information about parliamentary operations, including the salaries and entitlements of members of Parliament.

The Government has made no compelling argument for why Parliament should be excluded, relying instead on advice from the President of the Legislative Council and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. I certainly acknowledge that our President and Speaker have done a very thorough job, but I part company with them on the conclusions they have drawn in relation to this legislation. I acknowledge that this is difficult for them because in coming to their conclusion they would have had to take into account that, by being included, they will be subject to any freedom of information laws.

In a letter dated 9 April this year Mr Peter Primrose and Mr Richard Torbay outlined their concerns. In summary, they say that subjecting Parliament to freedom of information laws compromises parliamentary independence. This bill will not compromise Parliament's independence. It will allow scrutiny of its administrative functions. It will improve the standing of this House and certainly will lift the confidence that people have in the democratic process, which right now is at a real low. They argue that the inclusion of Parliament in this legislation will infringe the privilege of Parliament—but that is protected in the bill and in the amendments that have been circulated—and that acting in the public interest militates against disclosure of information, the public disclosure of which would infringe the privilege of Parliament.

They also argue that there is a concern that freedom of information would compromise communications between members and constituents, but the Greens amendments do not capture members of Parliament. They argue in relation to members' entitlements that they already release information on members' use of their entitlements; for example, aggregated information about members' travel in the annual reports of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly. I have to acknowledge it is laudable to include the type of information in the annual report, but the information is really limited and hard to find.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: It is hard for you to find it.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It certainly does not allow a member of the public to track the salaries and allowances of individual members of Parliament, or how much is actually spent.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: It sounds to me like voyeurism.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I have to acknowledge that interjection.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Well, that is what it is.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Attorney General's interjection reflects very poorly on him, his party and his Government. We are talking about public money.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Will you tell us how much you use on room service—the most subsidised service of the Parliament?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Attorney General is sounding like Mr Egan, and Mr Egan got it wrong. He used to sound like a broken record when he raised that issue.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Because the Greens use it more than anyone else.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Attorney General has gone back 10 years to an issue that was discredited.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Do you mean you do not get room service?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I will come to that point. People can look at my website and see how I spend my electoral allowance.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: No, they cannot. Anyway, why would anyone want to do that?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: They can.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: I cannot find it.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: There is information on my electoral allowance.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: You had it for a little while. It was very dated. None of your colleagues did.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: No, it is all there. If the Attorney General has trouble using the website, I am always happy to sit down and explain how to use it.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: The use of room service is not on it.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Because I do not use room service. The President and the Speaker conclude by saying that a significant amount of additional information about the operation of parliamentary departments currently is published in the annual report and is subject to scrutiny during budget estimates. None of those arguments stand up, yet the Government—and now apparently the Opposition—is relying on this advice to explain why it is not adopting the Ombudsman's recommendation that Parliament be subject to freedom of information legislation. It is a clear recommendation, but it is the only recommendation that has been left out of the bill.

The Government argues that no other Australian jurisdiction subjects Houses of Parliament to freedom of information laws. But we know that many overseas jurisdictions do. So, does the Premier, Nathan Rees, want to be a leader on open government or not? The Premier has really taken a big step forward by introducing this legislation, but there is a major flaw in it, which will serve only to make people more cynical. The legislation captures everybody else, but there is a big wall around Macquarie Street. The Greens amendment will open up to public scrutiny how members of Parliament spend their allowances, thereby creating an important safeguard against rorting.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Are you the rorter?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Greens amendment is in line with freedom of information requirements in the United Kingdom, India, Ireland, South Africa and Scotland—all of which are subject to freedom of information laws. The Ombudsman points out that the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended in its 1995 report that parliamentary departments should be made subject to Commonwealth freedom of information laws. The Scottish Parliament's website publishes an online register of interests. It also covers expense details for all members. Scotland has not fallen apart! It does not cause great embarrassment to members of Parliament, but actually gives them more standing. It is what we should be doing here. While the New Zealand freedom of information Act does not apply to its Parliament, the New Zealand Government publishes a summary of entries and a register of interests online.

I put it to the Attorney General that although he has made it clear he will not change the law, he will not be prevented from implementing a requirement for the information to be published on the parliamentary website. We could easily work towards that, and it would be an advance. Let us keep in mind the money we are talking about. In last week's budget, the New South Wales Parliament was allocated $123 million with over $100 million of that amount allocated to members support. Again I put it to all members that this is public money and the public has a right to know how it is spent. The Attorney General may call that voyeurism, but I find that a very strange word to use in the context of public money. It will be interesting to hear how the Attorney General addresses that issue in his reply. That large chunk of taxpayers' money should not be sheltered from freedom of information laws. It should no longer be the case that members of Parliament are free to spend their generous salaries and allowances without scrutiny, except when there is a leak to some tenacious journalists.

The Hon. Charlie Lynn: If they paid us what we are worth, you would not have much to spend.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I will acknowledge that interjection for you, Charlie. It is time the Government shone the light on this system of pay and entitlements. Premier Rees's reputation as a freedom of information champion will be undermined if his Government fails to support this amendment. Details of pay and entitlements of members of Parliament should be set out on the Internet to facilitate public scrutiny. As I have already pointed out to the Attorney General, the New South Wales Government can decide to publish this information right away. We do not need to change our freedom of information laws to allow that to happen.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Then why are you trying?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I assumed that the Attorney General had been listening to the debate and that he would have heard the reasons.

CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I have already reminded members that they should not interject and that the member with the call should not respond to interjections.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The Greens have campaigned for many years for details to be made public of how members of Parliament spend their allowances. We recently became aware of the very embarrassing scandal in the United Kingdom. I put it to members that the reason we do not have that type of scandal—such as members buying food for their dog, paying for a swimming pool or funding a mortgage for a house from their allowances—is because nobody can see our electoral allowance. People just do not know. I am not actually suggesting that that goes on here.

The Hon. Michael Veitch: Yes, you are.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge that interjection. I am not suggesting it goes on because I do not know. But it creates suspicion, and that needs to be cleared up. What is wrong with telling the public how public money is spent? I challenge the Hon. Michael Veitch to say why it should not be made public. I have published on my website—and I have offered to help the Attorney General to find it—a breakdown of how I have spent my electoral allowance every year since I took office in 1999, because I strongly believe that the public has a right to know.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Does Sylvia put hers on?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Do you put yours on? That is the question. You have been given the example. I have called on former Premier Carr and former Premier Iemma and now Premier Rees to follow my example by publishing such information. I have even taken the step of publishing on my website the salaries and entitlements of the various members of Parliament. Obviously it is not possible to publish how the money is spent. If our small outfit can do that, clearly the Government could do it extremely easily.

We hear a lot about what politicians get paid and about the entitlements they receive. But do people know what their politicians earn, or how much a Minister receives, or what politicians' entitlements are and why they receive them? What is wrong with sharing that information? If the Government, the Opposition and the Conservative crossbenchers vote against these amendments, they will be admitting that they are not serious about freedom of information reform. To take Parliament out of this legislation is terrible; it weaken