Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 26 November 2009, Corrected Copy)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Thursday 26 November 2009

__________

The President (The Hon. Amanda Ruth Fazio) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.

ASSENT TO BILL

Assent to the following bill reported:

GRAFFITI CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL 2009

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

OMBUDSMAN

Report

The President tabled, pursuant to the Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997 and the Ombudsman Act 1974, a report entitled, "Law Enforcement (Controlled Operations) Act 1997 Annual Report 2008-2009", dated November 2009, received and authorised to be made public this day.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

ANZAC WAR MEMORIAL

Motion by the Hon. Kayee Griffin agreed to:

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Formal Business Notices of Motions

Private Members' Business item Nos 237 and 238 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE NSW TAXI INDUSTRY

Extension of Reporting Date

Motion by the Hon. John Ajaka agreed to:

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. Peter Primrose tabled the following papers:

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Peter Primrose.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 3

Report: Budget Estimates 2009-2010

The Hon. John Ajaka, on behalf of the Chair, tabled report No. 22, entitled "Budget Estimates 2009-2010", dated November 2009, together with transcripts of evidence, tabled documents, correspondence and answers to questions taken on notice.

Report ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. John Ajaka.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [11.04 a.m.]: I move:

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

PETITIONS

School League Tables

Petition requesting continued support for legislation to prevent the publication of simplistic school league tables, received from Dr John Kaye.

Coal-Fired Power Stations

Petition requesting that the Government halt its electricity privatisation plans, ensure no new coal-fired generation in New South Wales and implement a transition plan to a jobs rich, renewable energy future, received from Dr John Kaye.

Unborn Child Protection

Petition requesting that the House uphold the sanctity of human life, defend the fundamental rights of unborn children and reject all attempts to initiate legislation that emulates the Victorian Abortion Law Reform Act 2008, received from Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.

Electricity Industry Privatisation

Petition opposing electricity industry privatisation, received from Dr John Kaye.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing Orders: Presentation of an Irregular Petition

Motion, by leave, by Dr John Kaye agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the presentation of an irregular petition from 4,791 citizens of New South Wales concerning Hurlstone Agricultural High School.

IRREGULAR PETITION

Hurlstone Agricultural High School

Petition opposing the sale of Hurlstone Agricultural High School educational land, received from Dr John Kaye.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Withdrawal of Business

Private Members' Business item No. 62 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by Ms Lee Rhiannon.

Private Members' Business item No. 229 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by Dr John Kaye.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Government Business Notices of Motions Nos 1 to 3 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 1 to 8 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE NO. 2

Reference

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: I inform the House that in accordance with the resolution of the House relating to the establishment of committees, General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 resolved on 25 November 2009 to adopt the following reference:

That General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2 inquire into and report on the provision of education to students with a disability or special needs attending primary or secondary schools, with a particular focus on what can be learnt from international and Federal approaches, and approaches in other States and Territories, including:

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Precedence of Business

Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:

That on Thursday 26 November 2009 Government Business take precedence of General Business.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Robert Brown agreed to:

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Robert Brown agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 235 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

FOOD AMENDMENT (BEEF GRADING) BILL 2009

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 November 2009.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.27 a.m.]: I thank the House for its indulgence yesterday in adjourning debate on the Food Amendment (Beef Grading) Bill 2009 until today. I had hoped that we would be further down the track with negotiations in relation to concerns about the bill. Whilst some issues have been resolved, sadly we have not concluded our negotiations. However, I am hoping for some reassurances from the Minister today. As many people know, the purpose of the Food Amendment (Beef Grading) Bill 2009 is to amend the Food Act 2003 with respect to the advertising, packaging and labelling of beef. The bill aims to provide more reliable and consistent beef retail labelling by requiring retailers to utilise only labels that are defined within AUS-MEAT language. The AUS-MEAT language is a detailed set of objective descriptions relating to carcass cuts and traits such as hot weight, fat depth, sex and age of animals, and it is used throughout the red meat chain. I will come back to that.

The bill would make it illegal to falsely describe beef in advertising, packaging or labelling. Under this amendment to the Food Act breaches would incur a $55,000 fine for an individual, which is not insubstantial when talking about suburban and country butchers and other small retailers. The penalty for breaches by a corporation is $2.7 million. That is obviously designed to get the big guys, but it gets the not so big guys as well. Those are substantial penalties. The real question is whether it will work. The bill moves the AUS-MEAT language from the back door of the retail store to the front of the shop. It refers to a detailed language that experts understand, not a front-of-shop language that consumers understand or which will provide any reassurance. Highly refined and defined details about fat depth and so on are terrific at the back of house, but at the front of house, where the product is being sold, they do not work. That is the reason for my concern about this bill.

This is a well-intentioned bill and the Opposition supports it, as would any responsible person. However, concerns have been raised about breaches of truth in labelling or wrinkling at the edges that have not helped the industry. The Independent member for Northern Tablelands, Richard Torbay, introduced the Food Amendment (Meat Grading) Bill 2008 in the other place in December last year, when similar concerns to those I have mentioned were raised. To the member's credit, he has consulted over the past year and has introduced a new bill—the Food Amendment (Beef Grading) Bill 2009.

Whilst the new bill includes some good changes and takes steps in the right direction, in its current form it does not have industry support. That is a real concern. Many people have been too quick to say that in reality that lack of support is a lack of support from Coles and Woolworths and to ask who cares about them. It is too easy to pull out that card and to dismiss their objections. However, that approach ignores the large number of people who work for Coles and Woolworths and the mums and dads who own shares in them. That is not the problem. If it were an issue for only Coles and Woolworths they would be able to address it and pass their costs on to their processors, and obviously to the growers. However, smaller manufacturers are similarly affected, as are the small butcher shop owners and many others. That is the source of my concern and the reason that the Coalition will move amendments.

I have a letter from Charles Armstrong, the President of the New South Wales Farmers Association, and I suspect that the Minister and other members have received this same letter. It states:

Given these concerns and the development of the register, the Association believes that the bill should be adjourned or referred to a committee to allow these developments to be considered. The Association supports the bill—

as does the Coalition—

the intent of the bill—

as does the Coalition—

They are fair sentiments. The Australian Red Meat Advisory Council's domestic beef retail register retail cuts terminology is no longer in draft form—as of this week it has been adopted Australia wide. We now have a common language that we can take from the back room to the front room. That has happened during the progress of this bill and that is an important step forward. I have indicated to the Minister and others that I agree with Charles Armstrong that the best way forward would be for this House to indicate its support for the bill and to refer it to a standing committee—for example, the Standing Committee on State Development, on which the Government has the numbers.

The Hon. Michael Veitch: It is a very good committee.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I agree, and it has the appropriately qualified people and resources to examine our concerns. I put that suggestion to the Minister. I believe it should be seriously considered and I look forward to his speech in reply. Of course, that will happen only if there is bipartisan support. If it does not, the Coalition will move the amendments that have been circulated in an attempt to improve the legislation. I believe those amendments are fair. We accept that this legislation is being dealt with in a rush, and would prefer that that were not the case. I understand that some concerns have been expressed about the amendments. We believe they would improve the legislation and would give the Minister a better option to take to the Primary Industries Ministerial Council in April.

The Coalition understands that other States do not support the bill in its current form. It would be better if we were to allow proper examination of the legislation. I know of no member in this House—Government, Opposition or crossbench—who does not support the progress of this bill. Our concern is that although we are doing a good thing we should ensure that in our haste to do it we do not make any mistakes. We do not want enthusiastic amateurs going ahead to fix a problem—and there is a problem that needs to be fixed—and creating a whole list of other problems.

This is my first opportunity to speak on a bill with the Hon. Tony Kelly as the new Minister. We have worked together for a number of years and I respect his decency and his background in regional communities. I hope he takes these genuine concerns on board to try to make sure that we do not come up with something that sounds good but which may well be a dog—and it is not intended to be a dog—because we may not have covered something. The Opposition supports the bill.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands) [11.40 a.m.]: I support the Food Amendment (Beef Grading) Bill 2009. The bill aims to address the issue of beef labelling by promoting consistent, consumer-orientated labelling systems that will inform consumer choices in relation to the quality of beef products. In this way it directly confronts an issue that has hamstrung the beef industry for decades. Inaccurate or deceptive labelling of beef has affected the market for high-quality beef produced in New South Wales. These labelling issues may have also contributed to the overall decline in red meat consumption as consumers react to inconsistent quality. During debate in the other place the member for Northern Tablelands referred to a reduction in consumption of about 17 per cent. This reduction impacts on the viability of the red meat industry.

The bill provides for a standard labelling system for consumers to differentiate between high-quality beef that will produce a tender meal and lower-quality beef more suited to stewing, or even lower-quality beef that is suitable only for mincing. The industry has talked about addressing this issue in various ways for years but has not adopted a standard and consistent scheme that successfully addresses the impact of inaccurate or deceptive beef labelling on consumers and beef producers. In the meantime, beef's market share continues to decline. The beef truth-in-labelling issue has generated considerable television and print media interest, particularly in recent months. The Government congratulates the member for Northern Tablelands on the extensive consultation he has undertaken with all sections of the industry, including the Red Meat Advisory Council and its members, Meat and Livestock Australia, AUS-MEAT, New South Wales Farmers, and major retailers. The Government also notes the additional consultation the member has undertaken with the Red Meat Advisory Council and major retailers since the bill passed through the Legislative Assembly earlier this month.

The bill now amends the Food Act 2003 to make it an offence in New South Wales to advertise, package or label beef using the word "budget" if the advertising labelling or packaging does not also include the words "low grade" or "low quality". It further amends the Food Act 2003 to make it an offence for any retailer in New South Wales to advertise, package or label beef using the word "manufacturing" if the advertising, packaging or labelling does not also include the words "suitable for mince only". These provisions will help overcome the confusion in the market around lower-priced products and will go a long way to addressing truth-in-labelling concerns.

I want to deal specifically with the concerns raised by the Opposition about the use of "low grade" and "low quality" descriptors for budget beef. We need to deal with this issue in the context of the bill before the House, which is clearly about truth in labelling of beef. To this end it needs to be understood that the 2002 Voluntary Retail Beef Labelling Agreement provides that all beef from cows with eight teeth must be labelled "budget" with the exception of tenderloins and mince. The current AUS-MEAT language also requires beef from animals with eight teeth destined for the domestic market to be labelled "budget ox", "budget cow" or "manufacturing". But this is not the full picture.

The Red Meat Advisory Council has asked that Meat Standards Australia [MSA] graded product from animals with eight teeth be excluded from the "budget" category. The member for Northern Tablelands has agreed with this proposition subject to appropriate improvements to MSA integrity as a result of the MSA integrity review being undertaken by the Australian Meat Industry Council and Meat and Livestock Australia. These changes would mean that the only beef remaining in the budget category are cuts that are unlikely to eat well no matter how they are cooked. In other words, this beef is likely to deliver a bad eating experience no matter how it is cooked. Remember, this is beef that has actually failed the grade. The Opposition can put whatever spin it wants on this but most consumers will call this low-grade or low-quality beef. Of course, this beef can be used for mincing, in which event there would be no need to label it as "budget".

I move to the Opposition call for this bill to be referred to a standing committee for further review. This call should be seen as paralysis by analysis. As I have already indicated, the industry has talked about this issue for decades without coming up with a scheme that successfully addresses the impact of inaccurate or deceptive beef labelling. The bill before the House provides a substantial framework to do just that. It also provides for regulation-making powers to deal with matters of detail and it commences by proclamation.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: When is that?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: That is the point I will get to, particularly in light of your comments. These features collectively provide the beef and retail industries with every opportunity to engage in and to help shape the implementation of this initiative. There is no need to add a standing committee inquiry to the years of fruitless dialogue that have already occurred on this issue. For this reason the Government does not support this call by the Opposition.

Returning to the detail of the bill, the amendments will allow for the regulations to prescribe schemes to regulate the use of other words and expressions in the labelling of meat. These schemes will no longer be necessarily restricted to the existing AUS-MEAT language. As I mentioned earlier, the bill commences on proclamation. This allows time for industry to further develop a consumer-orientated grading system with the AUS-MEAT Standards and Language Committee. This system could include expanding the AUS-MEAT language to include familiar and consumer-friendly terms such as "scotch fillet" or "New York cut". The beef and retail industries are encouraged to be involved in the further development of any labelling scheme. In the event that industry is not successful in agreeing on an appropriate scheme, the bill will provide the Government with regulation-making provisions to prescribe an appropriate scheme.

As indicated in the other place, the Government also acknowledges the proposal that industry could present this system to the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—as mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—next April. This would obviously give the ministerial council the option of considering this work as the basis of a national beef-grading scheme. As previously stated, the bill's provisions will commence by proclamation and, in anticipation of the need to allow industry time to work on the AUS-MEAT language, they are not expected to commence until mid 2010. I think that will allay a lot of the concerns raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and by a number of other people. It will allow significant time for further consultation and discussion at the Primary Industries Ministerial Council. Therefore, we will not be supporting the amendments.

The Government also notes that commencing the bill by proclamation provides the opportunity to ensure AUS-MEAT language or any retail subset of the AUS-MEAT language that is prescribed is appropriate as consumer-friendly retail language. As the member for Northern Tablelands pointed out, the bill is about protecting consumers. The Government acknowledges the limitations of the existing AUS-MEAT language in this regard. Some parts of the industry have had reservations about New South Wales being the only State to regulate meat labelling. I understand that we are constrained by some Federal Acts. For example, some of the major retailers have indicated support for a national approach but are concerned at the prospect that New South Wales may be the only State to introduce legislation on this issue.

However, these concerns are not shared by all retailers. Despite extended consideration of the issue at a national level, there has been no national agreement to change Australian beef labelling arrangements. Therefore, the Government supports New South Wales taking the lead. In fact, I anticipate that this approach may well lead consumers in other States to perceive New South Wales beef as being a higher-quality, more consistent product. The size of the New South Wales market means that this initiative in New South Wales may well influence consideration of this issue in other jurisdictions.

In view of the need to facilitate industry compliance, section 94 of the Food Act 2003 will be amended by the 2009 bill to allow audits for truth in labelling. Proposed section 87A will be added to create a new beef labelling auditor role and allow for the Food Authority to appoint third-party auditors from an approved industry body to carry out the truth-in-labelling functions. Approved bodies would likely include agencies with industry experience, such as AUS-MEAT.

The Government acknowledges the concerns raised by industry about the need for auditing requirements to be as minimal and simple as is reasonable. I can confirm that the Government shares this aspiration and will endeavour to reflect this in any regulations on these matters. I can also confirm that the Government will similarly endeavour to ensure that retailers are not unreasonably held accountable for any mistakes or deceptive practices of their suppliers. These are matters that need to be dealt with in consultation with industry in the event that regulations are developed.

There are a number of beneficiaries of this bill. The millions of consumers of beef in New South Wales will benefit from being able to make more informed choices about the beef they consume and they will have increased confidence in the quality of product they buy. Industry will benefit. Improving the labelling of beef is an attempt to minimise inefficiencies in the New South Wales beef retail market by providing a type of quality assurance. It is expected that beef producers and ancillary industries will benefit directly from the legislation through improved returns for better-quality product and possibly from increased demand.
Improved labelling is expected to improve the efficiency, profitability and sustainability of the beef industry and, therefore, the rural communities it supports. In particular, small and boutique producers, processors and retailers focused on producing high-quality products will benefit from appropriate recognition of the standard of their product and its differentiation from lower-grade alternatives. Some aspects of the scheme are voluntary. It is up to each retailer to decide whether to opt in to using the AUS-MEAT language or another prescribed scheme consistently. The bill tabled in December 2008 would have applied to all food businesses in New South Wales, including restaurants and fast-food outlets.

The provisions of the 2009 bill will not apply to restaurants and fast-food outlets unless their inclusion is prescribed in regulation. The Government is not contemplating this course of action at this time. The revised bill prescribes penalties of up to $660 for individuals and $1,320 for corporations. The maximum court-imposed penalties are 500 penalty units in the case of an individual, approximately $55,000, and 2,500 penalty units in the case of a corporation, approximately $275,000. It is anticipated there will be modest implementation costs to industry and government. However, it is also anticipated that the benefits of the proposed system to both industry and consumers will outweigh these costs.

This revised bill will improve consumer access to reliable quality beef and better reward beef producers and retailers who deliver and sell accurately labelled high-quality beef product. It also allows for industry to take a lead on further developing appropriate labelling schemes rather than the Government imposing these immediately. On this basis the Government supports the bill.

The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI [11.52 a.m.]: I support the Food Amendment (Beef Grading) Bill 2009. "Safer food, clearer choices" is the mission statement of the New South Wales Food Authority and it sums up the authority in a nutshell. Needless to say that when it comes to food the Government has a clear focus on the health and safety of the people of this State. The Food Authority works diligently to ensure our food supply continues to be safe and suitable. Members would agree that the authority has been doing a great job in this respect since its establishment five years ago.

When it comes to consumer choice the Government is always looking for relevant and appropriate ways to improve the information available to consumers and, importantly, to make sure that consumers get what they pay for. This bill achieves that goal in that it builds on the Government's current food regulation arrangements, including a range of innovative measures the Government has implemented over the years. I remind that House that the Food Authority already has a strong record of compliance action in this area, with effective campaigns on illegal practices in butcher shops and the seafood industry.

For instance, Food Authority officers now routinely test for the illegal use of sulphur dioxide. A few years ago it was discovered that a disturbing 58 per cent of butcher shops at that time were illegally adding sulphur dioxide to their meat to make it look fresher. Needless to say, the use of sulphur dioxide is not permitted under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. When this illegal practice was first discovered the Food Authority worked with and educated the industry, and followed up with enforcement action where required. Testing for the illegal use of sulphur dioxide now takes place whenever a food safety officer walks into a butcher shop. As a result, the previous practice has dramatically declined to almost nil among the hundreds of butcher shops visited, although the Food Authority continues to take enforcement action whenever breaches are identified.

In the seafood industry the Food Authority has been very successful in cracking down on illegal practices. I remind the House that the authority joined forces with the then Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries to uncover illegal activities such as black market sales of seafood, unlicensed operators and premises, product substitution and non-compliance with imported labelling requirements. The authority conducted hundreds of inspections of seafood processors, wholesalers, retailers and restaurants from Tweed Heads to Eden. Evidence was taken for three prosecutions and 39 penalty notices, and 213 warning letters were issued.

Breaches identified included substitution and labelling offences such as the sale of vannamei prawns as king prawns, banana prawns as king prawns, tilapia fillets as bream fillets and basa fillets as perch. These were clear examples of consumers not getting what they paid for and this bill will help to remedy the situation. It will bring in consumer-friendly labelling that is consistent and will help inform consumers about the quality of the beef they wish to buy. The labelling of beef will be standardised and will allow people to choose whatever beef best suits the dish they wish to prepare, such as more tender cuts of beef for grilling and less tender cuts for casseroles and stews. I commenced by quoting the Food Authority's mission statement of "safer food, clearer choices". This bill fits very comfortably with that mission statement: it makes choices for consumers more clear. On that basis the Government supports the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.57 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Food Amendment (Beef Grading) Bill 2009. The intention of the bill is to provide accurate labelling of beef and to prohibit misleading and deceptive conduct with respect to beef. It is important that consumers can trust the labels when they purchase meat, particularly beef. The bill prohibits false descriptions of beef. Retailers, supermarkets and the suburban butcher must ensure that labelling is accurate. I received a letter from the New South Wales Farmers Association stating it would have preferred the bill to be referred to a committee. However, the Leader of the Government has said that after the bill has passed through the House the Government will provide an opportunity for negotiations to be held with national bodies that are moving in this area at a national level to ensure our law is consistent with the national domestic beef register that is being developed. I acknowledge that this procedure is a little complicated, but it is better that the bill, which is straightforward, be passed by the House.

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

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
__________

NEWCASTLE CITY DEVELOPMENT

The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: My question without notice is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Does the Minister recall a question I asked of the former Minister for State Development on 12 November 2009 in relation to the Newcastle Alliance, Hunter Advantage and the Fix Our City Campaign? Does the Minister recall the commitment given by the former Minister: "I am happy to meet these people at any time but if they have these sorts of views, they should come and tell me. I am always willing to listen." Will the Minister meet with these groups and representatives of the Hunter business community? Indeed, will the Minister go further and commit to meeting them in Newcastle as a matter of urgency?

The PRESIDENT: Order! I ask all members to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent setting.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am always happy to meet with any organisation to talk about the recovery of New South Wales or about how we can assist the regions. I will endeavour to investigate the points made by the Leader of the Opposition to see whether it is appropriate to meet with these people in the time frames we have. Obviously, as we move towards the end of the year there are huge demands on everybody's time, but I will endeavour to see what can be done.

ASBESTOS VICTIMS

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question without notice is addressed to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. What is the New South Wales Government doing to support victims of asbestos?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: This week is Asbestos Awareness Week, which provides an opportunity for people to seek out information about the potential risks of being exposed to asbestos and reminds members of the community who have been exposed to asbestos to get checked. It is also a time to reiterate the New South Wales Government's continuing support for victims of asbestos, and to place on record the work of the Federal and New South Wales governments in enabling James Hardie asbestos victims to continue to receive compensation. On 7 November 2009 the Prime Minister and the New South Wales Premier announced a joint loan of up to $320 million to help ensure that sufferers of asbestos-related diseases continue to receive compensation from the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund.

The New South Wales Government maintains that James Hardie has a moral and legal obligation to meet its commitments to asbestos victims. As honourable members would be aware, the New South Wales Government established the Jackson commission into James Hardie asbestos funding in 2003. In 2004 and 2005 the New South Wales Government, together with the late great Bernie Banton and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, negotiated an agreement to establish the asbestos fund to ensure payments to victims for the next 40 years. However, the global financial crisis has affected James Hardie's ability to pay—hence the loan facility, which will cover some three years of compensation payments at current claim rates. This decision will help give peace of mind to asbestos victims and their families. The New South Wales Government's priority is to ensure that victims of asbestos continue to be paid the compensation payments they deserve.

Breathing in asbestos fibres can cause asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma; however, the symptoms usually do not appear for about 20 to 30 years. Therefore, if people think they have been exposed to asbestos at any stage of their lives, they should take the time to undergo a test. Occupational health and safety regulations require employers to provide health checks for employees who are exposed to hazardous substances such as asbestos or crystalline silica. Earlier this week I announced that the Government is offering a screening service for employers and workers to identify respiratory problems resulting from asbestos exposure. Medical screenings are available from the Dust Disease Board's Sydney central business district premises and from the Lung Bus. The Lung Bus is a one-stop mobile screening service that comes to an employer's work site so that there is little disruption to business operations. Screening on the Lung Bus includes an X-ray, lung function test and examination by a doctor. Checks take around 15 minutes and the Lung Bus is capable of testing up to 64 employees a day.

A home that was built or renovated up to the mid 1980s will most likely have some building materials that contain asbestos. Cutting, sanding, drilling, grinding or pulling up materials that contain asbestos is dangerous, simply because there is no safe level of asbestos exposure. That is why it is important that people be checked before they start renovating. Asbestos Awareness Week is the perfect time for people to seek out the right information via www.thinkasbestos.com.au before reaching for power tools and disturbing old building materials, potentially releasing harmful dust. The Think Asbestos campaign website was launched in Newcastle just over a year ago. The website provides information about the potential risks of asbestos and, importantly, details about who people can talk to about identifying and dealing safely with products around the home that may contain asbestos. Spring and the summer holiday season are traditionally the times when people choose to finish off home projects. So if anyone is considering renovating their home, I urge them to also think about asbestos and go to the Think Asbestos website.

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY PRIVATISATION

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: My question is directed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Does the Treasurer recall that in response to my question yesterday he referenced the following statements as reasons why the Government will not let Snowy Hydro bid on New South Wales' electricity assets: "The NSW Government should not invest in electricity generation or retailing" and "The NSW Government should transfer its retail and generation interests to the private sector"? Does the Treasurer really understand the unique structure of the Snowy Hydro business? Is he aware that the constitution and shareholder agreement established the company as explicitly not an agent or representative of any one of its government shareholders and there is no recourse or borrowing back to government? Why is the Treasurer not letting Snowy Hydro bid—to increase competition, to increase the price, and to increase the return to New South Wales?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I do not know how many times I need to explain this to the Opposition. It is clear from the line of questioning that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of our energy reforms and what they are about. Our energy reforms are designed to attract new private sector investment in generation and to secure our future electricity supplies. Even worse is, in their ignorance, the attempt by the Opposition to scare the people of Monaro. In contrast to the economic vandals opposite, the Government sits as the major shareholder of Snowy Hydro, and has overseen the expansion of the Snowy Hydro business and the creation of new regional jobs.

We are well aware of what all the interested groups have said in relation to the electricity reforms, and of their great concern about whether the Government will stay involved in the process. That is precisely why we have developed the Gentrader contract model; that is precisely why we are going to pull all the development sites up; and that is precisely why we are bundling to create further competition in the sector. The Government does not want to be involved in generation in the future. That is very clear. We want to give the private sector the opportunity to invest in generation in the future. We have made our energy reforms very clear. The expressions of interest in relation to energy reform have closed. It is clear that there is very strong interest in what is occurring in New South Wales in relation to our energy sector reforms.

SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS REGIONAL SHOOTING COMPLEX

The Hon. ROY SMITH: I direct my question to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development, representing the Minister for Planning. Is the Minister aware that thousands of shooters in the Illawarra and the Southern Highlands have been waiting more than 20 years for an adequate shooting complex? Work on the Southern Highlands regional shooting complex was meant to have started more than two years ago but has been repeatedly and unnecessarily delayed. Is the Minister aware of the recent decision handed down in the Land and Environment Court, which ruled that planning approval for the Southern Highlands regional shooting complex is void? What does the Government intend to do in order to meet its repeated promises to the shooters of this region? More importantly, what does the Government intend to do to rectify this latest obstacle to the development of the Southern Highlands regional shooting complex?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Land and Environment Court judgement was handed down last Tuesday afternoon. I am advised by the Minister for Planning that the Government and the Department of Planning are reviewing the judgement and any implications. I am further advised that as a result of the judgement the development proposal is currently undetermined.

OYSTER INDUSTRY

The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will the Minister advise the House about today's "Oysters in the House" event and the importance of the Government's support of the New South Wales oyster industry?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: Oysters from New South Wales are some of the best in the world, and those seafood delicacies are produced by a fantastic local industry. I will shortly have the pleasure of officially opening the fourth annual "Oysters in the House" event, which is being held at Customs House, Sydney. This event is an initiative of the NSW Farmers Association, and is supported by Industry and Investment New South Wales and the Sydney Royal Fine Food Show. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the President of the NSW Farmers Association, Charles Armstrong.

Today many people will have the opportunity to enjoy the hundreds of dozens of Sydney rock, Pacific and flat oysters on display. These quality oysters come from well-known production regions, such as Merimbula, Narooma, Clyde, Shoalhaven/Crookhaven, Hawkesbury, Wallis Lake and Camden Haven. For oyster lovers, it will be a great chance to learn more about the product and gain some insight into this valuable aquaculture industry. For the industry, it will be a chance to mix with the restaurant and seafood trade, media and consumers, and to market their credentials as leaders of the New South Wales seafood industry.

This event showcases just how far the oyster industry has come from its humble beginnings in the 1870s. In the 140 years since then, farmers have had to recover from setbacks, such as disease outbreaks, affecting their livelihood and oyster quality. However, the oyster industry is resilient, as seen in the resurrection of the Hawkesbury River industry following a devastating crop loss in 2004-05 and, more recently, following the devastating floods on the North Coast earlier this year. New South Wales should be proud of the resilience of this industry, which continues to produce exceptional oysters despite these challenges.

The New South Wales oyster industry is worth $40 million at the farm gate, producing about seven million dozen oysters each year. The Sydney rock oyster is described as the "Grange" of all oysters in the world. The New South Wales Government continues to support the industry and its farmers as they continue to adopt best-practice methods for farming this seafood delicacy. Farmers have had to adapt to food safety, water quality, technology, and oyster health issues. These farmers are now being recognised along the coast as leaders in water management. They work cooperatively with agencies, the Catchment Management Authority and the community to protect and enhance our water quality and manage impacts in their estuaries, such as pest species. I worked closely with some of the oyster growers at Farquhar Inlet to ensure it was reopened.

Many estuaries are developing their own environmental management systems, aiming to improve their working environment and their oyster farming practices. These environmentally friendly oyster farmers are using new, environmentally friendly infrastructure and are adapting to the challenges of produced hatchery reared, faster growing, disease-resistant oysters. This also benefits others who use the estuaries, such as recreational and commercial fishers, the local community, tourist industry and us, as consumers of this fine product. The State Government will continue to work with the industry to support ongoing research efforts. The "Oysters in the House" event is a chance to celebrate all that is good about our New South Wales oyster industry, and I applaud the NSW Farmers Association again on this wonderful initiative.

CLIMATE CHANGE FUND

Mr IAN COHEN: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment. Does the Minister support the Climate Change Fund in New South Wales providing $3.47 million to six private golf courses in New South Wales to secure water efficiency savings? Does the Minister acknowledge that if the $3.47 million given to the private golf course owners were redirected to the Climate Change Fund rainwater tank rebate scheme, it could help 6,940 family homes to install 7,000 litre rainwater tanks? Is it more important to support water security for households or private golf courses?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I know there is a strong interest in the outstanding Climate Change Fund in New South Wales. The fund helps families, businesses and communities fight climate change with practical and simple solutions. An amount of $20 million is being spent on the Energy Efficient Schools Program to upgrade lighting and implement energy efficiency projects, with programs already completed in 21 schools. The $30 million Public Facilities Program is available to the education and community facilities of State and local governments to support water and energy saving initiatives. An amount of $10.7 million was allocated to 53 projects in the first round, saving 170 million litres of water and over 9,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year. The second round closed on 30 April 2009, with funding available under two streams: demonstration and community savers. The latter will fund simple, low-cost water and energy saving measures in community facilities.

On 16 September 2009 I announced the results of the community saver stream, with $5.9 million allocated to 247 projects to improve water and energy efficiency in club houses—in reference to the question of the member—community centres, preschools and aged care facilities. These projects will save 125 million litres of water and 4,560 tonnes of carbon pollution per year, and will significantly reduce the energy bills for these non-profit organisations. They provide support to demonstrate the path to a sustainable future at the very places where the people of New South Wales come together to build community wellbeing. The fund also provides $40 million for renewable energy development programs for a renewable energy pilot and demonstration projects, such as solar and geothermal power stations. This will help position New South Wales at the forefront of the transition into a low-carbon economy, so that the State can reap the investment to flow from the agreed 20 per cent renewable energy target.

In the first round, $27.3 million was allocated to seven projects generating or displacing grid electricity by more than 390,000 megawatt hours, reducing summer peak demands by 11,400 kilowatts, and saving more than 400,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year. Projects funded under the Water and Energy Savings Funds are continuing under the Climate Change Fund. Under the contestable funding rounds, $28.3 million was allocated to 49 energy-saving projects, estimated to save 139,000 megawatt hours of electricity per year and more than 150,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year. Similarly, under the Water Savings Fund an amount of $55 million was allocated to 99 water projects in the Sydney region, estimated to save 12.6 billion litres of water per year, and $3.4 million was allocated to 39 projects in the Central Coast region, estimated to save 500 million litres of water per year.

Mr IAN COHEN: I ask a supplementary question. Given that the Minister has described these golf courses as part of that community group, is the Minister able to say that the money is not going to any private golf courses?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I said in response to the member's question that the Government is doing two things. First, the Government is funding projects where people come together in communities. The Government is also funding projects as part of a demonstration process to show what can be achieved in a range of facilities, as we move towards a carbon-constrained economy and into an era where water will become more precious. The Government is providing funding to a range of organisations to demonstrate a capacity to deal with water, electricity and other issues associated with energy in a carbon-constrained economy.

MISCELLANEOUS AWARD

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I direct my question without notice to the Attorney General, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Does the Attorney General stand by his Government's submission to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on the Exposure Draft Miscellaneous Award 2010? In the submission he observed:

Should the coverage clause of the exposure draft be made in its current terms there may well be unintended consequences exacerbated by the lack of representation for those employees and employees who have inadvertently fallen within its coverage.

Is his Government's concern that the proposed award may extend to roles such as babysitters, charity collectors, nannies and disc jockeys and thus have adverse unintended consequences for employers and employees contrary to the assurances of Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Government has made various submissions to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission during this process. We stand by our submissions. In particular, we have argued that modern awards should incorporate all the existing New South Wales community standards to ensure that the award modernisation process does not leave any New South Wales employee worse off or add to employer costs. I note that the industrial parties have supported the majority of outcomes of the award modernisation process. Stephen Smith, National Workplace Relations Director of the Australian Industry Group—which, as a matter of interest, changed its view recently on national industrial relations—stated that the outcomes of the award modernisation process were "balanced and fair".

As I said, we have argued consistently for the retention of New South Wales award standards in modern awards. In our submission relating to stage four of the award modernisation process we observed that certain proposed modern awards provided for pay rates lower than those applicable in New South Wales awards. In response we argued that the New South Wales award rates should be adopted. I note that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission is yet to finalise the modern awards in question.

STATE ECONOMY

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question without notice is addressed to the Treasurer, and Minister for State Development. Will the Treasurer provide the House with the latest information on the New South Wales economy?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I make the disclaimer to alert the Opposition that it is more good news. As we see the green shoots of recovery emerge, a lot more work still needs to be done. The New South Wales Labor Government's number one priority is jobs. That is why we acted immediately in the face of the global financial crisis and initiated our $62.9 billion infrastructure investment plan over four years to support 160,000 jobs every year. The Opposition has called on us to reverse this stimulus measure and axe those jobs, as it has with the Federal Government and its stimulus measures in education and housing. I, for one, cannot look the brickies, plumbers, carpenters, builders, surveyors, and suppliers in the eye and say—as the Liberal-Nationals have done—that things are now going so well that we can wind the stimulus back. As for the stimulus measures involving social housing, so much construction is occurring in New South Wales that if all the bricks used in this activity were lined up we could construct a half metre high brick fence from Sydney to Perth. That is a long way.

The PRESIDENT: Order! There are too many interjections.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am talking about what the Government has done to support jobs in western Sydney. I can appreciate that the Opposition will call out because they have no interest in western Sydney or jobs. All they want to do is talk down this State. Members will be interested to learn that today I announced that 40 western Sydney jobs have been secured after the New South Wales Government secured the assets of Minto food company Quality Ingredients. Quality Ingredients was in receivership and faced an uncertain future, but now has been purchased by Wetherill Park based company New Food Coatings. This is about supporting jobs and supporting the State's $360 billion economy. The New South Wales Government has helped secure the sale with an assistance package from Industry and Investment New South Wales.

Today, I and the hardworking member for Smithfield, Ninos Khoshaba, met with New Food Coatings at its Wetherill Park facility where we talked about how the 40 workers of Quality Ingredients, which had gone into receivership, have accepted offers to move across to New Food Coatings early next year. That is 40 jobs providing for 40 families. This sale is a good result for these employees who will have the opportunity to continue working in western Sydney under strong new corporate ownership. Quality Ingredients made food additives and ingredients, including herbs and spices, cooked smallgoods, meats, marinades and glazes, food coatings and seasonings, flavour concentrates, sauces, gravies, spice blends and soups. Unfortunately, this western Sydney company found itself in financial difficulty and was placed in receivership. It was feared the Quality Ingredients business would move interstate, resulting in the loss of local jobs. That is why the New South Wales Government stepped in to help broker the sale of the company to a stable and established buyer with the credentials to secure the continued employment of Quality Ingredients workers. This is about supporting workers. I met with Calvin Boyle, General Manager, who was very grateful for the quick action of the Government to assist in the purchase of this company, ensuring that these 40 jobs were saved.

POLITICAL DONATIONS

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I direct my question without notice to the Attorney General. Will the Attorney General refer to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Department of Planning decisions relating to Homebush Bay West and the Payce group of companies and property dealings involving Telmet Ventures and Government members, including the Treasurer, as outlined in the Australian newspaper on 14 and 17 November 2009 and enlarged upon in this House last night? If not, why not?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: First, I commend Ms Sylvia Hale for this year agreeing to commemorate the jailers who died in service by wearing the Corrective Services ribbon, having last year declined by invitation to do so.

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of order: On relevance and honesty, last year the Attorney General set that up. It was disgraceful, putting it in the media when we were not even given the ribbons.

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

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: There certainly is not. I do not know why Ms Lee Rhiannon takes exception to my congratulating Ms Sylvia Hale. If the member wants me to withdraw my congratulations, I will. I do not have ministerial responsibility for the Independent Commission Against Corruption. But I do know that anyone can refer anything to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. If Ms Sylvia Hale has concerns, and I understand she has many concerns about things, she can walk down to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and lodge whatever she wants and give whatever evidence she wants. She does not need me to do it on her behalf.

Ms SYLVIA HALE: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Attorney General elucidate his answer and indicate whether he will refer the matter to the Independent Commission Against Corruption?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I already have.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You have already referred it?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I already have elucidated my answer.

CORRECTIVE SERVICES OFFICERS KILLED ON DUTY

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: I address my question without notice to the Minister for Corrective Services. Can the Minister update the House on how the Government is commemorating those who have died in the service of New South Wales as correctional officers?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: I thank the Hon. Helen Westwood for her question and ongoing support for correctional officers in New South Wales. Tomorrow the annual Corrective Services NSW Remembrance Service will be held at Brush Farm Corrective Services Academy. It is a special day for Corrective Services NSW and the men and women who currently serve, or have served in the past, the people of New South Wales by working in our prisons. Although Corrective Services NSW has made significant progress in securing our prisons and making them safer for officers and inmates alike, we must remember that prisons are dangerous and stressful working environments. The blue and gold checked ribbons being worn today by, I believe, every member in the House honour those who have died from injuries sustained on duty. They also serve as recognition of the bravery and commitment of all past and present New South Wales correctional officers.

Tomorrow's service will pay tribute to the Corrective Services NSW staff who have been killed while on duty. We will remember and pay special tribute to these officers and to the hardship faced by the families of those lost. Nine officers died in the line of duty. They are: George Spinks in 1869; John Sutherland Brown in 1908; Alan Cooper in 1958; Albert Hedges in 1959; Cecil Mills in 1959; Willy Karl Faber in 1974, John Colin Mewburn in 1979 and about whom I will say more; Geoffrey Pearce in 1990; and the most recent and horrible death of Wayne Harold Smith in 2006.

These nine prison officers paid the highest price for their dedication to duty and it is a sacrifice that Corrective Services NSW and the community should never forget. This year marks the thirtieth anniversary of the death of John Colin Mewburn. Officer Mewburn was killed on duty at Long Bay on 10 August 1979. On that afternoon Officer Mewburn was on duty in the observation section of the maximum security Central Industrial Prison at Long Bay. Without provocation, he was brutally attacked by an inmate. He was attended by nursing staff and fellow officers before being taken to Prince Henry Hospital, where he died a short time later. John Mewburn was a well-liked and respected officer as well as a strong family man. The death of Officer Mewburn remains a tragedy, and we acknowledge his years of dedicated service as a corrections officer. Officer Mewburn's wife and daughter will be at the service this year and I extend my deepest sympathies to them upon the anniversary of his death.

This year also marks the 100th anniversary of the Long Bay complex where Officer Mewburn was killed. To mark this occasion a special bell was commissioned, which was cast from more than 300 locks used in correctional centres around the State. The bell symbolises the connection Corrective Services NSW has to the State of New South Wales from its origins with the First Fleet. The metal in the bell comes from the locks that were used by thousands of staff to secure tens of thousands of inmates. As part of this year's service the bell will toll for each of the officers named at the Long Bay Remembrance service. On behalf of the Government I extend my thanks to all the men and women of Corrective Services NSW for their dedication and commitment to keeping our community safe.

TREASURER PROPERTY DEALINGS

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. In light of public concern about property dealings by the Treasurer and Telmet Ventures, and decisions by the Department of Planning in relation to Homebush Bay West and Payce Consolidated Ltd, will the Treasurer step aside until these matters are investigated and reported on by the Independent Commission Against Corruption? If not, why not?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Any member of the House can quite easily refer whatever he or she wants to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The interesting thing about Parliament is that it is a nice robust environment and this is an interesting Chamber. But, unfortunately, from time to time people stray outside what I regard as appropriate behaviour for a member of Parliament.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Opposition members should not engage in such childish behaviour during question time.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I have addressed the issues the honourable member alludes to, and I hope that either he or his little co-conspirator will speak outside the House about this matter because I might take a different strategy. I ask them to please do that. I have addressed this issue in public statements, both in the media today and in the media earlier this month, when the issue was first raised.

The property in question was purchased in August 2002, off the plan at market price. I did not enter Parliament until 24 June 2004—almost two years later. The ownership and sale of the property were appropriately disclosed on my pecuniary interests declaration from the time I entered the Parliament and continued to be disclosed until the property was sold. The property was sold in December 2007. This issue has nothing to do with my portfolio responsibilities as Treasurer or Minister for State Development. However, I believe it goes to my character. I am more than happy for anyone to examine this particular property transaction. Incidentally, it is the only investment property I have bought. I encourage people to buy investment properties and take advantage of half-price stamp duty under the Housing Construction Acceleration Plan, which expires at the end of this year. Indeed, investment properties can show a capital gain.

We are now in an extraordinary situation whereby a member of Parliament can stand up and read an article printed in a newspaper and then add to that her own interpretation to suggest that what is referred to is somehow inappropriate behaviour. I am happy to have that transaction fully examined because it is absolutely above board. Of course, the person making the accusations through her co-conspirator has her own history of inappropriate dealings. I could refer to when she failed to declare a pecuniary interest in local government, and there is a nice 35-page report about that reflecting on her character. I can talk about her putting up bail for people who were accused of serious crimes. But I make this point: I am more than happy to have the transaction fully examined, because I have been absolutely transparent in this process and I look forward to any examination of the details.

TARONGA CONSERVATION SOCIETY

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question is directed to the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment. In view of advice from the Auditor-General that the Government has cut $5 million in funding from—

The PRESIDENT: Order! There are too many interjections. The Hon. Eddie Obeid will cease interjecting. I remind all members that interjections are disorderly at all times. If the Chair cannot hear the question being asked, I doubt that the Minister to whom it is being directed can either. I ask the Hon. Catherine Cusack to recommence her question.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: My question is directed to the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment. In view of advice from the Auditor-General that the Government has cut $5 million of funding from the Taronga Conservation Society's master plan, will the Minister advise the House which projects will have to be axed? Could the Minister also advise the House why there was a $9 million shortfall in the planned loan to Taronga Zoo from Treasury? Given the number of paying visitors to Taronga Western Plains Zoo has fallen for the fourth year in a row, what support is the Minister extending to the zoo to ensure its future viability and also funding for the master plan?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: As I have said all week, I have enjoyed being asked questions on the environment from the Opposition because it has been a great week to be the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment. A whole range of interesting things have been happening. I have responsibility for both Taronga Park Zoo and the Western Plains Zoo—they are fantastic parts of the portfolio. One of the first things I did as the relevant Minister was to go over to the zoo and conduct a media conference about the refurbishment of the chimpanzee enclosure and its relocation—which, from memory, is part of the redevelopment program that has been undertaken since Bob Carr became Premier, when a funding arrangement was put in place to deal with the complete refurbishment of Taronga Zoo. The refurbishment program at that stage related to the relocation of the chimpanzees out of their existing enclosure to the area in which the orangutans were situated. The chimpanzee enclosure is being refurbished to enable us to introduce new chimpanzees into the existing family structures that exist within the chimpanzee community at Taronga Zoo.

Interestingly, the older chimpanzees at Taronga Zoo do not integrate terribly well with new chimpanzees. One could say that it is a bit like what happens with the Coalition in Canberra, where somebody who is new—Malcolm Turnbull, a reasonably new member and certainly a new leader—is not integrating terribly well within the community of the Coalition party room. That struggle with integration almost saw Mr Bean's evil twin brother replace Malcolm Turnbull yesterday. Mr Bean's evil twin brother pulled 35 votes in a spill motion. Members opposite could tell their colleagues in Canberra that the zoo builds an enclosure for its chimpanzees so that they can interact in a caged area but not to the point where they can tear each other apart—which is what almost happened yesterday with the Coalition in Canberra.

The chimpanzee enclosure at the zoo enables new chimpanzees to be introduced. It is part of the refurbishment program that the Government has been funding for some time to ensure that we continue to improve the facility for visitors and also to enhance breeding programs to expand the chimpanzee gene pool. Members opposite might like to expand the Coalition gene pool. I was going to say that the Liberal Party should expand its gene pool, but I thought I should get it right and say "the Coalition" because clearly The Nationals should also be thrown into the equation. They could expand their gene pool and build a cage in their party room to ensure better integration.

MINE SITE REHABILITATION

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: I address my question to the Minister for Mineral Resources. Will the Minister update the House on State Government initiatives in mine rehabilitation and environmental management of former mining sites?

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: Mining has provided enormous economic benefits for the people of the State for more than 200 years. However, past mining practices were not regulated as rigorously as they are today. Old mines may have complied with the requirements of the time, but they have left an environmental legacy. The Derelict Mines Program is a State Government initiative that is providing $1.9 million in funding to remediate environmental and safety problems associated with these sites in 2009-10. The program is administered by Industry and Investment New South Wales with the assistance of expertise from the Land and Property Management Authority, the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water and the New South Wales Minerals Council.

There are currently more than 570 known closed, abandoned or disused mines in New South Wales for which no individual or company can be held responsible, leaving the Government to undertake any required rehabilitation works. Many of these mine sites date from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The priority for site remediation is based on risks to public safety, pollution impacts on adjoining properties or catchments, contamination of the site or erosion, land degradation and community concerns. This program enhances the environment by containing contaminated mine waste, installing erosion and sediment controls, and by carrying out revegetation and safety works throughout the State.

This financial year the Derelict Mines Program will carry out rehabilitation on about 30 mine sites. Targeted derelict mine sites include: final rehabilitation works at Oakdale Colliery and rehabilitation works at Mulloon Cooper mine near Braidwood—this project alone is valued at $144,000, with the Sydney Catchment Authority contributing $100,000; and stage one of the rehabilitation of Sunny Corner Mine, near Bathurst, valued at $400,000. While the New South Wales Government is committed to rehabilitating former mines, today it requires all mines to meet strict environmental guidelines and holds more than $1.1 billion of security bonds for current mining leases to cover the full cost of rehabilitation in the event of default.

The Government is deeply aware that the expectations of communities about the management of minerals activities are increasing and it is committed to meeting those growing expectations. The Government recognises that the minerals industry is also committed to raising the standards of management to the highest level to ensure the community's acceptance of minerals projects. To emphasise this commitment, the Government has introduced a number of progressive changes aimed at improving the standard of environmental management and rehabilitation for the exploration and mining industries in New South Wales.

Amendments to the Mining Act 1992 were passed in May 2008. Importantly, those amendments strengthen the environmental management of the minerals industry and ensure that mining development, from beginning to end, meets high environmental standards so that better environmental outcomes are achieved. As a stark reminder of how far the mining industry has come in New South Wales I am delighted to launch today a chronicle of mining in New South Wales from the first workings at Newcastle to the end of the boom days of the early 1900s. Mining in New South Wales: History and Heritage, which was initiated by my department, has been written by mining heritage historians Dr Michael Pearson and Dr Barry McGowan. I particularly note the subtitle: With guidelines for assessing heritage values and for taking action on heritage mining sites. The book, which features outstanding photos, provides an in-depth analysis of mining history in New South Wales and would appeal to anyone with an interest in the cultural and industrial heritage of New South Wales. Several copies will be placed in the Parliamentary Library.

CABONNE SHIRE COUNCIL WASTE RECYCLING

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, who so enjoys them. Is the Minister aware that Cabonne Shire Council in New South Wales withdrew in June this year from a joint recycling initiative with Orange City Council, a project that was forecast to increase recycling rates from its current 20 per cent to 60 per cent? Is the Minister aware that Cabonne Shire Council wants to keep dumping for another 35 years across its six existing landfills with no commitments to improve recycling? In particular, is the Minister aware that it will cost ratepayers $1 million to withdraw from the joint project? Given that this strategy is out of line with the New South Wales targets for recycling, can the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water and its Minister step in to ensure a more environmentally sustainable outcome and to facilitate a public debate so that the community knows what its representatives stand for?

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: The waste and environment levy is working in New South Wales. It makes waste avoidance and recycling cheaper than land filling and provides a strong economic incentive to reduce waste being generated and to promote resource recovery. The levy has been in place for a number of years in Sydney, the Hunter, Illawarra and the Central Coast. In these areas the levy will rise over seven years to about $120 per tonne in today's dollars by 2015-16. The levy has also been extended to the Blue Mountains, Wollondilly and 19 councils in the north east of the State from 1 July 2009. This extension was implemented given the growing population in those areas. The levy in those new areas is $10 per tonne and will increase by $10 each year, plus inflation adjustments, to reach $70 per tonne in today's dollars by 2015-16. The levy increases have also enabled the Government to enhance and extend its largest environmental funding program—the City and Country Environmental Restoration Program—for a further five years.

This program has already supported development of new marine parks and expanded council waste and sustainability services, and delivered $105 million to buy back water for the environment. In Sydney, the levy has meant that waste disposal across the metropolitan area has decreased by 3 per cent between 2000 and 2007-08 despite population and income increases. Increasing and expanding the levy will help to improve landfill performance, stimulate greater resource recovery and provide funding for the State's longer-term environmental priorities. The waste levy has been implemented to deliver better environmental outcomes. If my memory serves me correctly, I have a meeting with the mayor of Orange City Council some time next week. I am sure that the opportunity will be taken to raise that issue and I will discuss it with the mayor then.

WATERMARK AREA COAL EXPLORATION

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Regulatory Reform, and Minister for Mineral Resources. Can the Minister detail how much money from the Watermark exploration licence granted to Chinese mining company Shenhua has gone into consolidated revenue?

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: In question time a couple of days ago I outlined a number of initiatives that have been taken already in relation to that exploration licence and the area the member has indicated. I have more details about the Watermark coal exploration licence but I am not going to detail that to the honourable member. He has asked a specific question and I can answer it specifically. The answer is: All of it.

ABORIGINAL LAND CLAIMS

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question is addressed to the Minister for Lands. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of Aboriginal land claims in New South Wales?

The Hon. TONY KELLY: The aim of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act is to redress past injustices when Aboriginal people were dispossessed of their land by colonisation. This dispossession led to many social and economic problems for the Aboriginal people, and they continue through to today. Today in Martin Place pamphlets are being handed out to recognise the great disadvantage suffered by Aboriginal people in remote areas, particularly in relation to language. I acknowledge that all members of the House support that action.

Under the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 local Aboriginal land councils may lodge a claim for Crown land. Excluded from this right is land required for essential purposes or for residential development or land that is lawfully used or occupied. Following a thorough investigation of the claim, land claimable under the criteria set out in the Act is transferred to claimant local Aboriginal land councils. It is the responsibility of the Land and Property Management Authority to investigate and assess Aboriginal land claims across the State. At the direction of the Premier in July the Land and Property Management Authority undertook to investigate and submit reports on all outstanding claims that were lodged in the first 10 years of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983. That is those claims lodged between 1983 and 1993 that had not yet been determined. A total of 166 claims were involved.

The New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council lodged four of those claims, on behalf of the Nowra Local Aboriginal Land Council. They were partly determined in the 1980s and 1990s. They involved large tracts of land west of Nowra and were bounded generally by the Morton National Park in the west, Turpentine Range in the south and east, and Colymea State Forest in the north, north-east. These claimed lands were over five parishes: Boolija, Danjera, Buangla, Yerriyong and Jerrawangla. Following the Premier's direction, the authority brought forward those parts of the claims that remained undetermined so that final reports could be completed.

As a result of the investigation of these claims being completed recently by the authority, I determined that the majority of the land was claimable Crown land within the meaning of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983. Subsequently, around 20,000 hectares have been granted under these claims. My recollection is that that is equivalent to about a quarter of all land that had been claimed in the past. The lands in question will be transferred to the Nowra Local Aboriginal Land Council once plans for the granted areas are prepared by either survey or plan compilation. Exclusions from the claim included fire trails, public roads, State forest and reserves, and the Yalwal Cemetery. Land that is required for essential public purposes, such as roads, or lands and assets currently providing a public service, are not claimable under the Act. Once the land is transferred, the council will be granted freehold title to these lands. The determination of these and other older claims is great news for the Aboriginal people of the State and the Yuin people of the South Coast. This demonstrates that the Government is willing to direct resources to ensure that claims lodged under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act are determined as quickly as possible.

EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME COSTS

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I ask the Treasurer a question without notice. Is the Treasurer aware that conservative Federal Government projections on the cost of the emissions trading scheme have found that every Australian household, particularly middle-income families, will be forced to pay additional annual payments of $520 for groceries, $300 for electricity, et cetera? What impact will the emissions trading scheme have on New South Wales industry, retail trade and the general economy? Considering the levels of debt that the Federal and State governments are currently servicing and the speculative nature and potential volatility of a projected carbon price, what action has the New South Wales Government taken to reduce the risk of escalating emissions trading scheme costs to the New South Wales Government and the families of New South Wales?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Commonwealth Government has announced proposed amendments to the carbon pollution reduction scheme. The New South Wales Government is closely monitoring developments and continuing to work with the Commonwealth Government to ensure New South Wales receives a fair share of assistance. I am advised that additional measures have been proposed that assist industry and maintain energy security as well as provide assistance to households and new mechanisms to take voluntary action into account. These include the continued commitment to ensure that around 90 per cent of low-income households receive assistance equivalent to 120 per cent of the cost of living increase, an increase of $4 billion in assistance under the electricity sector adjustment scheme, a total of $1.5 billion in transitional assistance over five years for the coal sector, and a transitional electricity cost assistance program of $1.1 billion to assist medium and large manufacturing and mining businesses.

PRISONER TRANSFERS

The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Corrective Services. Is the Minister aware that where an accused is refused bail in Gunnedah, that person is required to be transported to Tamworth because of the state of the cells in Gunnedah? Is the Minister aware that with an effective strength of nine officers at Gunnedah the transport of a prisoner from Gunnedah to Tamworth is to be provided by police as opposed to Corrective Services staff? Is it the case that transportation of prisoners is primarily the responsibility of Corrective Services and not the New South Wales Police Force? What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that any savings flowing from the implementation of the Way Forward Industrial Relations Framework and the contracting out of the operation of Parklea jail flows into improvements in the coverage provided by the Court Escort Security Unit? What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that police are available to protect the community of Gunnedah rather than transporting prisoners?

The Hon. John Ajaka: Good question!

The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: It is a great question. Corrective Services New South Wales is committed to working with its partner agencies, such as the New South Wales Police Force, to facilitate the smooth running of the criminal justice system. There are two key references in that sentence. The first is "committed to working with partners agencies", and the second is "smooth running of the criminal justice system". I will come back to members opposite about those matters because I have some tips for them in that regard.

[Interruption]

It is more about how they should use the cage, to keep the climate change sceptics on one side—all 35 of them—and the rest of them on the other side. It is clear that without the cage they will tear each other apart. There are concerns over the current transport arrangements, and that is why the Government is currently examining its options for making improvements to the system. This includes Corrective Services New South Wales and the Public Services Association working together to achieve $5 million worth of savings in this area. In the meantime the management of Corrective Services New South Wales will continue to monitor and discuss prisoner transport issues with their counterparts.

YOUNG OFFENDER INITIATIVES

The Hon. IAN WEST: My question is addressed to the Attorney General. What is the latest information on initiatives to deal with young offenders?

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: This is a really important question and I thank the honourable member for asking it. The Government's approach to juvenile offending is clear. We have strong penalties. We also have a variety of options to divert offenders from the criminal justice system. We provide intensive rehabilitation, supervision and treatment for different kinds of young offenders so they can address the causes of their offending and also learn to stay on the straight and narrow. A great example of what the Government has been doing is our new Youth Conduct Orders Program, which combines supervision and behavioural restrictions with intensive rehabilitation support and treatment.

But unlike our very strong and consistent response in relation to this issue, the Opposition has struggled to put forward a clear and consistent position on juvenile crime. Indeed, we can all recall just prior to the election how the Hon. Catherine Cusack managed to persuade the shadow Cabinet that it should lower the age of criminal responsibility to 10 years of age. Remember that one? That was something that even the Daily Telegraph struggled to support, describing it as "Debnam's Chikarovski moment". I must say it is good to see that some strong-minded people, such as the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Michael Gallacher, have done their best to encourage the Opposition to maintain a hard-line approach. On 15 May last year the Hon. Michael Gallacher complained to the Newcastle Herald—and the Hon. David Clarke would be interested in this:

That is a very important statement because unknown to him, the shadow Attorney General, the member for Epping, revealed himself as something of a Manchurian candidate for hand holders. On 8 January the Sydney Morning Herald quoted the shadow Attorney General as saying:

More recently during the debate on the Courts and Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill he said:

He was presumably advocating for its abolition. I have noticed in light of this contradiction how the Opposition promised us last year that there would be a policy position in relation to crime. This is what Barry O'Farrell said:

That is what he said. Barry O'Farrell also stated:

What is the position in relation to young offenders? We have heard vague, contradictory and opportunistic throwaway lines. On the one hand there is the shadow Minister for Police, who has been criticising the hand holders, and on the other hand there is Greg Smith, the greatest hand holder of them all, with vague commitments to end the law and order auction. Who will win this debate? It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has finally chosen a side. Responding to the Government's new anti-graffiti package, Mr O'Farrell suggested that vandals should not face the full force of the law. On ABC news he said:

O'Farrell provided none of his own ideas about what he would do with the problem of graffiti. While he was big on rhetoric, he was light on detail. [Time expired.]

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

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: Whilst the likes of the Leader of the Opposition has worked hard for years to keep the Coalition on the tough side of law and order, in the short time that the member for Epping has been around we have seen a number of attempts to dilute law and order policies, including diluting bail laws, reducing the police capacity to be able to conduct surveillance and covert searches, and also now a dilution in relation to graffiti. As is always the case, the Opposition is big on rhetoric but light on detail. The Government looks forward to seeing more policy resolutions of the kind that Mr O'Farrell outlined last week.

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

GAMBLING

The Hon. TONY KELLY: On 22 October 2009 the Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes asked the then Minister for Primary Industries, representing the Minister for Gaming and Racing, the following question without notice concerning the recommendations of a study by the Productivity Commission, "I am advised that the Government is aware of the Productivity Commission's inquiry into gambling and notes that it found a likely drop in problem gambling rates and recommended further harm minimisation measures." While the draft findings on problem gambling rates are positive, the Government is only too aware of the devastating impact that problem gambling can have on individuals and their loved ones, and will continue to work hard to combat it.

Questions without notice concluded.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Mr IAN COHEN [2.30 p.m.]: I move:

I will be brief: I do not want to waste the time of the House on this matter. A call for papers has been made and certain departments have claimed privilege in response to that call. I requested through the Clerks that Sir Laurence Street arbitrate on this matter, and he has now done so. In the interests of transparency I ask that the House allow the release of the report by Sir Laurence Street, which I believe is in the public interest. Currently the report is a privileged document. I understand that I have support from the majority of the members of the House to have the report released.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 21

Mr Ajaka
Mr Brown
Mr Clarke
Mr Cohen
Ms Cusack
Ms Ficarra
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay
Ms Hale
Dr Kaye
Mr Khan
Mr Mason-Cox
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce
Ms Rhiannon
Mr Smith

Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Harwin

Noes, 16

Mr Catanzariti
Ms Griffin
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Kelly
Mr Obeid
Mr Primrose

Mr Robertson
Ms Robertson
Mr Roozendaal
Ms Sharpe
Mr Tsang
Ms Voltz

Mr West
Ms Westwood

Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Veitch

Pair

Mr Lynn

Mr Macdonald

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Order of Business

Motion by the Mr Ian Cohen agreed to:

COASTAL PROTECTION

Mr IAN COHEN [2.43 p.m.]: I move:

I sought through the Clerks to have released the advice of Sir Laurence Street, which was being held in the office of the Clerk as confidential and privileged. I saw no reason why that should be the case. I am now pleased to have the opportunity to move for the advice of Sir Laurence Street to be released. I commend the motion.

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

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Robert Brown agreed to:

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Robert Brown agreed to:

FOOD AMENDMENT (BEEF GRADING) BILL 2009

Second Reading.

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.44 p.m.]: I conclude my remarks with a request for all members to support the Food Amendment (Beef Grading) Bill.

Dr JOHN KAYE [2.44 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I support the Food Amendment (Beef Grading) Bill 2009. It is unusual to have such furious agreement about the need for such legislation, and such furious agreement about the importance and desirability of such legislation, yet such a wide range of opinions as to whether it is the right legislation. Representatives of the industry have lobbied most people in this Chamber fairly extensively. That lobbying has been of the highest quality and a lot of cogent arguments were put forward as to the specific details of the legislation. I did not know that I would end up talking about AUS-MEAT language in this Parliament—

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: You talk about everything else, John, so you should not be surprised.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I do not know that I can continue; I am so wounded by the remarks of the Government Whip.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! I am sure the member can continue.

Dr JOHN KAYE: But as a mark of respect to the Chair, and to the Chair's confidence in me, I will continue. We all support the intent of the legislation. We all understand the importance of the need to protect those retailers and farmers who are doing the right thing from those who seek not to do the right thing. Labelling legislation—to ensure that labels accurately reflect the product labelled—should protect those who seek to produce and sell quality meats. It is important that consumers are not misled. This legislation is an important step towards ensuring labelling that is meaningful to consumers. This will help not only consumers but also farmers. This is State-based labelling. I was interested to note the arguments raised by both the Coalition and the Government against State-based labelling when the Greens sought to have State-based labelling of trans fats. Interestingly, the response of the Greens to that was almost identical to the response heard from the Minister—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: We still have the same belief.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I acknowledge that interjection. Perhaps the Opposition does still have the same belief but I note its intention of supporting the legislation when its underlying principle is State-based labelling.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I did not notice you oppose it either.

Dr JOHN KAYE: The Greens supported State-based labelling—this is the last time I will engage in this conversation before I receive a warning from the Deputy-President—on trans fats and we support State-based labelling in this situation. States play a crucial role in innovating regulation and legislation. If the legislation is passed the State will lead the nation towards a nationwide system of regulation and legislation to protect consumers, by having labelling of beef that is meaningful to consumers.

The key debate in this legislation revolves around the issue of AUS-MEAT language. Proposed section 23B refers to using AUS-MEAT language. The argument has been put to us that AUS-MEAT language is far broader than the specific language that would be relevant to consumers and that you would want to see at the front of a retail outlet. AUS-MEAT language refers more to that which would be more meaningful at the back of the house, the backroom or as meat comes out of the abattoir. The Minister argued coherently that this matter would have to be resolved by negotiation before the legislation is proclaimed. That commitment by the new Minister for Primary Industries takes a lot of heat out of this debate. It indicates a commitment to the House that the Government will regulate in a way that works with the industry, and hopefully also works with consumer groups, so there will be ongoing negotiation.

The commitment for ongoing negotiation takes the sting out of the coherent arguments put forward by a number of groups. The Opposition will move an amendment that deletes proposed new section 23A, which relates to the regulation-making power of the Government, and replaces it with, effectively, self-regulation of the use of the AUS-MEAT language. We believe the Government must have the ability to underwrite the process of regulation, although it is important to have an independent arbiter—not from the meat industry or a conglomerate of the meat industries. The Government must be involved in the regulation process. Therefore, the Greens will not support an amendment to delete section 23A and replace it with, effectively, a sophisticated system of industry self-regulation.

The Greens appreciate the debate that has surrounded the bill and that it will be ongoing over summer and probably through to April next year. It is important that the debate does not take place behind closed doors but is open to everyone. This issue has huge impacts on farmers, abattoirs and retailers—one-third small business and two-thirds supermarket outlets. The largest player is the consumer. As the legislation relates to the protection of consumers, the Government must ensure that negotiations include consumer representatives and that it engages the public in debate. Further, we hope that the debate extends from beef labelling to other labelling issues.

An inquiry is being conducted by former health Minister Neal Blewett on behalf of Food Standards Australia New Zealand [FSANZ]. The Greens have made a submission to that inquiry raising issues such as country of origin labelling, front package labelling and other labelling—matters that are as important as labelling in the beef industry. It is a step in the right direction for this Parliament and other parliaments around Australia to move towards better quality labelling. The Greens will listen to the debate during the Committee stage with great interest. However, we remain committed to the principle that consumers must be protected from misleading labelling that is more about marketing than informing consumers.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [2.52 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I thank the New South Wales Farmers Association and the meat industry for their submissions and recommendations. As I said in my second reading speech, we understand the industry's concerns. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has encapsulated their concerns in amendments, which we will soon consider. I am encouraged by the Minister's commitment to extensive negotiation and consultation, particularly with the industry, in the drafting of regulations and prior to this issue going to the Primary Industries Ministerial Council in April 2010. In my experience, the Minister and his predecessor have always stuck to their word.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: That's not correct.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Close enough, from my point of view.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Reasonably close.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: Yes. This debate is about consumer rights and labelling. It has become complicated as a result of issues expressed by the industry. I concur with Dr John Kaye that this matter is about consumer protection. I foreshadow that the Shooters Party will not support the amendments. We want to see the bill pass and industry engage in consultation with the Government in the drafting of regulations. 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.

In Committee

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.56 p.m.]: I move Opposition amendment No. 1:

Grading

Labelling

The object of the bill is to achieve truth in labelling. The truth would be better represented by the term "beef labelling", rather than "beef grading".

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [2.57 p.m.]: The Government does not oppose the amendment.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [2.57 p.m.]: The Shooters Party does not oppose the amendment.

Dr JOHN KAYE [2.57 p.m.]: The Greens support the amendment.

Question—That Opposition amendment No. 1 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Opposition amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Clause 1 as amended agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.54 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 2 and 3 in globo:

[1] Part 2, Division 2A

Insert after section 23:

Division 2A Beef labelling

23A Misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to beef

AUS-MEAT language

AUS-MEAT Domestic Retail Beef Register

beef

23B False descriptions of beef

AUS-MEAT language

AUS-MEAT Domestic Retail Beef Register

beef

(3) A beef labelling auditor is only to exercise his or her functions in respect of a person if the beef labelling auditor considers on reasonable grounds that the person has falsely described, or is falsely describing, beef as referred to in section 23B.

As I indicated during debate on the second reading speech, there is concern that the descriptors in the back room are not the appropriate descriptors for the front room. Amendment No. 2 deals with this issue. Amendment No. 3 relates to the audit chain. The retailers have asked that the audit be a challenged audit, which will reduce the compliance burden from additional record keeping that the bill would lead to. This is a high-compliance burden that the Government would normally seek to deal with through regulation. The amendments were produced in isolation because we did not at that stage have an understanding of what the Minister was going to detail in his second reading speech.

I hope that in his reply to these amendments the Minister will restate what he said in his second reading speech, that this bill will not be proclaimed until mid next year and that detailed consultation on the descriptors will continue. I hope the Minister will indicate further that whilst he may not be able to support our amendment on the audit trail that he will put in place, through regulation, changes that will address what I believe are valid concerns of the retailers.

The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Lands) [3.01 p.m.]: The Government cannot support these amendments. If accepted, they would, to a large degree, return the bill to its previous situation. However, I reconfirm what I said in my second reading speech. The intention is that the bill will not come into effect until the middle of 2010, which is a couple of months after the Primary Industries Ministerial Council [PIMC] meets in April next year. We hope that some uniformity will be arrived at through consultation with the industry so that we end up with a common purpose by that time. There is plenty of time to engage in that consultation, which we hope will take place so that any necessary adjustment can be made between the Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting and mid 2010.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.02 p.m.]: Given the Minister's comments, although we will proceed with our amendments, we will not cause the Committee to divide on them. The Minister's reassurances have gone a long way to addressing our concerns. Whilst in his second reading speech—which I suspect was written by someone else—he was pretty scathing about further consultation, I am pleased to note that he is now quite properly engaging in further consultation and is not jumping the gun with something that may or may not be a problem before a joint decision is reached at the Primary Industries Ministerial Council.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.03 p.m.]: The Minister's remarks remove the need for these amendments. Also, we do not see the advisability of these amendments in returning the industry to self-regulation. We support the intent of the bill, which is to create a regulatory underpinning of the industry's own self-labelling scheme. It is fairly clear that either the current Government or a future government in New South Wales would consult with the industry and produce an outcome that will work for both the consumers and the industry.

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

Opposition amendments Nos 2 and 3 negatived.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with an amended short title.

Adoption of Report

Motion by the Hon. Robert Brown agreed to:

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Robert Brown 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 seeking its concurrence in the amendment.

NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE ACT 1974: DISALLOWANCE OF CLAUSE 24 (3) OF NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE REGULATION 2009

Debate resumed from 25 November 2009.

Mr IAN COHEN [3.06 p.m.]: I thank the Hon. Catherine Cusack for allowing debate on this motion yesterday to be adjourned for a day. I wanted all parties to have an opportunity to present their case on this matter so as to get a balanced perspective. It is important that we protect our karst reserve areas. Unregulated use of cave systems would be contrary to the conservation objectives of the National Parks and Wildlife Services Act. Most certainly there is a need to manage and regulate the public's use of cave systems in our national parks to ensure future generations can experience these natural wonders.

The clause the subject of this disallowance motion raises a particular question as to whether the regulation goes beyond the measures and rules necessary to protect cave systems and consequently impacts upon other legitimate park activities. Put more succinctly: Is the clause the subject of this disallowance motion necessary to protect and prosecute the unauthorised use of cave systems? Whilst acknowledging the legitimate concerns of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and attempts to stop illegal caving, the Greens are concerned the clause may have unintended regulatory consequences.

Clause 24 (1) of the National Parks and Wildlife Regulation creates an offence of entering or remaining in a karst cave in a national park or karst reserve. Provided National Parks and Wildlife Service officers have adequate suspicion and/or evidence that a person had entered a cave system without consent, that person can be charged with an offence. I acknowledge that the National Parks and Wildlife Service may face evidentiary hurdles in making out this offence if illegal cavers are not caught in the actual cave system—or caught in the act, so to speak. I suspect that these evidentiary problems are part of the motivation for Clause 24 (3) of the regulation. However, the evidentiary difficulties can be overcome with sufficient surveillance and community awareness. I imagine possession of certain caving equipment in the vicinity of a cave entrance would go some way to satisfying the evidentiary burden in prosecution of an offence under Clause 24 (1).

Clause 24 (3) creates a penalty for possession of caving or cave-diving equipment in a karst conservation reserve. I assume the intention of this subclause is to allow prosecution of park visitors who were not caught in the act of illegal and unauthorised caving. Clause 24 (3) is a surrogate for clause 24 (1), in relation to which evidentiary burdens preclude the finding of an offence. Problematically, the assumption behind clause 24 (3) is that the equipment listed is solely used for caving and cave diving and that anyone with such equipment must have been engaging in caving activities. Clause 24 (3) does appear to be excessive. Discretion as to what counts as caving and cave diving equipment using the terminology "but not limited to" is inappropriate in this instance.

The second problem is that many of the things listed as caving equipment are everyday items such as ropes, helmets and line-cutting devices. The New South Wales Volunteer Rescue Association has pointed out that many of its members carry the prohibited items in their vehicles during a call-out. There does appear to be a question as to whether clause 24 (4) provides a defence to clause 24 (3). For example, if park visitors have in their possession nylon rope or a line-cutting implement and they can demonstrate that possession is linked with an activity for which they have specific consent or is within the bounds of the plan of management, they would have a defence against clause 24 (3). Theoretically, clause 24 (4) could provide an adequate defence mechanism, but it would have to be supported with significant enforcement guidance.

The Greens acknowledge that there is a reasonable motivation behind clause 24 (3). We would encourage the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, the Minister and the National Parks and Wildlife Service to consider other ways that evidentiary problems encountered in relation to clause 24 (1) can be remedied. The other subclauses in clause 24 provide adequate scope to charge individuals who do not have consent or who do not comply with an individual park's plans of management in undertaking caving and cave diving activities. Evidentiary problems should be resolved by amending the existing sections to alter burdens of proof and acceptability of evidence. That way we can ensure that we do not prosecute individuals who are in possession of equipment for legitimate reasons. The Greens do not oppose the motion.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [3.12 p.m.]: The National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2009 sets out important rules to protect our wildlife and environment and to enable visitors to enjoy our parks and reserves safely. Clause 24 (3) regulates the possession of certain equipment used for caving and cave diving. It has been introduced to protect sensitive karst environments and to help prevent unauthorised caving activities and the environmental damage that can result. I acknowledge the comments of the Hon. Catherine Cusack yesterday about the importance of these areas. This is an entirely reasonable regulatory approach. Caves, in particular karst caves, are very sensitive environments that are easily disturbed by human contact. As the Hon. Catherine Cusack correctly pointed out yesterday, limestone karst areas contain fragile caves with delicate cave decorations, fossil animal remains, threatened bat species and groundwater-dependant ecosystems. They cannot be regenerated—once a centuries old stalagmite is broken it is lost forever.

Provisions such as clause 24 (3) that regulate the possession of certain equipment have been in this and other regulations for some time, and have been shown to be effective. Owing to the remote and restricted nature of caves, it is extremely difficult to catch an offender in the act of unauthorised caving or cave diving. There have been cases where departmental officers have observed persons within the vicinity of karst caves carrying soiled caving or cave diving equipment. In those instances, officers have not been able to take appropriate enforcement action because they did not observe the persons emerging from the karst cave itself.

Clause 24 (3) has been introduced to ensure that the park authority has appropriate powers to enforce the legislation where it is clear that persons have been in a karst cave without obtaining the consent of the park authority. This is not a silly and draconian or rogue approach, as argued by the Hon. Catherine Cusack yesterday. It is entirely practical and reasonable based on the experience of the National Parks and Wildlife Service in managing sensitive and remote areas. A person is unlikely to be in possession of caving or cave diving equipment in a karst conservation reserve or karst environment in a park unless he or she is about to go caving or cave diving. Responsible people wishing to go caving or cave diving can easily seek consent to carry that equipment when they seek consent from the park authority to enter the cave. Anyone else wishing to carry caving or cave diving equipment in these areas for another purpose can also easily seek consent by contacting the park office.

I stress that these changes to the regulation were developed in consultation with the caving peak bodies, and responsible cavers are comfortable with these provisions. As with all its regulatory activity, the park authority would take a commonsense approach in enforcing this provision. For example, it is not intended that enforcement action would be taken where a person clearly has a legitimate reason for possessing the equipment within the karst environment or karst conservation reserve and has been unable to seek consent. The idea that the National Parks and Wildlife Service would take compliance action against a family simply visiting Jenolan Caves is ludicrous. It must be stressed that these are highly valuable, sensitive environments with a history of being damaged by inappropriate use. A range of mechanisms, including regulatory mechanisms, must be made available to assist in protecting them. Disallowance of clause 24 (3) at this time is counterproductive and an unnecessary and irresponsible use of the time of the Legislative Council.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [3.17 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by my colleague the Hon. Catherine Cusack. We have seen some pretty silly regulations in this place, but I am having difficulty remembering any as silly as this one.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Try harder.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I do not have to try harder because this is absolutely ridiculous. To think that a person must not have in his or her possession in a karst conservation reserve or in or on a karst environment in a park static safety rope, nylon rope or webbing is unbelievable. I have been driving around the bush all my life in various four-wheel drive and other vehicles and I invariably carry such articles. If I were to stop to have a look at the Ashford karst site and a National Parks and Wildlife Service ranger turned up, I could be prosecuted for having a rope in the boot of my car or a waterproof watch on my wrist. If I were driving from Dubbo back to the coast with my scuba diving equipment and I stopped at the Wellington caves for a cup of coffee, I could be prosecuted. This regulation enables that to happen. It is nonsense, and I urge members to support the Hon. Catherine Cusack's motion.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [3.18 p.m.]: Mr Chris Norton approached the Shooters Party also on behalf of the speleologists. We support this disallowance motion for most of the reasons put by the Hon. Catherine Cusack and the Hon. Rick Colless. Karst conservation areas in New South Wales occupy about 4,000 hectares. However, generally speaking, the entrances to caves are discrete and identifiable and obviously usually do no cover 4,000 hectares. My constituents had a similar problem with recently introduced regulations dealing with the carriage of firearms and dogs through national parks. Of course, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Minister's office declined to take those objections into account when the regulations were introduced. The Shooters Party has not moved a disallowance motion because as members are aware we are in suspended animation in our negotiations with the Government about hunting in national parks.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service does not seem to be able to organise itself well enough to catch people caving in discrete, well-known areas with single-access roads. It is not as though one wanders through 500 hectares of bush to find a cave entrance these days. They are generally known and have signage. They may be sign posted "No Entry". I do not think one could argue that the National Parks and Wildlife Service rangers need this regulation to catch miscreants. They do not. All they need to do is get out of their offices and do a bit of compliance work around these known areas at certain times of the year. Speleologists will tell you that most caving, particularly cave diving, is done under certain climatic conditions at certain times. We do not support this regulation and we support the disallowance motion.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [3.20 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the debate, particularly Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, the Hon. Rick Colless, Mr Ian Cohen and the Hon. Robert Brown for their support of this disallowance motion. There is definitely a strong consensus in the Chamber for the need to protect our wondrous karst reserves. There is a strong consensus that the illegal activities that damage these beautiful areas should be policed and offenders punished for theft and vandalism. Indeed, one might wonder if some of the proscribed penalties are sufficient given the seriousness of the matter, but that is a debate for another day.

The regulations that prohibit illegal activities are supported and are not the subject of disallowance. What is at issue is clause 24 (3), which bans possession of ordinary items that are commonly in the possession of visitors to national parks. The waterproof watch that I am wearing is not, I will admit, completely stylish but it is completely legal for me to wear it in all public places, whether it be in his Chamber, in any airport—even in Ballina airport, which has the toughest and most zealous security I have ever encountered—or even when I visit the Open Pool Australian Lightwater [OPAL] nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. Such a watch can be worn anywhere in the State with the exception of two places. Ivan Milat is not permitted to wear such a watch in the Supermax at Goulburn jail, and a visitor to karst areas such as Jenolan Caves is similarly prohibited from wearing such a watch. The difference is that the mass murderer Ivan Milat is fully informed that he is not allowed to wear such an item. The innocent, law-abiding visitor is not so informed and is unwittingly liable to prosecution. In this case, my $99 watch leaps in value to $3,300, such is the severity of the penalty. How ridiculous.

I first learnt a little bit about how laws are made in this place when I was in fourth class. My primary school teacher, Mrs Gill, explained to me that Parliament cannot just pass any old rule into law. Our laws must be reasonable. She put three words on the blackboard to explain the proper criteria for making laws, and I have remembered them ever since. A law must be enforceable. Clearly, as I speak now, this regulation is being broken unwittingly by hundreds of people and will be breached by tens of thousands of people each year. It is unenforceable, even if the Government wanted to fully enforce it. A law must be credible. This means it must be applied consistently. This regulation appears to give sweeping powers to national parks staff to pick and choose to whom it will apply. The Hon. Christine Robertson says the regulation applies where it is clear a person has been in a karst cave without authority. I challenge the Government to show me where the regulation says that. That might be the Government's wish, but that is not what the regulation says. I notice the Parliamentary Secretary is not enjoying this and I do not blame members of the Government for not enjoying it. Nothing in the regulation states when it is clear that a person has been in a karst cave without authority. Members of the Government should not put forward such nonsense, and they certainly should not try to defend it. Minister Robertson did not make this regulation and he is now defending it. It is ridiculous.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Kayee Griffin): Order! The member with the call will address her remarks through the Chair and not debate issues across the Chamber.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: The regulation must be credible. What we have before us is repugnant to fairness and accountability. It puts those who enforce the law in a bad position and it puts visitors to these areas in a bad position. The word on the blackboard that most impressed me was "known": laws must be known. Citizens must know what the law is for them to be able to abide by it. This is the plain commonsense that seems to have completely escaped the Government with this regulation. It might be argued by the Government that a sign could be placed at the entrance to a karst area. What use is that? Are campers arriving in their cars supposed to unpack their possessions and hide their torches and wristwatches under a bush near the gateway? What are rescue workers to do with all their equipment that is carefully packed away in their vehicles in a state of readiness for a rescue callout? Truly, this is the State's silliest regulation. The regulation creates an offence where no harm has been done and no harm is intended—simply for possessing an everyday item. This is Big Brother on steroids. The Parliamentary Secretary claims:

The Hon. Christine Robertson repeated that assertion. This is true, but the Parliamentary Secretary went on to say:

This is completely untrue. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to name those who support this regulation. The Australian Speleological Federation as well as the National Parks Association and the Government's own Karst Areas Advisory Committee oppose the regulation. When the Parliamentary Secretary says that responsible cavers are comfortable with these provisions, I ask: Who on earth is she talking about? We have not located a single stakeholder who supports this clause. I ask members to think about the volunteers, about the people who conduct rescues in caves, about rural firefighting people who do incredibly brave and heroic work. Members on the Government side assert that those people are happy with this regulation, and they are not. How much more do they want to put our volunteers through? If they have a helmet in the back of their car when they go into a national park with a karst area, they will be liable to a $3,300 fine. This is not reasonable, it is not enforceable and it is not fair. It is not what anybody wants. Every other provision in the regulation that protects these special places is fine, but this aspect goes too far and ought to be rejected.

In conclusion I thank Gary Raymond, APM, OAM, the State president of the New South Wales Volunteer Rescue Association; Bev Smiles, the acting executive officer of the National Parks Association; and Chris Norton of the Australian Speleological Federation for all their information and advice to members of Parliament. I urge Government members to rethink their position and support the disallowance of this specific part of the regulation, which simply goes too far.

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

Motion agreed to.

TRADE MEASUREMENT (REPEAL) BILL 2009

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 November 2009.

Dr JOHN KAYE [3.29 p.m.]: The Greens do not oppose the Trade Measurement (Repeal) Bill 2009. The bill flows from an agreement made by the Council of Australian Governments in 2007 to abolish State-based regulation of trade measurement and to create a system under the responsibility of the Commonwealth for a national trade measurement system. The bill repeals the New South Wales Trade Measurement Act, which currently has responsibility for operating the trade measurement system in New South Wales, including determining approvals and the use of measuring instruments for trade, labelling and measurement requirements for packaged products, requirements for sale goods by measurement, licensing weighbridges, offences, penalties and government inspectors for compliance and maintenance verification of the reference standards of measurement.

Those State-based regulations will disappear and a Commonwealth-based system will be created. The Greens have three key concerns. The first relates to transition of the jurisdiction to the Commonwealth. We understand that an agreement has been reached on a set of indicators and statistics to monitor the service levels both before and after the transition to ensure smooth transition and to secure quality trade measurement in the post-transition period. Our second concern relates to the welfare of public sector trade measurement workers. Apparently the Commonwealth has provided an offer of employment to all trade measurement staff to make the transition to the National Measurement Institute. These are people currently employed by the Measurement and Technical Branch of the New South Wales Office of Fair Trading.

The bill does not stipulate the conditions of employment after the transfer. However, we understand a guarantee has been given that all staff will be retained in the long term and will retain equal or better conditions of employment once they transition to the Commonwealth. I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will reiterate that commitment in her reply. The third issue relates to information transfer. The bill proposes arrangements for the disclosure of information to the Commonwealth and between the New South Wales Office of Fair Trading and other agencies. This is basically open slather and allows information sharing across a broad range of areas.

There are issues associated with the protection of information and the Greens are concerned that the bill may grant unreasonable authority for the Director General of New South Wales Fair Trading to pass information to other jurisdictions and authorities. The existing law provides clear guidelines on what information may be passed to other bodies. Under this bill, the information-sharing capacity is somewhat unlimited and unfettered, and the Parliamentary Secretary may wish to address this matter in reply. The Greens do not oppose the passage of the bill. However, we note that this is yet another State jurisdiction that is being passed to the Commonwealth. In some cases there are good arguments for passing State activities to the Commonwealth.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: They are centralists from way back.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I acknowledge the interjection of the Parliamentary Secretary, who accused the Greens, I presume, of being centralists. I invite her to listen to the next 60 seconds of my speech, which will correct her assumption.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: I thought you were post-scarcity anarchists.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Mr Della Bosca has now called us post-scarcity anarchists. If members listen for the next 60 seconds, they will understand some of our concerns about the running down of State powers. The States provide three key protections to democracy. The first is a protection of diversity. By having eight separate jurisdictions working on somewhat similar problems, there is the capacity to create diverse solutions and for States to be innovative by copying each other. The more authorities we hand to the Commonwealth, the less diversity there will be in decision-making and the less possibility for innovation.

[Interruption]

That is a temporary situation. The second key protection afforded by the States is duplication. The case that was cited by way of interjection is an industrial relations case in which key industrial relations conditions were protected by the existence of the States. Without the States, they would have disappeared entirely under John Howard's WorkChoices. The third level of protection is having a jurisdiction that is closer to the community. The problem with moving to an entirely centralised jurisdiction is that you have only two levels of government, one of which is quite remote from the voters. There is a far greater distance between Canberra and Port Hedland than there is between Sydney and Tweed Heads.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Are you saying Lee shouldn't go to the Senate?

Dr JOHN KAYE: While I am not in favour of abolishing the Commonwealth, as was rather mischievously implied by that interjection, the Greens raise issues about the wholesale transfer of powers from the States to the Commonwealth. However, we do not oppose the bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.36 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Trade Measurement (Repeal) Bill 2009. The bill will repeal the New South Wales uniform legislation on 1 July 2010 when the Commonwealth's nation trade measurement legislation will commence. The Commonwealth has advised that it requires information about systems and the administration of New South Wales trade measurement legislation by March 2010 in order to put systems in place for the commencement of its legislation on 1 July 2010. The legislation is important to ensure accurate measurement of goods sold by measurement using, for example, shop scales, petrol bowsers or public weighbridges. It will give consumers the necessary protection. I have stated previously that we appear to be voting ourselves out of business. Nevertheless, we support the bill.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [3.37 p.m.]: The Liberal Party and The Nationals support the Trade Measurement (Repeal) Bill 2009. The Government is moving to repeal the Trade Measurement Act 1989 and the Trade Measurement Administration Act 1989 as a consequence of the transfer of trade measurement responsibilities to the Commonwealth and to make provision for transitional and consequential matters, including the transfer of information, which is vital. In the welfare area, we know that privacy issues have caused problems for people doing their jobs. Similarly with respect to the economy, if we do not have better access to information by State and Federal governments we will be impeding common sense and making life more difficult for everyone. We do not share the reservations of other members in that respect. We support whatever is necessary in order to transfer these responsibilities.

It has been said that we are doing ourselves out of business by transferring these authorities from the States to the Commonwealth. I do not share those concerns. As someone who loves the State level of government and who has worked—and only ever wanted to work—at this level of service delivery, I am passionate about the importance of our role and our future. However, with respect to trade measurement, one kilogram is the same in New South Wales, in Victoria and in Western Australia.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: It's not. It is elementary physics that it is not.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Exactly, and we do not necessarily need seven State governments to legislate the same measurement standard. Of even greater concern is that seven levels of government, State and Federal, can take seven years to reach agreement on what that measurement standard should be. It is ludicrous, and I have complained about that situation in this Chamber many times. Dr John Kaye spoke about transferring powers and said it should be of concern to us that we lose the opportunity to innovate. I do not believe there is an opportunity to innovate with regard to trade measurement. It is the currency of trade. In fact, trade measurement and the ability of countries internationally to understand what a gram and a kilogram are in Australia—

Dr John Kaye: It is not about that; it is about regulation of trade and how you do the regulation measurement.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Catherine Cusack has the call. It is not appropriate or in accordance with the standing orders that Dr John Kaye interject.

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: In relation to Dr John Kaye's claim that the debate is about how trade is regulated, I urge the member to look more closely at the legislation. It is not about how trade is regulated; it is about lawful measurement. It is about what a gram means and what a centimetre means. In many respects lawful measurement is even more important than currency, because trade cannot occur unless there is a crystal clear understanding between nations as to the measurements of items being either exported or imported. With regard to Australia, the idea that we need seven governments across both State and Federal levels to determine these matters—which were really determined back in the 1970s when we changed to metric—is frankly beyond me. We heard the ludicrous example of how one measures a stack of firewood. I outlined the process of consultancies and committees, and the moving backwards and forwards between Council of Australian Governments [COAG] committees, subcommittees, consultants and advisory committees that were set up to examine the issue. The process dragged on for nearly nine years until it was concluded that to measure a stack of firewood the gaps should be as few as possible. And that then had to be legislated by seven governments! It was a ludicrous situation.

This is not what Australians are paying their politicians to do. Let us be honest: As politicians we are not interested in interfering in these processes. We are really rubberstamping what COAG committees have already determined. All we are doing is slowing them down. As to the operations of the Council of Australian Governments, it is a blackball system whereby a single State government can dispute one matter and hold up the whole process for years. As the Hon. John Della Bosca said, these are matters of physics, not matters of politics, and they ought to be handed over to the Commonwealth. Of course, we support that.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.42 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. It feels as though the Trade Measurement (Repeal) Bill 2009 has been a long time coming, but here we are. It is intended that the New South Wales legislation will be repealed on 1 July 2010. That is the date the Commonwealth assumes full responsibility for the national trade measurement system. The bill provides for the transfer of information from New South Wales to the Commonwealth. This will enable the continuity of trade measurement services to be maintained for the people of New South Wales. It will assist with the maintenance of the integrity of the licensing system by ensuring that compliance histories are available to the Commonwealth.

The minor new section 9A amendments seek to increase the flexibility of information sharing arrangements for the Council of Australian Governments national reforms, including national trade measurement and future arrangements that may be required. Accountability will be maintained. For any type of information to be prescribed, the approval of the Minister and the other regulation-making processes would be required. The privacy of the proposed information transfer covered in the bill will be maintained. It is intended that the transfer arrangements will include conditions requiring confidentiality and the proper use of personal information to be maintained. In addition, the Commonwealth has similar privacy requirements for its public sector agencies to those of New South Wales.

Some relevant issues were raised in the debate. I will address specifically the issue of what is happening with the staff in New South Wales. The Commonwealth, in making an employment offer to the trade measurement staff in all States and Territories to join the Commonwealth national system, was mindful of retaining staff expertise and experience for the benefit of the operation of the new national trade measurement system. In developing salaries and conditions for trade measurement staff under the new system, the Commonwealth requested human resource data from each jurisdiction. This included current salaries, conditions, and positions and their duty statements. This information was provided through the Commonwealth's Human Resources Working Group, comprising jurisdictional representatives, and New South Wales participated in that process. The Commonwealth then considered that information in developing its salaries and conditions as part of the human resource requirements for the new national system.

In order not to disadvantage staff, where current State and Territory salaries are higher than they will be under the equivalent Commonwealth positions, it has been agreed that the Commonwealth will continue to pay those affected staff at their current salary levels and maintain their current superannuation arrangements. Over time, the Commonwealth salaries for their positions will catch up through the normal salary adjustment process. It is understood that the Public Service Association of New South Wales is currently in discussions with its Commonwealth counterpart about salaries and conditions for trade measurement staff who may choose to transfer to the Commonwealth national trade measurement system.

On behalf of the Government I thank the Commonwealth for enabling the States and Territories on its Legislation Working Group to consult informally on the development of the transition and repeal legislation needed by each jurisdiction. I also thank the Queensland Government for making its draft transition and repeal bill available to the other jurisdictions as a guide that they could use in preparing their own legislation. 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.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Legislative Assembly with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

VALUATION OF LAND AMENDMENT BILL 2009

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

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. Penny Sharpe tabled the following papers:

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe.

COMMITTEE ON THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION

Report: Protection of Public Sector Whistleblower Employees

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, on behalf of the Chair, tabled report No. 8/54, entitled "Protection of Public Sector Whistleblower Employees", dated November 2009.

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

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.46 p.m.]: I move:

For members' information, on 26 June 2008 both Houses of the New South Wales Parliament resolved to refer to the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption an inquiry on protected disclosure laws and procedures, often referred to as whistleblower laws, in the New South Wales public sector. The committee received 64 submissions and took evidence from 34 witnesses over four days of hearings. The report contains 31 recommendations for reform. These recommendations were adopted unanimously and had the total support of the committee. The report is largely a consensus document, although there was disagreement in some areas, which will be obvious when members read the report.

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

COASTAL PROTECTION

Production of Documents: Tabling of Report of Independent Legal Arbiter

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to resolution this day, a report of independent legal arbiter Sir Laurence Street dated 17 November 2009, on the disputed claim of privilege on papers relating to coastal management.

Production of Documents: Tabling of Documents Reported to be Not Privileged

Mr IAN COHEN [3.47 p.m.]: I move:

Question put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 21

Mr Ajaka
Mr Brown
Mr Clarke
Mr Cohen
Ms Cusack
Ms Ficarra
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay
Ms Hale
Dr Kaye
Mr Khan
Mr Mason-Cox
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce
Ms Rhiannon
Mr Smith
Tellers,

Mr Colless
Mr Harwin

Noes, 17

Mr Catanzariti
Mr Della Bosca
Ms Griffin
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Kelly
Mr Obeid

Mr Primrose
Mr Robertson
Ms Robertson
Mr Roozendaal
Ms Sharpe
Mr Tsang

Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood
Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Veitch

Pair

Mr Lynn

Mr Macdonald

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [3.58 p.m.]: I move:

It is important that we get this information for the sake of the health system of New South Wales. Given that this matter is item No. 238 on the Notice Paper I do not think there is any chance whatsoever of it coming before the House in the normal course of events, as Parliament is to rise next week.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: Why don't you ask me? I know it all.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I note the interjection of the Hon. John Della Bosca. However, I do not have that much faith in him. The public of New South Wales deserves to see proper health statistical data to ensure the safety of the New South Wales health system. I urge the House to support the motion.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 21

Mr Ajaka
Mr Brown
Mr Clarke
Mr Cohen
Ms Cusack
Ms Ficarra
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner

Mr Gay
Ms Hale
Dr Kaye
Mr Khan
Mr Mason-Cox
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey

Mr Pearce
Ms Rhiannon
Mr Smith

Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Harwin

Noes, 17

Mr Catanzariti
Mr Della Bosca
Ms Griffin
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Kelly
Mr Obeid

Mr Primrose
Mr Robertson
Ms Robertson
Mr Roozendaal
Ms Sharpe
Mr Tsang

Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood
Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Veitch

Pair

Mr Lynn

Mr Macdonald

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion agreed to.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Melinda Pavey agreed to:

That Private Member's Business item No. 238 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

HEALTH DATA

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [4.04 p.m.]: I move:

The New South Wales Liberal-Nationals acknowledge that accurate information is needed to develop models of best practice. We support the greater use of technology in collecting accurate data about health care, whether it involves electronic medical records, tracking patient diagnostics treatment and length of hospital stay, discharge planning or electronic prescribing. The Coalition believes that public disclosure of accurate critical health system information is the best way to achieve proper budget outcomes and, most importantly, improved patient care. Such increased transparency and accountability is important for driving quality care.

It is very important that we have the highest standard of care within the health system. The shadow Minister for Health, the dedicated Jillian Skinner, recently reported that 20 per cent of patients in New South Wales who contract a golden staph bloodstream infection die within a month. Furthermore, 40 per cent of cases are hospital acquired, and most are preventable. Transparency in reporting hospital-acquired infection is imperative in driving improvements. In many hospitals across New South Wales there are signs telling patients to ask their doctor whether they have washed their hands. That is not a proper way to achieve the best health outcomes. Not many patients lying in a hospital bed would want to challenge their doctor or other medical staff as to whether they have washed their hands. It is not a proper procedure. We need the data so that we can analyse the problems in the health system. In this way we will know where problems are. All health professionals and the public are involved in that process. Given the large amount of legislation before the House to consider in the few sitting days left, I urge the House to support this call for papers in relation to hospital infections in the New South Wales health system.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [4.06 p.m.]: The motion proposed by the Hon. Melinda Pavey, if agreed to, would be a significant waste of valuable health resources. The time, effort and resources required to provide this information, particularly when it is already made available by the Commonwealth, is a significant waste of public moneys and resources. NSW Health is required under the current National Health Care Agreement to provide these data to the Commonwealth in order to obtain Commonwealth funding for public hospitals and health services in New South Wales. Those hospitals and services provide excellent health care in this State, yet the Opposition continually talks them down and denigrates them. The data provided to the Commonwealth are published annually by the Commonwealth. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has carriage of reporting these data nationally.

The current Admitted Patient Care National Minimum Data Set does not include information on hospital-acquired infection rates. Suffice to say, these data will be included in future years as part of the new Health Care Agreement, which has been negotiated by the Commonwealth and the States. Accordingly, this information would not be covered by the honourable member's request. I reiterate that the call for papers will lead to a waste of precious health resources. This is a call for information that is already freely available from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. The Opposition has a record of misusing this sort of information. Its motion is about political game playing; it is not about improving health services or supporting public hospitals and the great people who work in them. Our health professionals ensure that the public hospitals in this State are amongst the world's best. The Opposition does not like to admit it, but it is a fact.

Those of us who have been involved in the public health system in this State, those of us whose babies have born in public hospitals and whose children have been treated in them, know what a great system it is. The Opposition continually talks it down. They do not support the staff in our public health care system, nor the health care professionals who are committed to ensuring good public health for the citizens of this State. The Government will continue to support them. We will not waste these very valuable resources on a fishing expedition by the Opposition for crass political reasons. The Government does not support the call for papers.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH [4.09 p.m.]: I was not going to speak in this debate until I heard the Hon. Trevor Khan seeking to interject. This is, once again, a fishing expedition. The resources of the public service are being used to carry out fishing expeditions as opposed to doing their jobs. Opposition members are too lazy to use the World Wide Web, which is where this information is available. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has this information on its website. We do not need to go through this charade. It is an unnecessary and time-consuming fishing expedition and, once again, a flagrant misuse of valuable public health resources and efforts, which seems to be becoming a habit of members opposite—obviously, they are taking lessons out of the book of the Greens. It is another clear example of a lazy Opposition that has clearly failed to understand the magnitude of its request. Opposition members are not prepared to look at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare website and its metadata online registry where all this information can be found. Those opposite are just too lazy to use the technology, they are too lazy to understand the significant amount of data that is already out there in the public domain and they are too lazy to interpret the data. That is why this resolution should not be supported.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [4.11 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Hon. Helen Westwood for her contribution. It shows that she has not read the motion, because I have sought the information in electronic format, which, as she pointed out, has been provided to the Commonwealth. But it is not available to the public. The New South Wales community is entitled to know about the health of our hospitals and where there are bad infection rates, but the Hon. Helen Westwood wants to cover it up. It should not cost any more than the price of a disk on which to put the data so that we can ensure that the public knows—as it has a right to know—where it is safe to go for medical treatment and where practices and procedures need to be improved. The Hon. Helen Westwood—a dedicated, passionate representative of community health—should be very proud to support this motion and should not read the drivel that has come from the Minister's office.

The Hon. Helen Westwood: Stop it now. It is just politics, that is all it is.

The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: It is not politics; it is good public policy. We are committed to publishing data in relation to hospital infection rates after the next election and we want to see that data now so that we can ensure the health and safety of the constituents of New South Wales. We are proud of our public hospitals. Like the Hon. Helen Westwood, I too had my children in a public hospital and had the best services and the best care. This motion is about supporting public hospitals and the people of New South Wales.

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

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Government Business Orders of the Day No. 10 postponed on motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe.

PASSENGER TRANSPORT AMENDMENT (TAXI LICENSING) BILL 2009

Second Reading

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [4.13 p.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Eric Roozendaal: I move:

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

Leave granted.

people on low incomes

people with disabilities;

People who are frustrated because they can't get a cab, especially at peak times like change-over or on a Friday or a Saturday night.

Wheelchair passengers, who—despite marked improvements in response times with the introduction of the driver incentive payment—are still waiting longer for a taxi than a standard cab passenger.

managing any impacts on existing industry participants, including the holders of transferable licences.

the "nexus" licence and its WAT pair may only be transferred together; and

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [4.14 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Passenger Transport Amendment (Taxi Licensing) Bill 2009 on the basis of the Government amendments being incorporated. The bill, as originally read, seeks to amend the Passenger Transport Act 1990 in order to institute three main changes: to phase in non-transferable and renewable taxi-cab licences having terms of 12 months—annual licences; to standardize provisions applying to existing taxi-cab licences related to licences for wheelchair accessible taxis; and to validate certain existing operative taxi-cab licences issued before the commencement of the Passenger Transport Act 1990 and to validate previous transactions relating to them.

The primary impetus for these changes is the public's longstanding criticism of the Government for failing to address the insufficient supply of taxi services, particularly in Sydney during the changeover time and across the weekend period. As the Government points out, growth in the taxi fleet has not kept pace with growth in demand for services. Long-term passenger demand growth is estimated to be around 3 per cent to 4 per cent, while the take-up of new licences has been around 1 per cent per annum. At present 6,500 taxi plates have been issued in New South Wales: 85 per cent of them are tradeable licences and 15 per cent are short-term. Of the New South Wales Taxi Industry Association's members, 85 per cent own one plate and a further 10 per cent own two. Most of these operators are small business people whose plates represent their life savings.

The Opposition supports reform of the taxi industry. As my colleague the shadow Minister for Transport, Gladys Berejiklian, made clear in the other place, we support reform that will improve service standards for consumers and protect the viability of small business operators. Following extensive consultation with the industry, and having received a wealth of correspondence on this matter from taxi owners and drivers, we were deeply concerned about the impact that the bill would have had on current long-term licence holders had the Government not agreed to move the proposed amendments to this bill.

When the bill was first brought to the attention of the Opposition, with its original provisions, the Opposition foreshadowed that it intended to move that the bill be referred to General Purpose Standing Committee No 4 in order to properly consider the impact of the bill on existing plate holders; to determine whether we need to provide any assistance or additional protections to current licence holders, particularly those who have invested in long term tradeable licences; and to determine what effect the bill will have in its current form on service delivery standards.

The industry had engaged in an ongoing dialogue with the Ministry of Transport, but initially without any real success. The intention by the Opposition to move that the bill be referred to General Purpose Standing Committee No. 4 was to give the industry the necessary time to continue their negotiations and eliminate the lingering uncertainty surrounding the bill in its original form had the Government not proceeded with the proposed amendments. A number of taxi operators had expressed concerns that the bill would dilute the earnings of licence holders already in the market, particularly in rural areas. As recently as early October this year the Government had sold taxi plates for just over $400,000. The concern was that under the proposed reform package the plates would depreciate significantly in value, given that it makes little business sense to invest that significant sum of money when there is an option to lease without the up-front, long-term commitment.

The taxi industry had been lobbying the Government since 2003 to address the supply and demand issues plaguing the market and the growing demand for taxi services, which has significantly and unsustainably outpaced supply in recent years. It is comforting that some six years after these concerns were initially raised the Government has finally attempted to produce a reform package, but, sadly, it has done so in a rushed and haphazard manner and without first taking into account the concerns and submissions of the taxi industry. As the mass of correspondence from taxi operators indicates, there was marked disquiet amongst long-term licence holders over the insufficiency of safeguards contained in the original provisions of this bill to protect their investment in the industry. These plates represent the livelihood and lifetime savings of many cabbies who have invested their time, their hopes and their future in the industry. They are seeking the Government's reassurance that their investment would not be diluted under the changes.

The Opposition's position, as outlined by my colleague the shadow Minister for Transport, Gladys Berejiklian, was always that we want reform, but we want to ensure that the reform is fair and that people who, as recently as last month, purchased a plate valued at $400,000 will not see that investment diminished overnight because the State Government should have worked harder in consulting with the industry. The Opposition is proud of the role it has played in ensuring that the Government did its homework and proceeded with the necessary amendments to the original bill.

Proposed section 32B (3) provides that the rollout of the reform package will start in the Sydney metropolitan area. Licences will be issued for other areas of the State through an order published in the Government Gazette. With the introduction of the new licence, non-renewable taxi licences will no longer be available and transferable licences will no longer be issued. Persons holding existing licences will otherwise continue to operate under the new scheme on the same terms as they do at present. Also, under one of the Government's proposed amendments, a transfer of an operative pre-1990 licence or other transaction referred to in subclause (2) is valid whether or not it complies with any conditions that would under this part be applicable to such a transfer after the commencement of the 2009 Act.

Pursuant to another of the Government's proposed amendments, section 32C will provide that the director general must determine before 31 March in each year the number of annual licences to be issued for taxicabs during the year commencing on the following 1 July, and further that the director general may also determine the number and class of annual licences that are to be issued to authorised taxicab drivers who are also accredited taxicab operators or who have applied for such accreditation, to limit the number of annual licences that may be granted to the same applicant or related applicants if, in the opinion of the director general, such a limitation is likely to promote competition that will benefit the public and to provide for any other matter relating to the issue of annual licences that is prescribed by the regulations.

In making such a determination the director general is to have regard to the following matters: the likely passenger demand and latent demand for taxicab services; the performance of existing taxicab services; the demand for new taxicab licences; the viability and sustainability of the taxicab industry; and any other matter the director general considers relevant, having regard to the objective of ensuring improved taxicab services. Furthermore, the Government's proposed amendments provide that the director general may, if the director general thinks fit, obtain expert advice in relation to any of the matters referred to above and may seek public submissions before making a determination and may take into account any submissions received for the purposes of making the determination. Furthermore, the Government's proposed amendments provide that, despite section 32 C, the director general may issue up to 100 annual licences during the period commencing on the enactment of the 2009 legislation and ending on 1 July 2010.

The Government's proposed amendments also provide that an annual licence must not be renewed more than nine times. This will ensure that a licence is in force for a total period of not more that 10 years. The bill provides that the fee for the new annual licence will be set by the director general of NSW Transport and Infrastructure. The original bill did not impose a cap on the number of new licences that may be issued. The Government had claimed that the issuance of new licence fees would be determined by market conditions.

Under the Government's proposed amendments, section 32AJ will now provide that the amount of the licence fee for an annual licence, other than a licence for a wheelchair accessible taxicab, must be determined by inviting applicants for the licence to bid for it at public auction or to submit sealed tenders. The director general may in the circumstances specified in the regulations determine a licence fee for any such annual licence without complying with the previous subsection to invite applicants to bid. The amendment states that the amount of the licence fee for an annual licence determined under these subsections is the licence fee payable on each renewal of the licence.

Under the bill, existing transferable licences will continue to be bought and sold on the open market, and renewed upon expiry. Ordinary and short-term licences will continue to operate until expiry. Ordinary licences can then be renewed and transferred, and short-term licence holders will be able to purchase a new licence upon the expiry of their existing licence. Perpetual licences will remain operable until surrender or cancellation, in accordance with the legislation. The bill also seeks to clarify the operating conditions of nexus licences, such as the requirement to actively operate the wheelchair accessible taxi licences. Wheelchair accessible taxi licences will continue to operate under the same conditions as at present, at a fee of $1,000 in metropolitan areas and free of charge in country areas. Wheelchair accessible taxi licences, which are currently 12-month short-term licences, will be made renewable.

It is evident that the Government had not previously adequately consulted with the taxi industry and other relevant stakeholders and was attempting to rush the bill through the Parliament. I refer to the New South Wales Taxi Industry Association, the New South Wales Taxi Council and the Country Taxi Operators Association of New South Wales positions on the Government's reform package prior to submitting the proposed amendments:

What has been proposed in the 2009 Taxi Reform Package will not achieve any of the core objectives. It amounts to catastrophic change rather than evolutionary reform. It would not lead to more cabs on the road. It would not improve customer service and it would not enhance the career opportunities for drivers—it would devastate thousands of Australians who have worked to buy and pay back a taxi plate.

Prior to agreeing to implement the amendments to the bill the Government had failed to provide any evidence to support its claim that the bill would not have adversely affected the owners of existing plates. The Government was not offering any compensation for potential loss in the value of investments in plates under the original terms of the bill. I emphasise the importance of closely monitoring the impact of the new arrangements, to ensure that the objects of the bill are being met and giving due consideration to industry feedback. The challenge in implementing these reforms will be to attract new entrants who are dedicated to investing in the taxi industry in the long term. It is important to gradually phase in reforms. There is a danger that flooding the market with new licences will result in fluctuating supply and the deterioration of service standards across the industry. Concerns have also been expressed that there is no incentive for skilled operators to drive taxis in Sydney, and that the operators who hold perpetual plates would rather lease them out to taxi management bases or depots and earn a living from lease income.

As I have continuously emphasised, the Opposition's primary concern was to ensure that this bill was not passed without giving all due consideration to the impact it would have on the hard-working small business men and women, the operators, who have their very livelihood tied to their investment in their taxi plates. I congratulate the member for Willoughby, the shadow Minister for Transport, Gladys Berejiklian, on her persistence and diligence in her support of small business persons by pursuing the Government to do the right thing and move the amendments that we are now dealing with. Finally, as a member and Chair of the Select Committee on the NSW Taxi Industry, I look forward to receiving and considering the submissions and other evidence from all stakeholders in respect of the matters raised in the terms of reference.

Ms LEE RHIANNON [4.28 p.m.]: The Passenger Transport Amendment (Taxi Licensing) Bill amends the Passenger Transport Act in respect of taxi cab licences. The main thrust of this bill is to create a new category of non-transferable taxi licences that will be able to be renewed each year. There will no cap on the number of licences that may be issued. I understand that the Government now plans to amend its own bill to limit the number of new licences offered annually.

This new licence will be available in the first instance in the Sydney metropolitan area and will replace the current ordinary transferable and renewable licence and short-term, non-transferable and non-renewable licence categories. To be clear, this means that non-renewable taxi licences will no longer be available in Sydney. I understand that existing transferable licences will continue to be able to be operated, renewed and on sold on the open market and that ordinary and short-term licences will continue to operate until the expiry of their terms. The Greens support provisions in the bill that mean that wheelchair accessible taxi licences will still be available for $1,000 a year in metropolitan areas and for free in rural areas. We need to improve customer service and to ensure that taxi drivers have good working conditions.

The bill makes a limited contribution to these objectives, and I place emphasis on the word "limited". We have serious concerns about the mechanisms introduced in this bill. It seems as though the Government is rushing through an easy fix bill without proper consultation with the industry and without adequate consideration of the provisions of the bill. We are concerned that the bill will have a serious impact on many drivers and on long-term taxi licence holders with current plates. We are concerned that the bill in its current form will not achieve the goal of having reliable affordable and accessible taxis. A key concern of the Greens is that the bill will allow an unlimited release of taxi plates. I understand that the Government will move amendments to place a limit on the number of licences that can be released each year. This is a step forward, and I look forward to considering those amendments.

It is important that the Government gets this right. Taxis are an essential part of the transport mix, especially at a time when we need to reduce the number of cars on the road, when we need to cut greenhouse gases and when we need to reduce pollution. We recognise there is a shortage of taxis in the metropolitan area at certain times of the day. I understand that long-term passenger demand growth is estimated to be around 3 per cent or 4 per cent while the take-up of new licences has been around 1 per cent.

It is a shame that the Government has not consulted more with the relevant taxi bodies, in particular the New South Wales Taxi Drivers Association, the New South Wales Taxi Industry Association, the New South Wales Taxi Council and the Country Taxi Operators Association of New South Wales. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to advise us in her reply to the debate what, if any, consultation the government has undertaken on the amendments that are before us today. I have received representations from all the relevant taxi bodies, as well as from a group called Sydney Taxi Corruption and numerous individual drivers, urging members of this House not to support this bill, suggesting that more consultation is needed. So, it is important that the Parliamentary Secretary puts on the record in her reply just what consultation has been undertaken. A submission by the New South Wales Taxi Industry Association, the New South Wales Taxi Council and the Country Taxi Operators Association of New South Wales warns that this bill:

They are strong words from the various industry bodies. They point out that the mechanisms proposed in the bill may lead to fewer cabs on the road throughout the week. They warn that most cabdrivers—who currently work double shifts—will work only single shifts as there would be insufficient drivers to sustain double shifting. As a result, the taxi industry would lose the ability to cross-subsidise remote or off-peak journeys with money made during busy periods. The organisations write further:

This is a far from satisfactory outcome and highlights that much more thought needs to go into this reform package. A further concern raised with my office is the impact on drivers of the industry being flooded with unlimited plates. Of all the members of the New South Wales Taxi Industry Association, 84 per cent have only one plate and 10 per cent own two plates. I have been informed that some taxi plates were issued to returning war veterans as a means of thanking them for their national service and also to help them start a business of their own. Since that time, many drivers have put their hard earned money into taxi plates. As recently as October a taxi plate was sold by the Government for $406,000. The taxi industry warns that an unlimited release of licences will render these plates worthless. The bill has failed to put in place safeguards to guarantee a smooth transition to the proposed system. It will potentially destroy the superannuation of thousands of drivers that has been vested in taxi plates.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: You are not going to put your super into a taxi plate?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge that interjection; it is interesting how frequently the member interjects. I look forward to more. The legislation will potentially destroy the superannuation of thousands of drivers that has been vested in taxi plates. The national competition policy introduced by the Howard Government in the 1990s resulted in every State and Territory in Australia being required to conduct a review of its taxi industry. In every case except the Northern Territory all jurisdictions rejected deregulation of entry into the taxi industry. This bill, in its unamended form, goes against that clear and important recommendation. The Northern Territory acted to deregulate its industry in 1999 and the experience there should act as a warning bell for New South Wales.

Professor Des Nicholls of the Australian National University has written a paper on proposed taxi reforms in New South Wales. He states that following deregulation in the Northern Territory the industry went through turmoil with all stakeholders in the industry, including the general public being affected to some degree. Major concerns related to the quality of the service provided including driver quality, taxi cleanliness and timeliness of taxi pickups; the a reduction of income suffered by many in the industry; and ongoing disputes between sectors of the industry. Ultimately, the Northern Territory Government had to step in and re-regulate the industry to restore stability by capping the number of plates on issue. I understand that other jurisdictions that have moved towards the leasing of non-transferable plates have continued to place caps on the numbers available at any one time. Professor Nicholls wrote further:

Professor Nicholls provided some overseas examples of the negative consequences of deregulating the industry. In New South Wales the sudden increase in the number of taxis created bottlenecks at the airport. Fights broke out over the airport trade and drivers refused to service passengers who lived close to busy sites. Ultimately, the airport authorities re-regulated taxi operations in the public interest. In Dublin, Ireland deregulation resulted in taxis moving from two-driver cabs to single drive cabs, with many plates being leased to taxi drivers on a part-time basis. This resulted in many drivers refusing to work peak-hour periods because of traffic chaos. In Sweden, seven years after deregulation of the industry in that country, it was found that many cabdrivers specialised in working solely at Stockholm's international airport. This led to traffic chaos, with drivers demanding inflated prices. It was found that following deregulation the number of taxis increased significantly, inflation-adjusted fares increase significantly, demand for taxi service did not change and productivity of taxis fell in cities of all sizes.

In light of these experiences overseas and in other Australian jurisdictions, the Greens believe that the amendments that the Government plans to move today to its own bill are somewhat of a step forward. They will mean there will no longer be an unlimited release of licences. I am pleased the Government has done an about-face on this issue. However, it shows up the lack of thought that went into the current version of the bill. Currently, an inquiry into the taxi industry, which was initiated by the Greens, is underway. The terms of reference of this inquiry cover some of the issues in this bill and the timeline for the inquiry is quite short. As we know, it will be reporting fairly early in the New Year.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: You have been very cooperative.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: As we always are, despite your intentions.

The Hon. Michael Veitch: How do you do it, when no-one else can?

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I acknowledge the Deputy Whip's interjection. That is perfect. Surely, if the Government wishes to amend the bill, the sensible thing for it to do would be to respect the inquiry process that is now underway. Waiting until the inquiry has reported would be a sensible measure, and the Government can then design a reform package based on the results of that inquiry. I note also that the Greens received a copy of the amendments only yesterday. That is unfortunate, given that senior Government people have told us that now that the Government has a new broom in the upper House things will be managed more efficiently and there will be greater cooperation.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: A new Hatz!

Ms LEE RHIANNON: It is disappointing, therefore, that the amendments were given to us so late in the piece.

The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Not a new broom, a new Hatz!

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I am sorry; I missed that. It will be clear in Hansard if the spelling is right. Having received the amendments only yesterday it is unclear how much, if any, consultation has been undertaken with the taxi industry, taxi drivers and taxi users. It appears that the amendments have just been rushed through without consultation. The Government seems to have lost its ability to engage in meaningful consultation. This is a major reform package and the amendments significantly alter the impact of the bill. Consequently, the Parliament should have been given more time to consider the amendments.

I agree we have insufficient taxis and there is a need to improve customer service and provide fair conditions for drivers. I doubt whether the bill in its unamended form was up to that task, but I wonder whether the foreshadowed amendments will significantly improve the situation. To some extent they will, and on that basis the Greens will not oppose the bill in its amended form. The Greens want genuine reform in the taxi industry—reform that is considered, consultative and effective. Such reform is much more likely to come out of the upcoming inquiry into the taxi industry than from amendments that have been hastily pulled together to get this bill through the House.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [4.41 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Passenger Transport Act Amendment (Taxi Reform) Bill 2009, which meets urgent needs in the taxi industry in New South Wales, particularly in Sydney. Hopefully, the bill will improve the way that taxi licences are issued and administered. The reform is designed to encourage gradual and sustainable fleet growth so that the take-up of new licences better matches passenger demand for services. Taxi licence supply generally has not kept up with demand. Current growth of around 1 per cent is below long-term demand of between 2 per cent and 5 per cent. Another fluctuation occurs when drivers choose to drive at certain times. Many Sydney taxidrivers will not drive at night, certainly not late at night, because of the high incidence of taxidriver bashings. For their own safety many taxidrivers now confine their hours of work.

Taxi operators have been faced with rising licence lease costs—the Independent Regulatory and Pricing Tribunal estimated they would increase by 8 per cent in mid-2009—which impact on driver costs and passenger fares. The bill will amend the Passenger Transport Act 1990 to enable only annual non-transferable licences to be issued by the New South Wales Department of Transport and Infrastructure. The new licences can be renewed each year, subject to meeting usual operating requirements, and those licences can be leased on the open market.

It is important to maintain the open market to ensure competition and to avoid a monopoly situation wherein one taxi company controls all taxis. Apparently we are moving in that direction. I have had discussions with RSL Cabs—a company under pressure from Cabcharge—which has taken over a group of small taxi companies that have been forced into the Cabcharge empire. RSL Cabs wishes to maintain its independence but feels threatened. I urge the Minister to investigate this matter to ensure that taxi groups can continue to operate independently to avoid a monopoly situation in New South Wales.

The fee for the new licences will be $28,600 per annum or $550 per week. This has been set at the average cost of leasing an existing licence on the open market and has been designed to encourage uptake of new licences while minimising the impact on current licences. This is lower than the fee that was charged in the past, with the cost of a licence being as high as $400,000. The take-up of new licences will be actively monitored. The bill allows for the fee to be adjusted, ensuring that the Government's objective of gradual and sustainable fleet growth is achieved. We are pleased to support the bill. The parliamentary inquiry into the taxi industry will also take into account these proposals and examine whether further amending legislation should be introduced at a future time.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA [4.45 p.m.]: It is pleasing to note that the Government has seen the light with the Passenger Transport Act Amendment (Taxi Reform) Bill 2009. It had little option given the strength of concerns expressed by Gladys Berejiklian in the other place, the crossbench members of this House, the taxi industry, the hardworking taxi owners and drivers. This sensible compromise has been reached to achieve protection of current taxi plate owners and, at the same time, to allow for more entrants into the market, with a view to increasing taxi availability, particularly in Sydney and major regional centres. This compromise will try to balance the existing plate and lease values.

The new licence fee should be set at a level that encourages gradual growth to meet existing demand and considers current market lease rates as part of that process. The bill in its amended form will seek to address this by providing for non-transferable and renewable 12-month taxi licences to come onto the market. The quoted cost of approximately $27,000 per annum is said to be an incentive for people to enter the market, rather than having to purchase a long-term and tradable licence at an average cost of $400,000.

The Government's biggest failing is its terrible record of consultation. It has failed to work through the mutual objective of the taxi industry—which the Government and the Coalition supposedly share—to increase taxi cab availability in peak hours in Sydney and regional centres. It failed to hold productive discussions from the start, and was forced to sit down and talk in a respectful manner with taxi plate owners and drivers—many of whom are war veterans, war widows and blue collar working Australians, who have diligently worked hard for their investment—only after loud and very public uproar. These hardworking individuals would have faced financial ruin if the bill had been passed in its original state. The original reform package would not have met any of the proposed objectives espoused by the Government at the time and would have undermined the sustainability of the taxi industry as a public transport provider.

Service and reliability of taxis is about their availability and not just the unlimited issue of taxi licences. The bill in its original format would have been nothing more than a de facto deregulation with uncapped taxi licence releases, which initially would have resulted in the supply of drivers being spread over a greater number of taxi licences with no real increase in taxis numbers. It would have resulted in taxidrivers abandoning privately held taxi licences and being replaced with Government-issued taxi licences—with no productive increase in taxi licences or any increase in taxi numbers during peak periods.

We only have to look at what happened in Dublin when unlimited taxi plates were released to see the absurdity of this bill. In the Dublin experience 99 per cent of cabs were driven for only one shift per day, whereas prior to the release of unlimited plates 85 per cent of taxis were driven for two shifts per day. This resulted in a decrease in the times that each individual taxi operated, and that in turn led to a decline in customer service. This, in turn, translated into drivers cherrypicking lucrative fares and not staffing their taxis at crucial periods such as in the early hours of the morning as well as not working in remote or isolated areas.

These failures have also been shown in the New Zealand taxi industry reforms and the Northern Territory experience. Following the unlimited release of taxi licences in the Northern Territory, major concerns arose relating to the quality of customer service and the reduction of income suffered by many in the taxi industry, especially drivers. An urgent review of the situation resulted in the Northern Territory having to recap the number of taxi licences on issue in order to restore stability and sustainability to its taxi industry.

The overwhelming majority of current taxi licence owners and operators began as either casual or permanent taxi drivers and they have committed their time and money to build the industry. This is evidenced by the fact that of New South Wales taxi licence owners 84 per cent own one taxi licence and 10 per cent own two licences. These are hardworking, struggling taxi owners who have devoted so much of their savings just to derive an income from one or two taxi licences. These percentages show that the incentive has always been there for the taxi owner-driver to make a long-term commitment and invest in a long-term career path in a stable taxi industry. For the Government to have been selling these taxi licenses directly to the public for many years—and as recently as 6 October 2009 having sold one licence for $406,000 when clearly the Government knew it would be introducing legislation that would devalue the cost of a taxi licence—is completely unethical and unconscionable.

For some time now the taxi industry has pleaded with the Ministry for Transport to increase the number of taxi licences. The taxi industry has for many years put forward a better process for reform that factors in econometric modelling and will result in improved customer service, facilitate new entry, and encourage long-term participation in the industry, whilst deterring market concentration by limiting the number of new licences a new entrant can hold. I am very grateful that the Government finally listened to the Coalition, particularly Gladys Berejiklian, the shadow Minister for Transport, and my colleague the Hon. John Ajaka, who gave a sterling speech having command of the bill, and that it also listened to the crossbench members and, most importantly, the community. I hope this tradition continues.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [4.52 p.m.]: The Passenger Transport Amendment (Taxi Licensing) Bill aims to give force to the Government's decision to improve the administration of taxi licensing arrangements. It was always going to be a big challenge to find a way to grow the taxi fleet and deliver better services for passengers, and secure the long-term viability of the taxi industry, while at the same time managing any transition impacts on industry. But the Government has taken on that challenge, and has brought forward an approach to licensing reform that we believe strikes the right balance and allows for the steady and sustainable growth in the taxi fleet.

Over the last few years the Government has been working with the taxi industry to implement initiatives that deliver real benefits to passengers and to the taxi industry as a whole. These initiatives have included establishing secure taxi ranks; requiring security cameras in all cabs in Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong and on the Central Coast; trialling an incentive payment for wheelchair-accessible taxi drivers to help improve response times for passengers; implementing new performance standards for taxi networks, which we are now reviewing to ensure we are measuring the areas of performance that are most important to passengers; and publishing performance data, to improve levels of transparency and accountability in the regulation of the industry.

The changes to taxi licensing arrangements, which would be given effect through this bill, build on these initiatives. The bill aims to put in place a framework that will make sure that, progressively, there are enough cabs on the road to provide what is an important service to the community. In recent years, because of a complex range of factors, the take-up of new taxi licences has not kept pace with the growth in demand for services. These factors include the high cost of new licences, which among other things has meant that obtaining a new, transferable licence requires an upfront capital investment beyond the reach of many, and the lack of certainty of tenure that non-renewable, short-term licences offer potential new industry entrants as they can only be issued for a fixed term of up to six years.

The low take-up of new licences, if left unchanged, will lead to a decline in the availability and reliability of services—which means more occasions when there are queues of passengers left standing at ranks and wondering when a cab will arrive. Frustrated potential taxi passengers will soon look for alternative modes of transport—and, increasingly, the taxi industry is losing market share to its competitors. High licensing costs, which are putting upward pressure on fares, are also impacting on affordability of taxi services, further undermining the competitiveness of the industry.

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal has identified that licence costs were the second largest contributing factor to the most recent increases in metropolitan taxi fares. A steady growth in the taxi fleet means more cabs on the road, which in turn will mean shorter waiting times for passengers and reduced pressures on fares. This means that more people will be likely to use taxi services more often. It will also secure the long-term financial viability of the industry as a whole. The Government knows this, and so does the industry, which is why the industry also wants to see reform. Indeed, this is a view that even the member for Willoughby has acknowledged. The bill addresses these issues by introducing a new category of licence: an annually renewable, non-transferable licence, which will replace ordinary renewable and transferable licences and six-year, short-term, non-renewable and non-transferable licences. Initially this will happen in Sydney, with the reforms to be rolled out to other areas of the State following a further review of each area.

The bill also proposes that the fee for the new annual licence will be set by the director general. As the Government announced on 31 October, we proposed to set the initial fee for the annual licence fee at $28,600 a year, which equates to $550 per week. This was based on the average lease fees paid on the open market by taxi operators who lease licences from perpetual and ordinary licence holders. According to the expert advice the Government has received, it would achieve the gradual and sustainable levels of fleet growth that the Government is seeking.

Unlike some ill-informed criticisms that have been made elsewhere, this is not deregulation of the industry or even deregulation of entry to the industry. It represents a careful, measured approach to managing essential growth in taxi services in the interests of the community and the industry. Having said that, concerns have been raised that the unlimited availability of licences could undermine industry sustainability. The Government has heard those concerns, so the Government will move amendments to the bill to address this aspect. These amendments, as my colleague the Hon. Penny Sharpe has already foreshadowed, will allow for the Director General of NSW Transport and Infrastructure to determine the number of annual licences for standard cabs that may be issued each year, which will then be tendered to allow the market to set the price. These licences will then be renewable each year for up to 10 years, at the price set for the licence in the tender.

This supply-based approach to getting more cabs on the road is not the Government's preferred approach, but it represents another way of achieving the Government's objectives of managed fleet growth that delivers better services for passengers and more taxis on the road, minimises transition impacts on current licence holders, provides career opportunities for owner-drivers, and helps secure the industry's long-term competitiveness and financial viability. In the long run, the most important outcome is to achieve better services for passengers in a way that is fair, reasonable and transparent. So the Government is prepared to make a compromise on whether controls on price—or controls on supply—are used to meet those ends. The Government's commitment to improving service levels within the taxi industry speaks for itself. These reforms build on the progressive changes that the Government has made in recent years in response to various reviews on issues such as taxi service standards, wheelchair accessible services, and driver and passenger safety.

Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted to permit a motion to adjourn the House if desired.

The House continued to sit.

Item of business set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

PASSENGER TRANSPORT AMENDMENT (TAXI LICENSING) BILL 2009

Second Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [5.01 p.m.]: Structural reforms of this nature are never easy. However, the need for change is clear. Without more licences being issued, costs within the industry will continue to increase and service levels will continue to deteriorate. The Government has listened to the concerns that have been raised about the potential impacts of parts of its original proposal and has agreed to make amendments. These have the broad support of key stakeholders and will allow us to get more cabs on the road in a responsible, managed way. It is time to get on with the job of continuing to implement improvements to services for passengers and strengthen and grow the taxi industry. I urge all members to support the Government's proposed amendments and to support the bill.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.02 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate. The Passenger Transport Amendment (Taxi Licensing) Bill 2009 provides a balanced approach to taxi reform. The industry and the community tell us that more taxis are needed on the road. Yet because of a number of factors already explained, but primarily because of the high cost of new licences, the take-up of new taxi licences has not kept pace with the growth in passenger demand for services. Should this continue, it will lead to reduced availability and reliability of services and therefore an undesirable taxi industry. However, concerns have been expressed that the Government's price-based approach creates too much uncertainty for the industry. In particular, concerns have been raised about the potential impacts on the 84 per cent of existing transferable licence holders—the mum and dad investors who hold just one licence.

The member for Willoughby in the other House indicated that the Opposition supports licensing reform and the intent of the bill, but will support its passage only if amendments are introduced to address those concerns. She asked the Government to consider the changes that the industry was seeking. Ultimately, as far as the Government is concerned, the most important thing is to get on with the job of achieving better services to passengers in a way that is fair, reasonable and transparent. The Government is not convinced that a supply-based approach to managing fleet growth is necessarily better than a price-driven approach. When managed carefully, the Government believes price could be as effective in regulating licence take-up as a control on supply, with the advantage of still allowing the market the flexibility to respond appropriately to increases in demand for services. The Government has heard the concerns that have been raised and will therefore be moving amendments to the bill in Committee, which reflect a compromise position that is also supported by the industry.

I will now reply to a number of issues that were raised during debate. The Hon. John Ajaka claimed that the Government had no evidence that the taxi licence reform package would not impact on the industry. The Hon. John Ajaka has in fact misled the House on this matter. I refer him to the NSW Transport and Infrastructure website. He can type in www.transport.nsw.gov.au/taxi reform—

The Hon. Michael Veitch: The Opposition is not very good at that.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: Opposition members have shown today that they need some lessons on using Google. If the Hon. John Ajaka went onto that website he would find there is a report by expert advisers, PricewaterhouseCoopers, that indicates that the Government can expect to achieve moderate growth at the price set for the new licence. There is no evidence that this approach will lead to a flood of licences. The Hon. John Ajaka also remarked on the purchase of taxi plates in October, after the announcement by the Government. The Government cannot refuse eligible applicants a licence if they apply. It is purely a commercial decision for that operator. They make the decision as to whether it is worthwhile to purchase that plate at the market rate—and that is the way it should operate. For more detail about this matter I refer members to the comments made by the member for Penrith in the other place.

The Hon. John Ajaka also referred to consultation. Taxi licensing reform and its management have been the subject of discussion in the broader community and with the taxi industry for many years. They are issues that the New South Wales Government has been actively considering for some time. In determining its approach to reforming taxi licensing arrangements, the Government has had regard to the well-known views of all stakeholders. These included the views of the New South Wales Taxi Council, which put a proposal to the then Ministry of Transport in 2007, as well as the views of driver representatives such as the various taxi driver associations; business groups such as the tourism and transport task force; community organisations such as the Council of Social Service of New South Wales; and expert commentators, such as the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. The Government also looked at the different approaches used in other jurisdictions.

All this information fed into a detailed assessment of the options available to improve taxi services to the people of New South Wales, and Sydney in particular. In October the Government announced a reform package that it believed, and still believes, represents a balanced approach to licensing reform. The Government has also listened to the concerns raised about the potential impacts on industry and on service delivery of an approach where an unlimited number of licences are, at least technically, available. It has therefore agreed to adopt a compromise, supply-based approach to managing fleet growth, on the basis that it will still allow the Government to achieve its core objective of delivering better services to passengers and a more viable taxi industry. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that there has been no consultation in regard to these matters.

During her contribution Ms Lee Rhiannon quoted at length from a paper by Professor Des Nicholls of the Australian National University. Professor Nicholls' paper tells horror stories about taxi industry deregulation, which are all very interesting but have no bearing on what the Government has brought forward. Even Professor Nicholls acknowledged that a price-driven approach is a legitimate way of managing fleet growth. His report states:

The Opposition should take the professor's advice on board, because that mechanism was in the Government's control. Ms Lee Rhiannon also spoke of the concern raised by some members of the taxi industry that putting more cabs on the road could lead to service deterioration at non-peak times. There is no evidence to suggest that that will happen. When there is market demand for services those interested in providing the services will fill the gap. The bill significantly removes the barriers to entry that were preventing more taxis on the road. The Government is ensuring that the taxi industry is given the chance to become viable and sustainable.

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile raised concerns about monopolies being created, especially in Sydney. The Government is keen to ensure that the method of issuing licences achieves the maximum passenger benefit and will be able, where it is in the public interest and will help promote competition, to limit the numbers of licences that any one entity, or related entity, may use. The point of making new, renewable, non-transferable annual licences available through a tender auction process is to make licences more accessible and to remove prohibitive price barriers to entry to the taxi industry. This will also help grow and diversify the industry. As indicated, the Government will move seven amendments in Committee. I do not intend to go through those amendments in detail at this point. 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.

In Committee

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.10 p.m.], by leave: I move Government amendments Nos 1 to 7, in globo:

32C Availability of annual licences (other than licences for wheelchair accessible taxi-cabs)

(3) In making a determination, the Director-General is to have regard to the following matters:

(3) A transfer of an operative pre-1990 licence or other transaction referred to in subclause (2) is valid whether or not it complies with any conditions that would, under this Part, be applicable to such a transfer after the commencement of the 2009 Act.

Division 5 Annual licences

69 Issue of annual licences before 1 July 2010

Making decisions on long-term structural changes to any industry is never easy, as we need to consider many different interests. Similarly, it has not been an easy task to determine the best way forward for the administration of taxi licences. There are many possible options for taxi licensing reform. At various times over the years every sector of the industry has put forward options for consideration. Other organisations and community bodies, such as the Tourist and Transport Forum and the Council of Social Service of New South Wales, have also made representations on licensing reform. Myriad options have included different types of licences that may be made available, different methods to establish the right price, different ways to deal with existing licences, and various mechanisms to achieve the desired growth in the industry.

The Government's role is to carefully balance the range of interests and needs of stakeholders. First and foremost, we have considered the needs of passengers who want to know that they have a reliable, quality taxi service available when they need it. We have also considered the needs of existing investors, ranging from large networks to mum and dad investors and those who rely on the income generated from their licences for their retirement. We have considered the needs of taxi drivers who seek certainty in their career prospects. At the same time, we have recognised the need to promote an effective and efficient industry by not inadvertently creating barriers for new entrants into the market. All options put forward have their merits, and the representations and submissions of stakeholders have informed the development of the framework the Government put forward in the bill.

The Government has obtained expert advice to analyse the wide range of options and has painstakingly considered them against criteria of fairness, transparency and certainty, the benefits to passengers and the community, and the viability of a wider taxi industry, as well as fulfilling objectives concerning appropriate levels of competition in the industry. We believe the reforms we have proposed strike the right balance by establishing a new licence that will focus the industry in the future on delivering services to passengers, is set at a price that will encourage the market to take up new licences to match growth in passenger demand for services, and that will ensure gradual and sustainable growth in the taxi fleet. We have come a long way to get to this point.

The message we have received since we announced our reforms in early October is that the principles and objectives of the proposed deal are supported both in the taxi industry and elsewhere. There is a desire for sustainable fleet growth that encourages competitive, reliable and affordable taxi services. There is also a desire to manage any transitional impacts on existing licence holders and to retain and attract experienced industry professionals by providing a viable career path. However, concerns have been raised about one aspect of the Government's proposed approach—that is, the unlimited availability of licences at a price to be set by the director general, rather than letting the market determine the price based on a set number of licences released each year.

We have heard that the industry accepts the need for more licences to be issued at more affordable prices but is concerned about the impact of the unpredictability of the numbers that will be issued each year. We recognise that debate is needed about the detail and we have listened to the concerns that have been raised. As a result, we have brought forward these amendments to the bill, which we believe will address these concerns while still allowing the Government's key reform objective of providing better, more responsive taxi services to customers to be achieved.

Under the amendments the Government proposes that the Director General of NSW Transport and Infrastructure will determine the number of annual licences for standard taxis to be issued each year, based on a range of demand indicators set out in the legislation. This is not a crude, simple cap on licences. Rather, it allows the director general to make an assessment through realistic and market indicators of the need for new licences and to match supply accordingly. New licences then will be put to the market so that the market, instead of the director general, determines the worth of each licence. Successful bidders will be able to renew their licence each year for up to 10 years at the fee set by the market process. This gives investors greater certainty than is currently available under short-term licences, which have a maximum term of just six years.

The bill does not limit who is eligible to take up a licence or the number of licences that may be issued to any one applicant. It does, however, allow the director general to target all or part of an annual release at drivers who are, or who are in the process of becoming, accredited operators in order to provide a better career path for these industry professionals. It also allows the director general to limit the number of licences any one entity or related entity can take up where that is in the interests of ensuring competition and will prevent inappropriate levels of market dominance. Importantly, wheelchair accessible taxi licences will continue to be available on application to NSW Transport and Infrastructure at fees set by the director general. They will continue to be available at $1,000 in metropolitan areas and free in country New South Wales. Annual wheelchair accessible taxi licences will be able to be renewed each year for 10 years, thereby improving certainty for operators.

I am advised that this compromise solution has the support of the industry. Therefore, I call upon the Opposition to honour the commitment of the member for Willoughby, which she gave during the agreement in principle debate, to support the bill if we could achieve a satisfactory resolution in relation to concerns about managing the supply of new licences. The member for Willoughby acknowledged the need for reform, recognised the significant common ground between the Government and the industry, and called on the Government to consider some of the amendments to the Government's package that were proposed by the industry. The Government has done that and we now ask the Opposition to get behind the Government's reforms and support these amendments and the passage of the bill.

I will give a brief explanation of the amendments. As to amendment No. 1, proposed section 32C (1) gives the director general the ability to set the number of annual licences for standard cabs available for issue. This is to be done by 31 March each year for new licences to be issued during the period from 1 July that year to 30 June next year. Under proposed section 32C (2) (a) the director general may determine the number and class of annual licences that may be issued to drivers who are, or who have applied to become, accredited operators in order to help provide a career path in the industry. Under proposed section 32C (2) (b) the director general can limit the number of licences that can be issued to the same applicant as an anti-competitive measure. Proposed section 32C (2) (c) provides regulation-making power or any other measure that is necessary.

Proposed section 32C (3) (a) to (e) outline the process and measures that the director general is to have regard to in determining the number of annual licences. Proposed sections 32C (4) and (5) allow the director general to seek further advice in determining the number of annual licences to be released. Under proposed section 32C (6) the director general cannot issue more annual licences for standard taxis than he or she has determined will be released under proposed section 32C (1). Under proposed section 32C (7) the arrangements for standard annual licences will not apply to wheelchair accessible taxi licences. The number and price of licences will continue to be set by the director general, as these are to assist the industry to cater for those who need the services. I am happy to provide details of the other amendments if members require me to do so. However, earlier comments provide a clear overview of the amendments. I commend the amendments.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [5.18 p.m.]: The Opposition supports the Government amendments. The Government has introduced these amendments as a result of pressure from all the stakeholders. I gave an overview of the amendments in my speech during the second reading debate. I will not repeat it. I am astonished that the Government failed to submit the bill in its original form with these appropriate provisions. Notice of intention to introduce the bill was given in the other place on 29 October 2009. The Government did not advise of these amendments until yesterday, 25 November 2009. One can only imagine the stress and concern of the small business operators during this period, when day after day they had absolutely no idea what was going to happen to the value of their plates.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: Cavalier disregard.

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: The Government couldn't care less. The letters, calls and personal visits I have received are far too many to mention. This Government has a duty to ensure that legislation is not cobbled together in a haphazard and rushed fashion. It also has a duty to ensure that there is proper consultation with all relevant stakeholders. Prior consultation does not mean preparing the legislation and putting it before the House and then going to talk to the stakeholders. But that is exactly what this Government did. Sadly, time and time again, the Government fails to adhere to the very simple rules.

It is amazing that today the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the Government, should suddenly take credit for devising these amendments to improve the legislation. The Government would never have moved these amendments—it did not even bother speaking to the stakeholders. It was not until pressure was applied and it became clear that the Government had got it wrong, that it drafted the amendments. And now the Government seeks to take the credit. The Government is trying to sell the story that they are minor amendments to the original bill. Obviously Government members do not read their own amendments because the amendments are not minor in any shape or form. The Parliamentary Secretary used two very interesting phrases when she spoke to the amendments. She began by saying that the Government "takes the time to carefully balance". With all due respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, she did not take the time and she did not carefully balance the issues when the bill was introduced in the other place. The Government should have presented the legislation in a proper form the first time and not put the stakeholders under pressure.

As indicated earlier, the Opposition clearly supports the amendments. But I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary—if she is unable to answer it today perhaps she can take it on notice. What occurs if a person acquires one of these non-transferable licences for 12 months and before that period expires either wants to surrender the licence or, sadly, passes away? Is the person or the person's executor permitted to surrender or hand back that licence and obtain a proportionate refund of the moneys paid? I have not been able to find an answer to that in the legislation so I request the Parliamentary Secretary's assistance.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [5.22 p.m.]: In response to the Hon. John Ajaka, at this point I am not able to provide that advice. However, I will get the ministerial officers to provide an answer to the honourable member out of session.

Question—That Government amendments Nos 1 to 7 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Government amendments Nos 1 to 7 agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments.

Adoption of Report

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe agreed to:

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

FOOD AMENDMENT (BEEF LABELLING) BILL 2009

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

TABLING OF PAPERS

The Hon. Penny Sharpe tabled the following papers:

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe.

COASTAL PROTECTION

Production of Documents: Tabling of Documents Reported to be Not Privileged

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to resolution this day, the documents identified as not privileged in the report of the independent legal arbiter dated 17 November 2009, on the disputed claim of privilege on papers relating to coastal management.

MOUNT PENNY EXPLORATION LICENCE

Production of Documents: Return to Order

The Clerk tabled, pursuant to resolution of 12 November 2009, documents relating to an order for papers relating to exploration licence Mount Penny received this day from the Director General of the Department of Premier and Cabinet, together with an indexed list of documents.

Production of Documents: Claim of Privilege

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

TRUSTEE COMPANIES AMENDMENT BILL 2009

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 November 2009.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [5.27 p.m.]: The overall object of the Trustee Companies Amendment Bill 2009 is to give effect to a new legislative scheme whereby the Commonwealth will assume responsibility for the regulation of trustee companies. The new arrangements arise as a result of an agreement reached by the Council of Australian Governments in July 2008. The Opposition, for which I lead in debate on this bill, does not oppose its passage. Pursuant to the proposed scheme, the Commonwealth will have exclusive responsibility for the licensing of trustee companies and the regulation of their fees. The Trustee Companies Act 1964, as well as common law and equity, will otherwise continue to govern the functions and powers of trustee companies. Specifically, the object of the bill is to amend the Trustee Companies Act 1964, consequentially on the enactment and commencement of the Commonwealth's Corporations Legislation Amendment (Financial Services Modernisation) Act 2009 so as to remove the State approval mechanism for trustee companies and define trustee companies as licensed trustee companies under the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth.

The bill facilitates the transfer of a trustee company's business to another licensed trustee company when its licence is cancelled under the Corporations Act, and provides for the making of transitional provisions to facilitate the transition to the new regime. In particular, the bill replaces the definition of "trustee company" with "a licensed trustee company within the meaning of Chapter 5D of the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth". The bill also repeals various provisions relating to advances, commissions and fees, and other mandatory provisions relating to accounts and winding up; sections pertaining to borrowing, loans and related liabilities of a trustee company; those sections that concern the personal liability of a managing director of a trustee company; and provisions that pertain to shareholdings in trustee companies and those concerning indemnities and any variations of any unpaid capital of Trust Company Fiduciary Services Ltd.

The bill adds a new section to the Trustee Companies Act 1964 concerning compulsory transfer determination and applies to situations where the Australian Securities and Investment Commission exercises its powers to cancel a licence of the trustee company under the relevant Commonwealth laws and makes a transfer determination in relation to the company's estate assets and liabilities to a receiving company. A further addition to the Trustee Companies Act 1964 stipulates that State tax is not payable in relation to an exempt matter, and exempt matters are defined as the transfer of estate assets to a receiving company under Commonwealth law.

The bill stipulates that various existing provisions that this legislation proposes to repeal will have continuing effect in the event that action has been commenced under them before the passage of this bill. These provisions include: section 18 (3), which concerns applications for review of commissions before the repeal of the section by this bill; section 17A, which relates to sums advanced under that section before the repeal of the section by this bill; section 20A to section 22, which concern applications before a court for the filing of an account, an order for an account or an audit before the repeal of this section bill; and section 29D, which concerns any financial statements that are required to be forwarded under the section before the repeal of the section by this bill. A number of other Acts are also amended to give effect to the new scheme.

Both the Conveyancing Act 1911 and the Probate and Administration Act 1898 are amended to change the definition of "trustee company" to a licensed trustee company within the meaning of chapter 5D of the Commonwealth Corporations Act authorised by an Act of New South Wales to act as trustee. In line with these changes, the Duties Act 1997 changes the definition of "special trustee" to provide a similar definition. The Conveyancing Act is also amended to stipulate that any action taken by a trustee company before the enactment of the present scheme continues to have effect. The Trustee Companies Regulation 2005 is amended to give a trustee company power to elect to administer an estate if its gross value is less than $10,000, and outlines the processes for the election to be made.

The changes proposed by the Trustee Companies Amendment Bill 2009 will result in a single licensing and reporting system for trustee companies administered by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and will eliminate an unnecessary regulatory burden from multiple State and Territory jurisdictions and help to improve competition between trustee companies. Requiring trustee companies to be licensed will increase accountability within the industry. It will also result in consumer protection arrangements applying to the financial services industry under the Commonwealth's Corporations Act as well as an improved alternative dispute resolution mechanism. It is for these reasons that the Opposition does not oppose this bill.

Mr IAN COHEN [5.33 p.m.]: I support the Trustee Companies Amendment Bill 2009 on behalf of the Greens. In 2008 it was decided by the Council of Australian Governments that the Commonwealth would regulate trustee companies. A bill was passed by the Commonwealth Parliament to give effect to that decision last month. Therefore, the bulk of this New South Wales legislation effectively omits most of the existing New South Wales law because the Commonwealth will be taking over the regulation of trustees companies from 1 January 2010. The bill simply amends the New South Wales Trustee Companies Act so that trustee companies will be recognised if they are licensed under the Commonwealth Corporations Act 2001 and repeals the redundant provisions. The legislation contains specific new provisions relating to the transfer of estate assets and liabilities from the transferring company to another licensed trustee company where the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has issued a certificate of transfer under the Commonwealth Act and the company or companies are based in New South Wales. The Greens support this bill.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [5.34 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Trustee Companies Amendment Bill 2009. This bill arises from the Commonwealth Government's decision to pass legislation that created a single licensing and reporting regime that would be administered by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The Commonwealth legislation also applies the consumer protection regime for financial services to traditional trustee company services. This bill will facilitate the transfer or responsibility for the regulation of trustee companies to the Commonwealth. The bill amends the Trustee Companies Act to recognise licensed trustee companies under chapter 5D of the Commonwealth's Corporations Act 2001. I note that the Commonwealth legislation does not apply to State public trustees such as the New South Wales Trustee and Guardian, a position established by separate legislation with different reporting and other requirements. As I said, the Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [5.35 p.m.]: I support the Trustee Companies Amendment Bill 2009, which amends the Trustee Companies Act 1964 to facilitate the Commonwealth's taking over the regulation of trustee companies. Traditionally only a natural person, as opposed to a company, could discharge the role of a personal trustee. Trustees owe fiduciary duties in respect of the assets they administer and can be personally liable for default. For this reason companies could generally not act as a personal trustee. However, over the past 100 years or so governments have enacted legislation permitting trustee companies to provide an alternative to natural person trustees and to allow for long-term trusts, such as charitable trusts, to be established.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: This is a little different from women's boxing.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: I am surprised that the member wants to bring up boxing given that Mr Abbott has just resigned prior making a bid for leadership. Perhaps he should go to Canberra to sort them out. Trustee companies were permitted to offer trust services for profit and traditionally specialised in personal trust services. The market has undergone significant change and today trustee companies offer a range of other financial services, including as the administrator for superannuation funds, as trustee for debenture and note issues and as the responsible entity for managed funds.

The trustee company industry is relatively small and I understand that, even in New South Wales, there are only 12 licensed private trustee companies. The majority of trustee companies are licensed and have operations in multiple jurisdictions. According to Trustee Corporations Association of Australia data for 2007, private trustee companies have approximately $510 billion of assets under management. However, the bulk of trustee company business is in the field of investment products and personal trust business constitutes only approximately 4 per cent of private trustee company business, which amounts to $21 billion. Trustee companies are subject to State and Territory based regulatory legislation.

While there are some differences between the Acts in each jurisdiction, they permit companies to be recognised or licensed as trustee companies and empower such companies to act as executor, administrator and trustee as if a natural person. In most jurisdictions, including New South Wales, the legislation needs to be amended to authorise a new trustee company to enter the market. This process can be time consuming. Companies that wish to provide personal trust services in more than one State or Territory must be licensed in each jurisdiction. The amendments to the Commonwealth Corporations Act provide for the Commonwealth to assume responsibility for the regulation of trustee companies. The amendments authorise certain corporations to operate as trustee companies, require them to hold an Australian financial services licence and provides that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission will regulate trustee companies in the provision of personal trust business.

The amendments being considered today complement the amendments to the Corporations Act and will allow a smooth transition to the Commonwealth taking over the regulation of trustee companies. Trustee companies will benefit from streamlined reporting requirements and answering to only one supervisor for personal trust services. Trustee companies that are not currently licensed in each State and Territory will benefit from a national licensing scheme that will allow them to operate across all jurisdictions. The creation of a national market should increase competition in the personal trust business, bringing benefits to consumers. Consumers will also benefit from the consumer protection provisions of the Corporations Act and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act being applied to the provision of personal trust business by trustee companies. I am pleased to support this bill.

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Vice President of the Executive Council) [5.39 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to the debate. I reinforce the comments about the importance and significance of the Trustee Companies Amendment Bill 2009, which provides a single national regulatory scheme that will benefit both businesses and consumers, eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens on trustee companies that arise from duplicate licensing and reporting requirements in each State and Territory, remove barriers to entry and improve competition in the trustee company market. The legislation will enhance consumer protection by applying a consumer protection regime for financial services from the Corporations Act to trustee companies. The Government is pleased to be introducing this legislation to facilitate this important national reform. 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.

Third Reading

Motion by the Hon. John Hatzistergos agreed to:

Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Legislative Assembly with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [5.43 p.m.]: I move:

TIMOR SEA OIL SPILL

Mr IAN COHEN [5.43 p.m.]: Off the coast of Western Australia's Kimberley region an environmental disaster of enormous scale has been going on for over three months. From 21 August the Montara oil rig, owned by the Thai oil company PTTEP Australasia, was spilling 2,000 barrels of oil—and there are almost 160 litres per barrel—into the sea every day. Initially the company told the Australian Government that only 400 barrels of oil were spilling out each day—a figure repeated by the Government for some weeks. On 1 November the rig caught fire, so the pollution became airborne as well. The lack of concern or oversight of this disaster is truly negligent. Nine weeks after the spill began the Federal Government admitted that its own calculations suggested a spill rate of not 400 but 2,000 barrels a day—yet the public was not apprised of this.

Now that a commission of inquiry is to be held into this spill the truth about it will hopefully come to light. Whilst the media interest in Australia was minimal, it was left to the Jakarta Post to report that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, which is cleaning up the spill, informed the Indonesian Government that volumes of crude oil had entered the Indonesian exclusive economic zone some 51 nautical miles from Rote Island. Fishermen on the coast of Rote Island started complaining of illnesses as a result of the oil spill that had reached land and damaged thousands of hectares of ready-to-harvest seaweed. The director of the West Timor Care Foundation, Ferdi Tanoni, has said:

Seaweed, one of the province's prime commodities, has been polluted. If the farmers fail to harvest their seaweed, they would incur losses of up to billions of rupiah.

West Australian Greens Senator Rachel Siewert flew over the spill whilst it was still flowing. Despite her pleas at a Federal level, little appeared to happen until the rig caught fire and the dramatic images flashed onto our screens. Senator Siewert rightly predicts ongoing environmental damage the like of which we have not seen before. Gilly Llewellyn, who led the World Wildlife Fund team on a three-day survey of the slick, told the Times of London:

We were in an area that is teeming with marine life and we literally found ourselves in a sea of oil that reached as far as we could see. It was sickening, because we were seeing dolphins surfacing in the oil and birds feeding in it.

Chemical dispersants were dumped on the slick, but this will increase the long-term toxic impacts on these rich ecosystems. The leaking platform was operated by the Thai oil company PTTEP, which is part owned by the Thai Government. One month after allowing crude oil to spew into this pristine marine area off northern Australia PTTEP bought a $10 million, 100 per cent interest in OMV Timor Sea Pty Ltd, an Australian company with licences to drill off north-western Australia. Should this deal have been made under the circumstances? I certainly do not believe it to be appropriate.

The Kimberley coast in the Timor Sea has been described as a marine superhighway and corridor for many endangered marine species, including the loggerhead turtle, Pacific Ridley turtle, Abbott's booby and the blue whale. The World Wildlife Fund expedition recorded that 17 species of seabird, four species of cetacean and five marine reptiles including two species of threatened marine turtle—the hawksbill and flatback—were affected by the spill. Satellite images show a slick covering around 25,000 square kilometres. The oil is travelling rapidly. Senator Siewert reports that people living on the Kimberley coast worry that as soon as the monsoon hits tides and winds will push the oil onto the coast. Oil can be a slow and silent killer. Impacts from the Exxon Valdez disaster are still being seen some 20 years later. The cost of cleaning up this oil spill is estimated to hit $100 million and beyond.

It astounds me that this disaster in Australian waters was left unchecked for so long and that we have to find out what happened after it is over rather than taking decisive action whilst it was happening. I welcome the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry into this oil spill. I hope it will be transparent and have the powers that can see that those who allowed this to happen are brought to account. Something that concerns me greatly is that soon after this bill was first evident and before Senator Rachel Siewert was able to travel over the area Federal Ministers, most notably Martin Ferguson, downgraded the impact of this spill.

I found it reprehensible that a Minister of the Federal Government would be hiding the truth of the spill. That showed that he, in particular, could not give a damn about the environmental consequences of the situation. He was just covering what is a significant environmental disaster. It is a tragedy that the Federal Government has not taken responsibility appropriately and rapidly. This is not only an environmental disaster but also a disaster for very poor people on isolated Rote Island on the southern end of the Indonesian peninsula. These people will suffer immeasurably from the impacts of the oil spill.

ALTRUISTIC SURROGACY

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [5.48 p.m.]: While I was outside the House the week before last dealing with an urgent pair matter the take-note debate on the Standing Committee on Law and Justice report on altruistic surrogacy concluded. I would like to take the opportunity this evening to make some comments about the inquiry, as I was a member of the committee. I do not intend to traverse the report's findings in detail or go over my views about the matter; they are clearly articulated in my dissenting statement and in the minutes of the deliberative meeting that settled the committee's report. Tonight I would like to reflect on the jaundiced way in which a number of people who participated in the inquiry, either by submissions or oral evidence, looked at and dismissed the opinions and views of others that were different from their own.

A number of people and organisations who participated in the inquiry expressed strong opposition to surrogacy because, by its very nature, it deconstructs reproduction from being an intimate human act between a man and a woman in a married relationship to what is, in effect, a contractual arrangement facilitated by a scientific technique—namely, artificial reproductive technology. Those who rejected this technological or scientific paradigm for reproduction gave particular emphasis to what they argued was a fundamental human right for every child—the fundamental human right to be brought into this world and raised by their biological mother and father. It was also asserted that this right has been honoured across cultures and down the ages.

Of course, this is a point of view that certain inquiry participants totally rejected. This should surprise nobody, and certainly not me. People hold a range of views on matters to do with reproduction. This is understandable. What is surprising, though, is the blindness that a number of such people displayed towards their own ideology or values. The implicit, sometimes explicit, critique against those who opposed surrogacy by many of those who supported it was that they were naysayers and flat earthers, hung up with a rigid, inflexible idea of what a family was or should be. They were accused of being unduly influenced by religious beliefs or doctrines and out of touch with modern social mores. The suggestion sometimes explicitly made was that they applied a values-laden perspective that should be politely acknowledged and then ignored.

In truth, those who expressed enthusiastic support for surrogacy in their submissions and evidence also brought a very values-laden perspective to the issue. However, the difference from the so-called naysayers was that in the main they doggedly refused to acknowledge that they were themselves influenced by ideology or value in any way. Such a position is, in my view, disingenuous—dare I say, dishonest. What then is the underpinning ideology or value? It is that, as a general proposition, the will of the individual shall reign supreme. This approach often involves asserting that a right to something exists and then demanding that the right is acknowledged. What can also be observed from this approach is that an inherent relativism operates. Indeed, it must operate. If it did not, the range of competing points of view or perspectives could not be accommodated. To follow the logic of the argument through to its conclusion, there is no capacity to access that there can be a truth or true position about a matter.

Diversity becomes the touchstone with respect to what should be accommodated or accepted. Those who do not accept this position are characterised as being bigoted or narrow-minded. Is there a problem with this? Well, there can be. The key problem is that those who are best positioned to prevail and get their way are those who assert their rights and demand that their rights are legally recognised. Indeed, in the context of surrogacy and other artificial reproductive technology what we have is a conflict between so-called adult rights and the rights of children.

It seems to me that at the moment the adults—and we should not be surprised by this—have the upper hand. What will be interesting to see over time is whether children born through artificial reproductive technology will be able to secure rights that they themselves believe are genuine. We are now entering the period when the first children born of artificial reproductive technology are becoming adults. In increasing numbers here in Australia and overseas they are starting to speak out about the rights they believe they have and have been denied. As legislators, we should listen carefully to what they say and take steps to protect their fundamental human rights.

PUBLIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER [5.53 p.m.]: I was interested to hear debate that occurred earlier in the other Chamber on the Liberals-Nationals motion supporting more public housing in the community and community involvement in the planning process for Department of Housing developments. The motion called on the State Government to consult each community and address residents' concerns about these developments before the plans are finalised and developments commence. There are 203 units in the Maitland electorate being rushed through under the guise of providing affordable housing under the Rudd Government's stimulus package.

The tone of the motion was that the State Government should talk to people before the bulldozers arrive. I would not have thought that was too much to ask. However, trying to rewrite history, the member for Maitland, Frank Terenzini, has what I tell my children is selective hearing. Not only does he have selective hearing; he has selective memory. He had the opportunity in the lower House debate to put on the record the concerns of residents in Maitland about these developments, such as residents in Gillies Street in Rutherford, and Flinders and Barton streets in East Maitland. Instead, he failed to stand up for his community.

I have met and spoken with residents not only in these streets but also in other areas of Maitland and the Hunter. They have consistently said that they have been taken out of the planning process under these developments, which bypass the usual council development application procedures. When residents in Gillies Street first contacted me they were horrified that so few people in the street even knew a Department of Housing project was going ahead and that little opportunity was given to residents to make comments about it. The Government could not have alienated residents more when letters were not even addressed to people by name and the contact number on the original notice did not work.

After that story appeared in the local media there was a domino effect and more and more residents in the Hunter have said, "Hey, that's happening in my backyard too." Only after several stories had appeared in the media and I had personally gone to meet residents by invitation at their private properties did Mr Terenzini bother to get his head out of the sand. However, to my amazement he is still denying there is even a problem. There are several claims in the member's speech earlier today that need addressing.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: The member, who has served in this House for some time, knows full well that adjournment speeches—and we have general agreement with the Opposition and Opposition Whips—are not opportunities to sledge members of this House or the other House. Clearly, this is an attack on a member of the other House. It is a breach of the standing orders. The member knows this and is acting in a most deliberate way. I ask you to request that she cease.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: To the point of order: It is disorderly to make personal reflections. The member has strayed from the issue to make what were clearly personal reflections, particularly against the member for Maitland. He is not present in this House. The standing orders allow for members to move a motion that is more appropriate for that kind of debate. For those reasons, Madam Deputy-President, I urge you to call the member to order.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! I remind the Hon. Robyn Parker that if she wishes to make imputations against another member, she must seek to do so by way of substantive motion.

The Hon. ROBYN PARKER: Mr Terenzini incorrectly stated that I said the meeting was a whingefest, which is absolutely not true and completely misrepresents what I did say. What I said to the departmental people present at the meeting was:

Mr Terenzini then tried to rephrase what I said to him at the meeting and one of the residents said in reply to him, "That's not what she meant." Today's lower House debate shows that Labor is in the wrong and it knows it. Labor knows it has completely botched these developments and has alienated residents in the process. Every single person who contacts Mr Terenzini deserves his support and should be consulted. It appears that Mr Terenzini has not only selective hearing but also selective representation. His job is to defend all of his residents, not himself. To date that is not happening. Residents in Maitland deserve better.

The Hon. John Hatzistergos: Point of order: Madam Deputy-President, once again, personal reflections are being made and the member is flouting your ruling. Again I draw to your attention to the standing orders, which preclude members in this debate from engaging in the kinds of tactics the member has just engaged in.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! The member's time for speaking has expired.

POLITICAL DONATIONS

Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.58 p.m.]: Last night I had the opportunity to make observations about land transactions at Maroubra. I now wish to expand on the background to the acquisition of the townhouse site by Telmet Pty Ltd at Mons Avenue, Maroubra. The land in question was zoned private open space and formed part of the tennis court facilities of the Maroubra Beach RSL sub-branch, off Mons Avenue at Maroubra Beach. It is bordered by John Shore Reserve and is close to Broadarrow Reserve.

A leading light in the RSL club and a key figure in the local Labor branch at the time was Mr Paddy Bastic, the father of the then Labor Mayor of Randwick, Chris Bastic. In June 1995 it was proposed that a retirement complex based on the then State environmental planning policy [SEPP] No. 5 be constructed on the site. That proposal was abandoned in the face of intense public opposition, largely from within the RSL club itself. Three years later, on 13 August 1998, Randwick City Council received a new proposal for another non-SEPP 5 residential development on the site with a floor space ratio of 0.65:1. An extraordinary meeting of Randwick City Council one month later, on 13 September 1998, resolved to prepare and exhibit a draft local environmental plan to rezone the site to residential 2B.

On 2 November 1998 the Maroubra Beach Precinct Committee resolved to oppose the rezoning. Six months later, on 14 May 1999, Brian Boyd of Telmet Ventures wrote to the Labor Mayor of Randwick City Council, Dominic Sullivan, suggesting that Telmet Ventures would provide allowances of various kinds should council adopt the rezoning. These were $100,000 for the Maroubra Beach RSL Club sub-branch, $100,000 to the Maroubra Beach RSL Bowling Club, $100,000 for the upgrading of nearby reserves and $100,000 to establish a trust fund for continued maintenance of the reserves. Obviously, the reserves would enhance the townhouse site.

In the second half of 1999 Labor Councillor Chris Bastic and Councillor Charles Matthews of the Residents and Ratepayers Association moved for adoption of the residential B zoning. This was opposed by Independent and Greens councillors. On 28 October 2000 council debated a report recommending adoption of the 2B zoning for the site. On 21 November 2000 the Labor-dominated Randwick City Council approved a formal development application from Telmet. It also approved a SEPP 1 objection that facilitated the approval of the non-conforming building height and minimum landscaping requirements.

Interestingly, a Labor councillor on Randwick City Councillor at that time was Michael Daley and, keeping it all in the family, the then Waverley Labor Councillor George Newhouse subsequently handled the off-the-plan purchase of luxury townhouses on the site on behalf of the Treasurer and on behalf of Kelli Field, wife of Senator Mark Arbib. I alluded last night to the financial boon the purchase and subsequent sale of those townhouses had been for the Treasurer and Senator Arbib. At a later date I hope to enlarge upon the involvement of the Payce group of companies in the refurbishment of the Trades Hall in Goulburn Street, Sydney, and of the New South Wales Australian Labor Party headquarters that adjoin it.

THE HONOURABLE JOHN DELLA BOSCA AND BELINDA NEAL

The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA [6.02 p.m.]: Members of the House are aware of the circumstances that led to my resignation as a Minister 11 or so weeks ago. On the day I resigned as Minister for Health, and Minister for the Central Coast. I apologised for the embarrassment my poor personal choices as a public figure and a private individual had caused for people who depended on me as a Minister and as an individual member of my party and this Parliament. As well as causing embarrassment, my actions and their public canvassing has caused considerable pain. Of course, my wife, Belinda, experienced the greatest pain in the wake of these events.

Time and life moves swiftly, and those events now seem well behind me. However, I want to take the opportunity provided by this adjournment—my first contribution to this House as a private member—to pay tribute to and publicly thank Belinda. She has shown strength and love to me, and I thank her for the compassion and forgiveness she has shown me in accepting me and remaining my wife and partner in renewing our marriage. We married almost 23 years ago. In that time I have been a happy and, I think, generally a productive person. But, like most members of the House, I sometimes get too busy for my own good and occasionally, like everybody, I become a troubled person.

Throughout this time I have had a life partner and a great friend supporting me, even in considerable difficulties and even when this has put extra burdens on her. I have someone who is prepared to support me in my work as a parent, as a political activist, and in all aspects of my life. As I said, I believe this has not always been easy, particularly in light of recent events, but Belinda has responded with love and dignity. As there is little I have done to deserve this good fortune, I regard myself as a lucky man.

Unfair and inappropriate rumours are just some of the things that every member of this House—and, indeed, all of us—puts up with as part of the price of the commitment they make in public life. This, of course, has a multiplier effect in the unusual circumstances—or maybe not so unusual when I look around this place—where more than one person in a family has pursued a public vocation. As many members know, my wife, Belinda Neal, is a person who is passionate about social justice and human rights. Belinda is a fervent person who is committed to the values of community, especially as expressed in our local community on the Central Coast. She has an unending aspiration to help people who are less fortunate than herself, and I have never seen her contemplate taking a backward step when engaged in supporting someone who is less fortunate than herself or an underdog, whether it be as a member of Parliament or in her personal work—which she conducts privately without any fanfare—supporting homeless people, marginalised women and young people in trouble.

Belinda's passion about these matters is only matched by her courage. Belinda is the most honest person I know, and in the entire time I have known her—I think, something not everybody could say about someone they have known as well as they would know their spouse—I have never known Belinda to tell a lie or behave other than in an entirely honourable way.

The reporting of the circumstances of my departure from the Ministry will eventually disappear. People assure me that it will only take months before those issues are behind me. From my point of view, however, I would like to declare on the record that I have never contemplated leaving Belinda or ending our marriage, as suggested by some of the more florid reporting and interpretation of recent events. I love my wife dearly, and I wanted to take this opportunity, created by my first speech as a private member of this place, to remind people who know me and know Belinda that I regard her as a special person.

As this speech in some respects marks a rite of passage in my transition from Minister and leader of this place to private member, I wanted to mark the occasion by making sure the permanent public record shows something about not only my public life but my private commitment to my wife and my private regard and great love for her. I thank members of the House for their indulgence in allowing me to make these remarks.

GARDENS OF STONE NATIONAL PARK

The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [6.06 p.m.]: Two of our State's most respected conservation groups, the Blue Mountains Conservation Society and the Colong Foundation, have combined to develop a proposal to improve the management and protection of 40,000 hectares of sandstone escarpment and plateau in the western area of the Blue Mountains. The proposal is known as the Gardens of Stone Park proposal stage 2, as it is considered to be a logical extension of the existing Gardens of Stone National Park, proclaimed in 1994 by the Fahey Government. The Liberal and National parties are proud of this initiative, which protected one of the most unique, fragile and special areas in the outer Blue Mountains. We are very interested in further consolidating protection as a stage two extension to further the existing Gardens of Stone National Park, and securing the boundaries of the wonderful wilderness areas in the Wollemi National Park.

The existing Gardens of Stone National Park is 15,230 hectares in size and takes its name from the remarkable pagoda formations that occur near the sandstone escarpment edges. I have seen photographs of these extraordinary formations in the bush, and I am told it is a very spiritual experience to visit and appreciate these extraordinary formations. I attempted to visit the area last weekend, at the invitation of Tara Cameron and her colleagues at the Blue Mountains Conservation Society. However, as members are aware, the entire State endured severe fire warnings last weekend, and all the outer Blue Mountains national parks, including the Gardens of Stone, were closed.

I can personally attest to the frightening conditions that existed in the mountains last weekend and can well understand the decision to close the parks. It is a very sobering situation. I was, however, able to view some of the areas proposed for inclusion in Gardens of Stone stage two, simply because they are not yet national park and include large sections of unprotected vacant crown land which thus was not subject to closure. A particular focus of the visit was Newnes Plateau, which began at Browns Swamp. I am grateful to Ian Baird, a respected and gifted conservationist who began by explaining in simple terms the hydrology of the Newnes Plateau and the unique role it plays in terms of its height, its biodiversity, and as headwaters of the Cox's River. Browns Swamp does not sound particularly glamorous, but it was, under Ian Baird's expert guidance, a remarkable and enlightening experience. I congratulate him and Blue Mountains council on their initiative in implementing works to mitigate the flow of sediment over the swamp, which was strangling vegetation and wildlife including insects.

The beauty and fragility of swamp life was revealed, and it is truly precious and must be protected. Iconic features I hope to visit in future in the proposed stage 2 include the Lost City, Carne Creek Gorge, New Hartley Mining Heritage, and Wolgan Valley Rail Trail. Being on a weekend visit I sought the cooperation of the Blue Mountains Conservation Society to be accompanied by my two sons, Joshua and Lachlan, and I am grateful this was able to be accommodated. It was terrific to make the acquaintance of Tara Cameron's daughter, Elata, and our ability to share our experiences with the children I think highlights the idea that these are places for families to enjoy. We have a particular responsibility to the next generation, and the opportunity to educate them and give them these outdoor experiences is integral to the trust that we adults have to our children.

Given that the national parks were closed, the Blue Mountains Conservation Society developed a wonderful plan B, which involved canyoning in Dargans Creek and completing the visit with a swim in Dargans Creek Dam, sometimes called Clarence Dam. I am indebted to Dr Richard Stiles and Karen McLaughlin of the Lithgow Environment Group, who shepherded us through this special area. Our party included Keith Muir of the Colong Foundation, Dr Brian Marshall, immediate past president of the Blue Mountains Conservation Society and an eminent conservationist in his own right, and of course Tara Cameron and Elata. It was a part of the State I had not previously explored. Indeed, it was my first experience canyoning—and it is an understatement to say that it was a remarkable privilege.

The visit highlighted the enormous recreational and tourism opportunities identified in the Gardens of Stone stage 2 submission. Importantly, the proposal would permit the continued mining of coal beneath the conservation area, but ensure better management and realisation of recreational opportunities on the surface. I certainly commend the plan to the House. I congratulate and thank Tara Cameron and the Blue Mountains Conservation Society for organising the visit.

I make brief mention of Mike and Miranda Corcan of Dargan Springs Retreat, who hosted our visit. Mike organised for me to see a multi-award winning video created by students at Lithgow High School called Wind Girl. The video features Hugh Litchfield's wind farm near Lithgow, and stars his daughter Alex. I suppose I have always thought of Lithgow as coal country, and given its proximity to the Wallerawang coal-fired power station it is not a place I would have expected to find such an inspirational presentation on renewable energy. But these young Lithgow students have presented a very powerful story. In discussions, one of the students emphasised that the students are concerned for their future but they want to be positive. The video is available to see on Panasonic's website, and I urge all honourable members to view it. Lithgow must be very proud of the vision and artistic skills of these inspirational students. It was a very moving presentation and it gave me great hope.

MEMBER FOR BEGA, ANDREW CONSTANCE

Ms LEE RHIANNON [6.11 p.m.]: In August, in criticising the work of the Greens, the member for Bega, Mr Andrew Constance, stated: "politics quite often is about simplistic slogans and pointscoring". Mr Constance not only engages in such activities but he regularly forgets to let his Bega constituents know—

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: I would remind the member that if she wishes to make imputations against another member in the other place, she should do so by way of formal notice on the Notice Paper.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! I remind the member that imputations against persons in the other Chamber are disorderly unless moved by way of substantive motion.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: The people of Bega would be interested to know that Mr Constance condemned the part 3A planning powers in the campaign to stop the 300-dwelling development at Tathra, but in the New South Wales Parliament he voted along with all the Liberal-National members, and with the Labor Government, to pass this law, which denies the community any say on major developments.

The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Point of order: The honourable member is casting aspersions against the member and is deliberately misrepresenting his position in relation to planning matters. I again ask that Ms Lee Rhiannon be directed that if she wishes to make these imputations, and cast aspersions, then she be required to do so by way of substantive motion.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! I have listened carefully to the contribution of the member and am of the view that her observation of what occurred in the other place is in order.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: Mr Constance complains that Councillor Keith Hughes represents the Greens on the Bega council and that political parties should not run candidates in local government elections. In 1999 he stood on the Liberal Party ticket in the South Sydney council election. In 2002 Mr Constance opposed the biomass plant linked to the proposed Mogo charcoal plant. In 2009, after a publicly funded European tour with the SEFE general manager, he becomes a strong backer of the proposed biomass plant at the Eden Chipmill—

[Time for debate expired.]

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6.13 p.m. until Tuesday 1 December 2009 at 2.30 p.m.

_______________

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 26 November 2009, Corrected Copy)

Legislative
Assembly

Legislative
Council

Members

Bills

Committees

Hansard

Research Papers

Engaging with Parliament

External Links