17641
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday 10 September 2009 ______
The President (The Hon. Peter Thomas Primrose) took the chair at 11.00 a.m.
The President read the Prayers.
CRIMES (APPEAL AND REVIEW) AMENDMENT (DOUBLE JEOPARDY) BILL 2009
Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly, on behalf of the Hon. John Hatzistergos.
Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.
Second reading set down as an order of the day for a later hour.
PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE
Reference
The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [11.02 a.m.]: I move:
1. That the Privileges Committee inquire into and report on the development of a Memorandum of Understanding between the President and the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] covering the execution of search warrants by the ICAC on the Parliament House offices of members, with particular reference to:
(a) the draft protocol recommended by the Privileges Committee in its Report No. 33 of February 2006 entitled "Protocol for execution of search warrants on members' offices",
(b) the ICAC protocol entitled "Procedures for Obtaining and Executing Search Warrants", with particular reference to section 10, and
(c) recent answers to questions on notice concerning the execution of search warrants at Parliament House provided by the ICAC to the Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption as part of its review of the 2007-2008 annual report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption.
2. That the Committee report by the last sitting day in November 2009.
3. That a message be forwarded to the Legislative Assembly informing it of the terms of reference agreed to by the House, and requesting that the Legislative Assembly Privileges and Ethics Committee be given a similar reference.
Message forwarded to the Legislative Assembly advising it of the resolution.
PETITIONS
Marine Parks, Sanctuaries and Habitat Protection Zones
Petition requesting a moratorium on the creation of all new proposed marine parks, sanctuaries and habitat protection zones and rejecting extensions to existing parks, sanctuaries and zones that further restrict fishing activities and removal of the National Parks Association report "The Torn Blue Fringe" for consideration by the Parliament, received from the Hon. Duncan Gay.
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 the Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.
17642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing Orders: Presentation of an Irregular Petition
Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Don Harwin agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the presentation of an irregular petition from 599 citizens of New South Wales concerning the proposed sale of Malabar Police Station
IRREGULAR PETITION
Malabar Police Station Closure
Petition opposing the closure of Malabar Police Station, received from the Hon. Don Harwin.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing Orders: Presentation of an Irregular Petition
Motion, by leave, by the Hon. Don Harwin agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the presentation of an irregular petition from eight citizens of New South Wales concerning of Malabar Police Station
IRREGULAR PETITION
Malabar Police Station Staffing
Petition requesting that staffing levels at Malabar police station be returned to 1999 levels, received from the Hon. Don Harwin.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Withdrawal of Business
Private Members' Business items Nos 64, 65, 82, 90, 108, 110, 136, 163 and 191 outside the Order of Precedence withdrawn by Dr John Kaye.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Postponement of Business
Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 postponed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Sessional and Standing Orders: Order of Business
The Hon. ROY SMITH [11.11 a.m.]: I move:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 227 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to the Parliamentary Remuneration Amendment (Salary Packaging) Bill 2009, be called on forthwith.
Question put.
The House divided. 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17643
Ayes, 30
Mr Ajaka Ms Griffin Ms Sharpe Mr Brown Mr Kelly Mr Smith Mr Catanzariti Mr Khan Mr Tsang Mr Clarke Mr Lynn Mr Veitch Mr Colless Mr Mason-Cox Ms Voltz Ms Cusack Reverend Dr Moyes Ms Westwood Ms Fazio Reverend Nile Ms Ficarra Ms Parker Mr Gallacher Mrs Pavey Tellers, Miss Gardiner Mr Pearce Mr Donnelly Mr Gay Ms Robertson Mr Harwin
Noes, 4
Mr Cohen Ms Hale Tellers, Dr Kaye Ms Rhiannon
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Order of Business
Motion by the Hon. Roy Smith agreed to:
That Private Member's Business item No. 227 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.
PARLIAMENTARY REMUNERATION AMENDMENT (SALARY PACKAGING) BILL 2009
Second Reading
The Hon. ROY SMITH [11.20 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Parliamentary Remuneration Amendment (Salary Packaging) Bill 2009, which was introduced in the other place by the Hon. Richard Torbay, proposes to amend the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1989, the Parliamentary Contributions Superannuation Act 1971, and the Constitution Act 1902. I congratulate the Hon. Richard Torbay on introducing this sensible legislation, the results of which will be cost neutral to the taxpayer. The proposed amendments are designed to provide members of Parliament with access to salary packaging arrangements similar to those available to public sector employees in New South Wales. It also removes some anomalous limits on the contributions to superannuation accounts that apply to members of Parliament.
The intent of the bill is to provide a transparent new system for members to access some commonplace employment benefits in a straightforward and cost-effective way. I am advised that the bill will not provide any additional benefits to members that are not already available to the public sector and, furthermore, parliamentarians. Like everyone else, we will need to comply with the annual concessional contribution caps applying to employer contributions, which include salary sacrifice contributions. This bill comes to this Chamber with the full support of members in the other place. I commend the bill to the House.
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Police, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [11.21 a.m.]: The Government supports the Parliamentary Remuneration Amendment (Salary Packaging) Bill 2009. Salary packaging arrangements are now standard features of employment in New South Wales, in both the private sector and the public sector. However, the Government's support for the bill is predicated on the proposed new arrangements being cost neutral. The Government is confident that it will create no additional 17644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
costs for taxpayers. I am advised that Western Australia has already introduced a broad salary packaging scheme for members of Parliament. While the scheme will enable parliamentarians to package their remuneration in ways that may be beneficial overall, it is important to emphasise that any costs of providing the benefits will be borne by members of Parliament.
The bill will also ensure that an independent body—the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal—is charged with determining which non-superannuation benefits, such as cars and computers, are appropriate to be made available as part of a salary packaging arrangement. The bill also removes limits on the amounts that parliamentarians can salary sacrifice as superannuation contributions in the same way as limits were removed sometime ago for public sector employees in New South Wales. I am advised that allowing parliamentarians access to more flexible superannuation arrangements will not increase the Government's superannuation liabilities.
I note that the bill will also amend section 13 of the Constitution Act to resolve any possible doubt that a member of Parliament who participates in a salary sacrifice scheme may be disqualified. The amendment puts beyond doubt that this disqualification will not be triggered when a member of Parliament enters into a salary sacrifice arrangement. The bill serves as an update to the remuneration structures for parliamentarians in New South Wales that are no different from those already widely available to many employees. I support the bill.
Dr JOHN KAYE [11.23 a.m.]: I note with some concern that the Minister said the proposals in this bill will be cost neutral—that there will be no additional cost to taxpayers. If we take a narrow view and we put a ring around State tax revenue and outgoings, no doubt what he said is correct. If we take a broader societal view and we look at the cost to the Federal tax system and revenue, it could not be said that this proposal would be tax neutral. If it were tax neutral, there would be no benefit for individual parliamentarians. The bill will result in a transfer of wealth from the Federal tax base into the pockets of parliamentarians.
Members should ask whether it is appropriate for them to continue enriching themselves through legislation that is passed in this Chamber. My colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon, who will lead for the Greens in debate on the Parliamentary Remuneration Amendment (Salary Packaging) Bill 2009, will inform the House that the Greens are concerned about equity issues. In general, salary sacrificing is available to those on relatively high incomes and it takes revenue away from those on relatively low incomes. It also takes revenue away from important social and government functions, which means less revenue is available for education, public health, public transport and services provided to people on lower incomes.
The bill, which is highly regressive, delivers benefits to those on high incomes and takes away benefits and access to revenue for those on low incomes. It is hard to understand why members in this Chamber are happy to debate legislation that is about enriching them at the expense of other people. It is important for all members to reject this legislation. We must think carefully about how we interact with the Federal tax system. Although salary sacrificing is attractive to those in a position to do it—it provides opportunities for people to increase their personal levels of wealth—it is not in the interests of society to allow wealthy people at the upper end of the income scale to enrich themselves at the expense of the tax base. This is another example of people's avoidance of tax based on their income levels. The bill is deeply regressive, and it is not supported by the Greens. I urge all members to reject the legislation.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.26 a.m.]: As said earlier by my colleague Dr John Kaye, the Greens are opposed to the Parliamentary Remuneration Amendment (Salary Packaging) Bill 2009. Members would be aware that we have a two-tier superannuation scheme. Many members of Parliament are members of the original scheme, which was excessively generous, and some members, for example, Mr Roy Smith, joined a similar superannuation scheme in 2007. The Greens' position on the original scheme is on the record—it is an issue on which we have worked for a long time—and the Greens have spoken in debate on these issues and suggested that the way in which to resolve these problems would be to put us all in the same scheme.
I know that such a move would generate problems, but this salary sacrificing measure will result in more benefits for members of Parliament. The title of the bill, which has been dressed up, does not sound too bad to the public, but at the end of the day the passage of the legislation will be at the expense of the public. It will rob the public purse to increase the wealth of members of Parliament. It is highly irresponsible for members of Parliament to take such action. I believe that every member of Parliament should argue against such a scheme. The items included in a salary sacrifice package include vehicles, mobile phones, laptops, child care and a range of home utilities. 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17645
Members should be aware that the passage of the legislation would mean that less tax would be paid and less money would go into the public purse for all the public services that need to be provided more effectively and efficiently. The legislation will prevent us from meeting those urgent needs in our communities. The Greens had no idea that this bill, which has been passed in the lower House, would be introduced today. Members of this House—I include members of the Shooters Party—regularly criticise the Greens for introducing urgent matters.
The Hon. Robert Brown: And vice versa, Lee.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: Yes. Obviously, I am doing that now, Mr Brown. Clearly, we are open about that. Debate on this bill was brought on as a matter of urgency after it remained sitting on the books. Why was an email not forwarded or a telephone call made so that at least we would have had an idea that debate was to be resumed?
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: You get the same courtesy you give.
Ms LEE RHIANNON: That is not true. It is true that we do not inform the Government about some of our motions because its tactic, which remains one of the disappointments in this place, is not to work with all members of Parliament and conduct this place as a house of review. I am sure we will return to that debate many times. However, we do inform many of our colleagues. Let us be clear now that this piece of legislation is described as salary sacrificing but, in fact, it is about robbing the public purse because less money will be taxed, and that is not something about which this House should be proud.
Ms SYLVIA HALE [11.30 a.m.]: I endorse the remarks of my colleagues Dr John Kaye and Ms Lee Rhiannon. In Australia and other advanced Western countries, the regrettable tendency is to reduce the social welfare net that was provided in the aftermath of World War II and the Great Depression and to gradually reduce the benefits obtainable by members of our society on lower incomes. This particularly applies to retirement as more people are discouraged or are unable to access pensions because of the changing eligible retirement age. This is a deplorable situation. Our extraordinarily wealthy society should devote its resources to improving the lot of those who are less well off: the disadvantaged members of our community.
Unemployment benefits have failed to keep up with increases in the cost of living, and it is becoming difficult to get the dole and disability pensions. Welfare benefits are being removed because the tax base is being reduced, particularly in favour of wealthier members of the community. The first thing about superannuation the Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday and the Daily Telegraph on Monday or Tuesday refer to is that the whole purpose of superannuation is to minimise tax. Minimising tax minimises the ability of governments to provide a decent standard of living for everyone and the infrastructure and community assets essential to the provision of a good life.
I have had no opportunity to read the bill, but I understand that the changes do not apply to members of Parliament who, like me, were elected in 2003 or earlier, nor to those who will receive a defined benefit. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify that matter. It would be deplorable for someone to receive a defined benefit and be able to double- or triple-dip by making a salary sacrifice into their superannuation fund.
If our society increasingly suffers from a huge social divide, we will all lose. The increasing social divide has been a constant theme over the past 10, 15 and 20 years. The justification is that one must learn to look after oneself because we are independent and make our own fortunes. How false. One's fortune is achieved by virtue of chances in life, depending on the family into which one was born, the family income status and access to education, welfare and other opportunities. It is ridiculous to suggest that anyone is self-made. We all make our fortunes through everybody else's contributions and efforts. We all benefit from the material provisions of government, the community and individuals to the social network in which we are raised. We should not encourage extending a superannuation system whose major beneficiaries already are some of the wealthiest people in the community. This Parliament certainly should not support the bill.
The Hon. DON HARWIN [11.36 a.m.]: I adopt the succinct remarks of the Opposition Whip in the other place about the Parliamentary Remuneration Amendment (Salary packaging) Bill 2009. The Opposition sought independent advice on the bill and was assured that the State will not be burdened with additional costs. The bill will make available to members of Parliament the same salary packaging arrangements available to 17646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
employees in the public and private sectors. The bill will not provide any additional benefits to members that are not already available to the public sector. I should like to make an additional brief comment about some matters raised in this debate.
First, defined benefit public sector superannuation pensions ceased under the previous Coalition Government. This Government also closed that scheme to parliamentarians. In the term of this Parliament the Government introduced legislation to provide salary packaging arrangements for all persons still working in the public sector with entitlements to a defined benefit pension, including teachers, police, nurses and many other public sector workers. In fact, it was an anomaly that the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund was not also included in those legislative changes. Of course, the philosophy of closing the defined benefit scheme was to ensure that the same arrangements applying to private sector workers apply to members of Parliament. In respect of members of Parliament in the defined benefit scheme, the bill merely fixes an anomaly that omitted the fund from legislation the Government introduced earlier in its term. In respect of members of Parliament not in defined benefit schemes, the bill simply brings those members into line with current public sector arrangements. The bill goes no further than that. I conclude by reminding the House that this legislation involves no additional cost to the State.
The Hon. ROY SMITH [11.39 a.m.], in reply: I thank members who contributed to the debate. I commend bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 28
Mr Ajaka Ms Griffin Ms Sharpe Mr Brown Mr Kelly Mr Smith Mr Catanzariti Mr Khan Mr Tsang Mr Clarke Mr Lynn Mr Veitch Mr Colless Mr Mason-Cox Ms Voltz Ms Cusack Reverend Dr Moyes Ms Westwood Ms Fazio Reverend Nile Ms Ficarra Mr Obeid Tellers, Miss Gardiner Mrs Pavey Mr Donnelly Mr Gay Ms Robertson Mr Harwin
Noes, 4
Mr Cohen Ms Rhiannon Tellers, Ms Hale Dr Kaye
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Leave granted to proceed to the third reading of the bill forthwith.
Third Reading
Motion by the Hon. Roy Smith agreed to:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time and returned to the Legislative Assembly without amendment. 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17647
AMBULANCE RESCUE SERVICES
Debate resumed from 14 May 2009.
The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN [11.48 a.m.]: It is extremely upsetting that the Opposition is playing politics with a decision made by an independent board. What is more alarming is that the Opposition is capitalising on the disappointment of ambulance paramedics over the State Rescue Board's decision to transfer rescue responsibilities to NSW Fire Brigades. My colleagues have explained how the State Rescue Board works. I remind members opposite that the Greiner Government set up the State Rescue Board. It seems that the Opposition conveniently had forgotten the origins of the board when it proposed this motion and criticised the decision of rescue experts.
Judging from the comments made, the Opposition does not know enough about the State Rescue Board, ambulance rescue, ambulance operations or government decision making to sustain a speech in response to the motion. If the Hon. Marie Ficarra wishes to discuss the inquiry into the Ambulance Service and the Government's response I suggest that she speak to the motion moved by the Hon. John Ajaka instead of exploiting ambulance rescue paramedics for political gain. Perhaps the Opposition knows that this motion is factually incorrect and cannot sustain a five-minute speech criticising the Government on an issue that the Opposition does not fully understand.
The Government responded to the ambulance inquiry conducted by the Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 2, but action already had been taken on a majority of the issues examined by the inquiry. New South Wales now has an ambulance service that is delivering compulsory training to all staff to prevent bullying and harassment. Two extra investigation staff members have been allocated to a professional standards and conduct unit to ensure that matters are dealt with more rapidly. The professional standards and conduct unit is refocusing on its core business of dealing with serious staff misconduct. In addition, the Ambulance Service has engaged a health workplace manager to manage staff grievances, including bullying and harassment.
As part of the State Government's "Caring Together: The Health Action Plan for New South Wales", which is the Government's response to the Garling report on the health system, a comprehensive training and support program for health staff will be undertaken to improve work culture and procedures for managing bullying and complaints. More than 3,000 Ambulance Service staff members already have attended respectful workplace training programs. The Ambulance Service also has been working hard to refine its approach to dealing with staff-related concerns. This includes the development of new case management practices, simple guides to help staff who are handling grievances, and the establishment of a network of field-based grievance contact officers.
Paramedics in the field have demonstrated that they are passionate, dedicated and a highly skilled workforce. An upper House report and motion should not be allowed to drag down the reputation of our paramedics or the Ambulance Service, nor should the Opposition use this motion for political gain. We have had both an Auditor-General's report and a review by the Department of Premier and Cabinet, and action has been taken. Independent bodies have praised the Ambulance Service for its response.
The New South Wales Ambulance Service is one of the best performing services in the country, but the pressures on our ambulance service and paramedics are intense. Last year the service had more than one million ambulance responses to emergency and non-emergency incidents. The requirement to immediately respond to life-threatening incidents places considerable pressure on ambulance operations. In prioritising emergency triple-0 calls, the New South Wales service is in line with other modern ambulance services in ensuring the best response available. This Government has made significant investments in the Ambulance Service.
Mr IAN COHEN [11.52 a.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I contribute to debate on the Hon. Marie Ficarra's motion relating to the ambulance rescue service. When I first reviewed the motion, I found the language to be excessively emotive, with its call to arms to condemn the Government for neglect, failure, arrogance and disrespect. The motion is unnecessarily partisan. When one looks at the simple facts on the ambulance rescue service, it is hard not to characterise former health Minister Meagher's track record as poor. The merry-go-round decision-making and employee management bear all the hallmarks of a Basil Fawlty style of governance. I am concerned that the motion calls on the Government to immediately reinstate the ambulance rescue service pending an independent inquiry into the service. What is the point of an independent inquiry if we are already calling for reinstatement? Would not such an inquiry be a foregone conclusion? 17648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
Nevertheless, the motion raises some important points, and I thank the member for bringing this motion on because it is forcing us to discuss this matter in some depth. I want to outline the opposing positions on the axing of the ambulance rescue service. The Government has suggested that the ambulance rescue service is an inefficient use of resources. The Government and its agencies have suggested that it is not possible for an ambulance rescue service paramedic to operate the Jaws of Life and provide adequate clinical care at the same time. It is further suggested that ambulance paramedics are required to turn up to an accident scene, and there might be duplication with paramedics and rescue service paramedics attending the same accident scene.
How about if we change the accident scenario to an injured rock fisherman who needs medical attention at the bottom of a steep rock face, an injured bushwalker suffering a snake bite or severe dehydration, or a workplace accident on a building site whereby medical stabilisation is required before extraction? There will be circumstances in which an injured person must be stabilised prior to extraction. In these varied emergency rescue scenarios, it is beneficial to have emergency services staff who have both rescue skills and medical skills. The crux of the issue is neatly encapsulated in the testimony of a witness to the recent inquiry into the management and operation of the New South Wales Ambulance Service, who said:
The thing about rescue is that it is both mechanical and medical. The two cannot be separated. Other rescue agencies, for instance, can only focus on the mechanical aspect, which may at the end of the operation still leave the patient trapped because they cannot do as much about the physical entrapment upon the flesh.
The committee noted a number of problems with the justifications of the Graeme Head review for the transfer of responsibility away from the ambulance rescue service and to NSW Fire Brigades. The committee found that the suggestions that the ambulance rescue units were underutilised were incorrect and the claimed benefits in freeing up 80 full-time paramedics for non-rescue ambulance work was without evidence. This is not surprising, considering media material emanating from the former health Minister, Ms Meagher, was habitually packed with misinformation and double-speak. Formally announcing the relinquishing of the ambulance rescue service to the media before informing the workers affected is totally unsatisfactory. Sadly, this poor performance was Ms Meagher's epitaph.
On the other side we have an argument that the ambulance rescue service is a duplication of services. People question why there is a need for paramedics, NSW Fire Brigades and ambulance rescue services all to attend one accident scene. In some of the hypothetical scenarios I discussed earlier, there is a case for having one person with emergency service and medical skills. However, I am informed that the majority of accident scenarios are road and vehicle accidents. I am advised that approximately 85 per cent of emergency scenes involve a car road accident, 10 per cent involve workplace-related incidents, and approximately 5 per cent represent some of the other accidents I described earlier.
In road accidents, emergency service and medical skills are both applied in collaboration. The general nature of road accidents allows concurrent emergency service and medical assistance without the skills needing to be rolled into one person, as opposed to the situation with the injured rock fisherman. Considering that 85 per cent of accidents are road accidents, there is a real question about duplication of services. If there is a duplication of services and expertise presenting at the majority of accidents, then we need to evaluate the deployment of some ambulance rescue service paramedics as general paramedics in a service that is starved of sufficient funding.
During last year's budget estimates hearings I asked the Hon. Tony Kelly what would happen to the 88 paramedics affected by the transfer of responsibility from the eight ambulance rescue service units to NSW Fire Brigades. On 4 September 2008 the accreditation of the ambulance rescue units at Bankstown, Camden, Caringbah, St Ives, Parramatta, Point Clare, Hamilton and Wollongong was revoked and Rosemeadow Fire Brigade, Southern Fire Brigade, Bankstown Fire Brigade, Gordon Fire Brigade and Wentworthville Fire Brigade were accredited as primary general land rescue units. At that point the deputy commissioner of NSW Fire Brigades stated that 20 of the 88 paramedics were participating in transitional arrangements. If we are to continue down this path and expand the dissolution of the ambulance rescue service in regional New South Wales we need to consider how to restructure services in a way that ensures that these skilled and specialised rescue service officers are still utilised in emergency service situations.
Transferring and restructuring these services must not be driven purely by general State funding shortfall issues. I understand the Opposition's concern in this respect. It is important for the Government to make a strong case today based on empirical emergency and accident data for the restructuring and consolidation of emergency services. While the Greens do not support the motion, we support the need for considered evaluation of our emergency services. This will be critical in regional areas. Before I finish speaking 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17649
I acknowledge the important work of all emergency service workers in NSW Fire Brigades, the New South Wales Rural Fire Service, the State Emergency Service, the ambulance rescue service and the New South Wales Ambulance Service. The Greens do not support the motion.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.58 a.m.]: It is important for us to consider the operation of the Ambulance Service in this State. There have been reports of bullying in certain ambulance stations and it is alleged that as a result of bullying members of the Ambulance Service have taken their lives. It is necessary to examine the Ambulance Service to ensure that proper management procedures are in place to handle complaints. The Committee on the Independent Commission Against Corruption inquiry into whistleblowing has heard from more than one employee from the Ambulance Service that they believed their complaints had not been treated correctly and they were being victimised because of their public statements.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 12 noon for questions.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______
AUBURN ATTACK ON POLICE
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I direct my question to the Attorney General. What steps has the Attorney taken to ensure the definition of a mobile phone in part 6A of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 adequately describes modern mobile phone technology capable of accessing the Internet, or is the Government satisfied that it is covered by current Federal legislation? Is the Attorney aware that during recent public disturbances in Auburn participants are understood to have used mobile Internet services, as well as text messaging, to attract more individuals to civil disorder? Has the Government reviewed current legislation to ensure it covers modern forms of technological communication to close potential loopholes regarding mobile Internet utilities?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am not aware of any issues that have been identified in relation to the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition. A range of offences relate to the use of the Internet and mobile phones both under State and Federal laws. From time to time we have discussions with the NSW Police Force in relation to issues it believes are deserving of attention, and we will continue to do so.
EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the latest employment statistics?
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I thank the member for her interest in this very important matter. According to the latest official figures released this morning by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the New South Wales unemployment rate for August has not increased but remains unchanged at 6.1 per cent. In Australia, the unemployment rate has remained unchanged at 5.8 per cent. In Victoria, the rate increased from 5.9 per cent to 6.3 per cent, making its rate the highest in the country. When the global financial crisis began to hit Australian shores, we were warned that a chief consequence would be a rise in unemployment across the nation. In fact, I remind members that in the State Budget, Treasury forecast that unemployment in New South Wales could go up to 8.5 per cent in 2010-11.
Today's figures, whilst steady, are a reminder of the very real consequences of the global recession and its impact on families in New South Wales. This is a wholly imported recession which is why we must maintain our record infrastructure spend of $62.9 billion and stimulus measures to support jobs. Now is not the time to wind back the stimulus measures as advocated by Barry O'Farrell and Malcolm Turnbull. Just as we are beginning to see the green shoots of recovery, those reckless economic vandals would have us roll back the stimulus measures and put more people out of work. The economic vandals on the conservative side of politics want to put the Victa lawnmower over the green shoots of recovery. Creating jobs and jobs security is this Government's number one priority.
As is my nature, I cruise the web from time to time and, for a laugh, go to the website of the shadow Treasurer. It is interesting that while Barry O'Farrell and Malcolm Turnbull argue that now is the time to stop the stimulus and pull back the State and Federal stimulus, Michael Baird states on his website, "Conditions are tougher than they have ever been before." He gives anecdotes about some businessmen he has met in 17650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
Wollongong, Campbelltown and Blacktown. He is someone with real economic confidence as opposed to Barry O'Farrell and his offsider, the Hon. Duncan Gay. The shadow Treasurer with real honesty said that conditions are tough out there—which is precisely why we should maintain the stimulus strategy at both State and Federal levels. Michael Baird also said, "the recovery has not yet come"—precisely why we should maintain the stimulus strategy.
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: I would not trust anything you say.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: It is on the website. That is why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition especially should read Michael Baird's website. Over the next four years we will have a $62.9 billion investment in infrastructure, supporting 160,000 jobs—
[Interruption]
I am shocked that members of the Opposition are attacking their own shadow Treasurer. The Hon. Greg Pearce and his shadow, the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox, know the truth. A part of the massive investment is the $4.8 billion Sydney Metro, creating 2,000 jobs a year for the five years of its construction. Those are more jobs that Barry O'Farrell wants to axe. This is the biggest construction job in Sydney's central business district since the building of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and the Opposition response is to promise to scrap it and put people out of work. Of fifty major cities around the world, 45 have a metro system. One can find them all over the world. Of course, Sydney is in the top 50 urban cities by gross domestic product, which is why the metro is an important part of our $62.9 billion infrastructure investment for the people of New South Wales.
COUNTRY ENERGY BLACKOUTS
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I direct my question to the Minister for Energy. Is the Minister aware that Country Energy figures, released to the Opposition through freedom of information, indicate customers in country New South Wales experience 50 blackouts a day, almost double the number of their city counterparts, one-third of which are caused by broken equipment? Is the Minister aware that this week 34,000 Dubbo houses lost power for three hours? Given that Dubbo station has a brand new circuit breaker, will the Minister explain why the equipment failed?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, I do not have the specific details of why the Dubbo substation, I presume, had a fault affecting houses in the area. Yes, Country Energy does have more outages than Energy Australia or, indeed, Integral for the specific reason that the Country Energy network is the largest network in this country. In fact, it is the largest Australian network that travels over many hundreds of thousands of kilometres. It involves servicing many small towns across this State and, in those circumstances, the chances of outage, particularly in storms, is heightened.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: This wasn't a storm.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: No, I am not saying Dubbo was. I am talking about the first general point of the question of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about the higher level of incidents of outages with Country Energy.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: No, it is in those figures. You know, or you should know, that the storms were excluded from these figures.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I am dealing with the first point.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: They have the most extensive network. Servicing that network poses lots of problems that do not occur within the city. With such an extensive network across this State there is some tendency for more outages. I will check out the circumstances of the Dubbo failure and whether 34,000 homes were affected.
SYDNEY WEST AREA HEALTH SERVICE DEBT
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Is today's report in the Daily Telegraph correct that the Sydney West Area Health Service is $60 million in debt and unable to pay specialist doctors or suppliers? If so, what effect is it having on Nepean and Westmead hospitals? 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17651
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The short answer to the first part of the question is that the information is not correct. I am aware that similar issues in relation to creditor payments have been raised in this House previously, and I refer to those statements. The bottom line as far as the Government is concerned is that creditors should be paid on time. Our health system pays out approximately $3.6 billion to suppliers every year, which is the equivalent of $9.7 million every day. As at 30 June 2009 overdue creditors accounted for approximately 1.9 per cent of annual invoiced expenditure. Our aim is to get that down even further. It is as simple as this: businesses that provide goods and services to assist health services to function expect to be paid on time, and the Government expects that too.
To secure that outcome, NSW Health has introduced best practice protocols across the State to strengthen health services internal control practices. That includes having a dedicated telephone number for creditor inquiries, providing timely feedback to creditors in relation to their inquiries, containing appropriate telephone contact numbers on purchase orders for supplier inquiries, maintaining a log of telephone inquiries, and ensuring payment to suppliers occurs within the stipulated payment terms. A number of health services have been targeted for direct intervention to ensure financial control strategies are implemented, along with appropriate financial practices.
The department is also working with organisations and people who have outstanding accounts with the health system—that is, they owe money to the health system—to ensure that they make their payments in a timely manner. Those include overseas patients who have been treated in our hospitals, and health insurers. Improved timeliness of those payments will enhance creditor performance. We will continue to monitor the situation and ensure that the improvements we have seen to date continue.
I have been advised that no staff have gone unpaid because of lack of funds. A recent report on business payments by Dun and Bradstreet indicates that an average payment time for industry sectors was 54.8 days. NSW Health is within that benchmark; in fact, we do better than most private companies. NSW Health works with health services to ensure that financial control strategies and management practices are implemented to eliminate the overdue creditors in the way that I have outlined.
In relation to the Sydney West Area Health Service, the current creditor-over-45-day position represents 1 per cent of the area's total expense budget. The Sydney West Area Health Service expends $4.6 million per day, or more than $30 million per week. As I indicated previously, it is important to ensure that creditors are paid in a timely way, in particular visiting medical officers. The health service continues to pay the creditors weekly and visiting medical officers are paid regularly throughout the month, and all claims currently approved for payment have been processed to date. There has been no disruption to services and minimal disruption to payments for contracted staff.
WATERWAYS PROGRAM
The Hon. KAYEE GRIFFIN: I address my question to the Minister for Lands. How is the Government working with local governments and communities to improve New South Wales waterways and regional economies?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: The rivers and port entrances across our State are vital to the New South Wales regional economy. Safer waterways are required for commercial fishing and cargo vessels as well as for the increasing recreational boating and tourism-based activities in the State's regional ports, foreshores and waterways. That is why the Rees Government is investing $2.7 million this financial year in a number of dredging programs that will benefit towns and communities along the coast. The Land and Property Management Authority—formerly the Department of Lands—is responsible for delivering the Government's Minor Ports, River Entrances and Waterways programs.
Those programs provide for the safe and sustainable use of important maritime infrastructure and trained river entrances by managing the build-up of sand on those waterways and trained river entrances. That includes the allocation of $300,000 this financial year to carry out further dredging upstream of the Swansea bridge. The Waterways Program in particular aims to ensure sustainable use of waterways and foreshores that are on Crown land and to improve public access for recreation and amenity for public use. Under the Waterways Program all coastal councils are invited to register an interest and to participate on a 50:50 basis on suitable projects for dredging. Recently councils submitted more than 40 projects for funding. The Land and Property Management Authority has assessed each of the detailed proposals. 17652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
A range of social, environmental and economic factors were considered, including a review of existing infrastructure, the level of boating activity, demographic trends, environmental sensitivity and proximity to other marine facilities. The result is that the Rees Government's investment of $1 million in the Waterways Program for dredging projects will include partnerships with the Sutherland Shire, Great Lakes, Wyong, and Port Macquarie-Hastings councils. Other projects are under consideration. We have already completed dredging at a number of high-priority ports and entrances, including projects at Swansea, the entrance to Coffs Harbour's boat harbour, Yamba, Port Macquarie and the Terranora Inlet at Tweed Heads. This financial year priority areas for dredging include Coffs Harbour and the Swansea Channel.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Thank you.
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I acknowledge the interjection. That work is supported by a total budget of $800,000. The work commenced at Coffs Harbour in early July 2009 to restore the navigation channel to the boat harbour. It is expected to be completed this month. Swansea Channel is a dynamic waterway that is subject to ongoing shoaling, which affects navigation of larger recreational vessels. The Land and Property Management Authority is working closely with Lake Macquarie Council, NSW Maritime and boating representatives to monitor channel behaviour.
I am pleased to announce that after more than 12 months of deliberation the Gosford City Council has finally agreed to participate in the Waterways Program. Planning for the dredging at Brisbane Water is well underway and the work will commence shortly. The Rees Government is committed to working with local communities to improve New South Wales waterways.
FIREARMS LICENCE REQUIREMENTS
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware that the latest issue of the Game Council's newsletter, Hunt NSW, contains a number of pictures of young people hunting, and profiles the story of Sophie Henderson, daughter of Game Council manager, Craig Henderson, obtaining an R-licence. Is that a breach of section 11 (5) of the Firearms Act, which states that a firearm licence should not be issued to a person under the age of 18 years? Is it also a breach of section 32, which stipulates that those under 18 years can obtain only a minor's permit and resolution (4) of the Australian Police Ministers Council Agreement on Firearms 1998, which states that licence applicants should be aged 18 years and over? Will the Minister reveal how many R-licences, also referred to as an "R-Licence Junior Concession", have been issued to a person under the age of 18 years? Can the Minister clarify the law in relation to young people and firearm licences?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Issues relevant to firearm usage and the rules and regulations pertaining to that should be addressed to the Minister for Police. I have not seen the Game Council's newsletter or the photograph referred to by the member. I do not follow those newsletters with the same degree of obsession that some members may do. I will look at a copy of it and will advise the House about it later.
PERPETUAL LEASE PURCHASE
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Lands. What action has the Minister taken to rectify the administrative deficiencies and lack of procedural fairness disclosed by the former Department of Lands' internal audit reports into the mishandling of the Tebbutt perpetual lease acquisition in 2004 when, contrary to his assurances, the leaseholders were not given an opportunity to withdraw their applications prior to the mini-budget? Can the Minister be believed when asked questions on the administration of government and government entities?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I recall the Tebbutt matter and have had numerous communications with him. Martin Tebbutt was the holder of a perpetual lease, which he applied to purchase on 3 September 2001. At that time, schedule 7 of the Crown Lands (Continued Tenures) Act provided for perpetual leases like the one held by Mr Tebbutt to be purchased for the market value of the land as at the date of application. Negotiations towards a mutually acceptable purchase price concluded on 28 August 2002, when the former Department of Lands accepted Mr Tebbutt's counter offer of $360,000. Mr Tebbutt's purchase application should have been approved shortly thereafter. Instead, the department incorrectly acceded to his request to keep the purchase price open until he could arrange finance to pay the purchase price in full. Mr Tebbutt eventually paid the agreed purchase price on 26 February 2004. 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17653
As with any other property transaction, Mr Tebbutt became the beneficial owner of the land in question on 26 February 2004. Subsequently the Crown Lands (Continued Tenures) Act was amended on 1 July 2004— some months after—with the commencement of schedule 7A, which provided for certain perpetual leases, like the one formerly held by Mr Tebbutt, to be purchased at the special price of 3 per cent of the statutory land value. Since title did not formally transfer until after 1 July 2004, Mr Tebbutt has argued that his purchase application should have been processed under the new schedule 7A and that the excess purchase money should be refunded. The Land and Property Management Authority, like its predecessor, the Department of Lands, contends that Mr Tebbutt's purchase application was correctly processed under the legislation in force at the time, that is, schedule 7 of the Crown Lands (Continued Tenures) Act. Accordingly, no refund is warranted.
CARBON POLLUTION REDUCTION SCHEME
The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industries. Could the Minister please explain what the Government is doing to ensure agriculture remains part of the current policy debate on reducing Australia's carbon pollution levels?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: There is no doubt agriculture is a key player in the State's economy. It supports food and fibre production to around $7.7 billion at farm gate value for New South Wales. It also supports 73,000 jobs and is the backbone of many regional economies. That is why it is essential that we provide a strong voice for agriculture and regional communities in the current debate about the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme [CPRS]. The New South Wales Government is committed to working with the Commonwealth to get the details right. We need to act now to get all the facts in front of us so an informed decision can be made. The Government is committed to protecting jobs in the agriculture sector, maintaining market access both nationally and internationally and ensuring producers can benefit from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme process. That is why the Government, in conjunction with the Victorian Government, commissioned an independent study to examine how agriculture might be treated under an emissions trading regime in Australia.
[Interruption]
It could be exempted, but—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Should be, not could be.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is a debate that will be had.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: We would like you onside.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Hold on a second. The Hon. Duncan Gay has to grasp this point. As the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics [ABARE] has shown in its research prepared for the Primary Industries Ministerial Council, if agriculture is not in the scheme, there will be a 9 per cent increase in costs anyway. Therefore, we have to produce strategies that will address that and in some way reduce that cost impediment on the agricultural sector. Productivity alone, at about 1.25 per cent—
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Agriculture needs you to be a champion.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Listen to me. Productivity alone, at 1.25 per cent per annum just cannot bridge that gap. Whatever happens we will have to have mitigating strategies in some shape or form. That is why we have been doing this work. It is about investigating the sector's current and future capabilities and capacity. The 200-page study was prepared by ACIL Tasman and is called "Agriculture and greenhouse gas mitigation policy: options in addition to the CPRS". This will go on our website and people interested in this area should have a good look at it.
I am pleased to say the study reveals that agriculture could be a major player in reducing the cost of Australia meeting its emission reduction targets. The study found that farmers could benefit from reducing carbon pollution levels by earning valuable income and credits.
The key findings of the study include: agriculture can be positioned as a key player in Australia's overall climate response strategy; positioning the sector as an offset provider has the potential to significantly 17654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
reduce the overall cost of Australia's abatement targets; a voluntary carbon market should be established as a first step; and, given the current risks and uncertainties around international rules and abatement and sequestration opportunities, an adaptive policy position should be adopted for Australian agriculture.
Positioning agriculture as a carbon pollution offset provider is a logical policy alternative, not only for New South Wales but also for agriculture internationally. Agriculture has substantial potential to abate and sequester greenhouse gases, often at a cost lower than elsewhere in the economy, and has the potential to reduce the costs of meeting national abatement targets. This independent study was initiated by my Agriculture Ministerial Advisory Council, one of the councils that play a key role in informing the Government on important issues affecting the industry. It is another example of the Government listening to industry and working together to achieve a better result.
If we developed a carbon offset market, it would provide the agriculture sector with early experience and opportunities in developing carbon trading technologies and practices. It could also provide an alternate source of income for farmers at a time when the sector is under pressure from drought and other issues. A Chicago Climate Exchange-style entity could be established in Australia as a nursery platform for trialling greenhouse gas measurement and trading arrangements. Further opportunities for abatement and sequestration lie with genetics, feeding practices and manure management to reduce methane, fertiliser treatments and practices to reduce nitrous oxide emissions, and forestry and permanent pastures to sequester carbon.
The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: I have a supplementary question. Can the Minister elucidate his answer?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The report is not a New South Wales Government policy statement, but rather it is an important part of the process of coming to a nationally agreed position on the role of agriculture in Australia's low carbon future. The New South Wales Government will continue to work closely with the Commonwealth to further develop the study's findings and to get the best possible deal for agriculture in our State.
COMMUNITY LEGAL CENTRES FUNDING
Mr IAN COHEN: My question is addressed to the Attorney General. How many New South Wales community legal centres were provided with more than 2,500 referrals by the LawAccess NSW or Legal Aid NSW services last year? Of these centres, how many receive funding from the New South Wales Government? Has the Attorney General noted the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry into access to justice and the funding problems faced by community legal centres across Australia? Is the Attorney General confident that community legal centres in New South Wales are adequately funded and resourced to ensure equitable access to justice for all New South Wales citizens?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am advised that two New South Wales community legal centres received more than 2,500 referrals from LawAccess or Legal Aid in 2008-09. Both of these centres receive funding from the New South Wales Government. I am aware of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry into access to justice, including community legal centres. That committee is due to report by 30 October 2009. The State and Commonwealth governments jointly fund community legal centres. The level of Commonwealth and State funding for each of these centres varies.
In April 2008, the Rudd Government announced additional one-off funding of $10 million for the Commonwealth Community Legal Services, with $2.2 million of this allocated for community legal centres in New South Wales. In May and June of 2009, the Commonwealth Attorney General announced additional one-off funding of $2.6 million for community legal centres in New South Wales. I am advised that Legal Aid NSW has been working closely with the Commonwealth Attorney General's Department, other States and the National Association of Community Legal Centres to implement the remaining Commonwealth review recommendations. Community legal centres are one component of a range of services funded by the New South Wales Government. It is also important to acknowledge that there are other places across New South Wales where free information and advice can be obtained. These include Legal Aid NSW offices and LawAccess NSW.
KEMPSEY BASE HOSPITAL DIALYSIS
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY: I direct my question without notice to the Attorney General, current Minister for Health, and Minister for Industrial Relations. Dialysis services are a vital component of managing 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17655
patients with renal disease and it is important for patients to received treatment in a familiar environment. So why is there not enough staff available to work the evening dialysis shift at Kempsey Base Hospital, which forces elderly patients to drive to Port Macquarie for treatment thrice weekly, which is an extra hour's travelling time?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question relating to this issue in another location last week. I refer the honourable member to the comments that I made on that occasion in relation to what we are doing for renal services. It is important to remember that there is a range of options for patients who require renal dialysis.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Not in this case.
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am not talking about any specific case, but there is a range of options, including home dialysis where that is appropriate, and of course different levels of care depending upon the severity or otherwise of the particular condition.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Will you look at getting that second shift going at Kempsey?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I am not familiar with the specific issues in relation to every location in New South Wales. If inquiries are made about specific locations, I am happy to examine them. From time to time there is a need to ensure that the configuration of services is varied to meet local demands. When that occurs it is necessary to recruit specialist staff that are able to provide those services. In some locations that is more of a challenge than it is in other locations.
WORKPLACE EDUCATION
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: I address my question to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Minister inform the House about the Government's efforts to assist young people to learn about the workplace?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: I thank the Hon. Henry Tsang for his question and acknowledge that he has an ongoing interest in the education of young workers about workplace issues. Many young people enter the workforce while still at school, getting jobs to supplement their pocket money. Indeed, there is a steady increase in the number of young people participating in the workforce. They enjoy the freedom and independence that earning an income can bring, and they forge new relationships, learn to handle responsibility, and juggle competing priorities as they experience the world of work and learn new life skills, often for the first time. But with new opportunities come challenges, and without the right advice and support young people are vulnerable in the workplace.
The Office of Industrial Relations provides advice and information to young workers about their workplace rights and responsibilities. As part of this vital function, the office sponsors the Know the Deal video competition for high school students. Now in its second year, the competition has doubled in size and is fast growing in popularity among students who clearly enjoy the challenge of producing creative, exciting and informative video clips for their peers. Not only is making the video fun; students also meet learning outcomes for their school syllabus and begin preparing themselves for the world of work. Students source information about starting a job from the New South Wales Office of Industrial Relations comprehensive youth website Young People at Work.
The Young People at Work website is an accessible resource for young people to find out information about workplace issues. It sets outs the information in easy to understand format about looking for work, being in the job and leaving the job. Armed with this information, students draw on their creative talents to make a video clip featuring key workplace messages that are engaging and educational for young people aged 14 to 20 who are about to start work. Developed with the Department of Education and Training, the Know the Deal video clips must be no more than two minutes in length and deliver one key message about workplace rights. The competition is an exciting and engaging way for students to learn about issues that they face when starting work, such as unpaid trials, rates of pay, leave entitlements and other workplace issues.
Yesterday in Parliament House I had the pleasure of announcing the six prize-winning entries made by 17 students from three Sydney schools and three schools in regional New South Wales. The first prize in the Metropolitan High Schools division was awarded to Abigail McDonald, Annabel Green, Isabelle Cameron and Zoe Fitzpatrick from Loreto, Kirribilli. The first prize in the Regional High Schools division was awarded to 17656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
Cassandra Lingonis, Courtney Jones, Daniel Hardy and Emma Watson from Toronto High School, Toronto. I offer congratulations to the teachers and students from Patrician Brothers College, Blacktown, Trinity Catholic College, Auburn, Macquarie College, Wallsend and St Marys War Memorial School, West Wyalong, who also submitted winning entries.
The entries received, which were of a very high standard, can be viewed on the Young People at Work website—www.youngpeopleatwork.nsw.gov.au. Not only is the quality and creativity of the entries impressive; the winning videos display a genuine depth of understanding of the workplace issues facing young people. I again congratulate the students and their teachers on the impressive winning entries, and I encourage other young people to visit the Young People at Work website, watch the videos and learn about the workplace.
FIREARMS LICENCE REQUIREMENTS
Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Police. Is the Minister aware that the latest issue of the Game Council's newsletter Hunt NSW profiled the story of Sophie Henderson, daughter of Craig Henderson, manager of the Game Council, who obtained an R-licence? Is that a breach of section 11 (5) of the Firearms Act, which states that a firearm licence should not be issued to a person under the age of 18 years? Is it a breach of section 32, which stipulates that those under 18 can only obtain a minor's permit? Is it also a breach of resolution 4 of the Australasian Police Ministers Council Agreement on Firearms 1996, which states that licensed applicants should be aged 18 years and over? Will the Minister reveal how many R-licences, also referred to as R-licence junior concession, have been issued to persons under the age of 18 years? Can the Minister clarify what is the law in relation to young people and firearm licences?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I can provide the member with some clarification. As the member said, section 11 (5) of the Firearms Act states that a firearms licence should not be issued to a person under the age of 18. Section 32 stipulates that those under the age of 18 can only obtain a minor's permit, and that is correct. According to the legislation of this State, firearms licences or permits are not issued to people under the age of 18. However, if they are shooting with an adult—and this happens on farms all over New South Wales—they can obtain a minor's permit to shoot. The New South Wales Firearms Registry does not issue R-licences; so far as I am aware they are issued by the Game Council to enable people to shoot game in certain areas.
An R-licence does not give young people under the age of 18 any authority to shoot game. That authority comes from a minor's permit under the sections to which the member has already referred. The New South Wales Firearms Registry does not issue R-licences; it only issues minor's permits. As I said earlier, those permits are for use mainly on rural properties, but they are issued for other reasons. The permits are issued on condition that an adult with a proper firearms licence and permit accompanies the young person. I will go one step further and state that it is my understanding that young people with minor's permits are not allowed to own a gun. Guns can be registered only by those who have a proper firearms licence.
MINISTER FOR CORRECTIVE SERVICES AND MOSES OBEID
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question is directed to the Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Public Sector Reform, and our very Special Minister of State. I refer the Minister to the question that I asked him yesterday and to his subsequent response. Since the Minister became a member of this House, and subsequently a Minister of the Crown, has he met with Moses Obeid on any matter or had any telephone conversation with him?
The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: Since becoming a member of Parliament or a Minister of the Crown I have not had any telephone calls or meetings with Moses Obeid relating to any property matters whatsoever.
INDIGENOUS OFFENDERS
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is addressed to the Minister for Corrective Services. Will the Minister update the House on the new approaches that the Department of Corrective Services is taking to address the offending behaviour of indigenous offenders?
The Hon. JOHN ROBERTSON: Last month I was honoured to be a guest at the official opening of Balund-a, a second chance program for young adult indigenous offenders located at Tabulam in northern New South Wales. With more than one in five inmates in correctional centres in New South Wales being of Aboriginal descent, the Government is focused on addressing the reasons behind the high indigenous 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17657
incarceration rate. The Balund-a program is the first of its kind in Australia. The program is unique because it allows magistrates to give young indigenous offenders one last attempt at addressing the causes of their criminal behaviour before they are sentenced.
Magistrates now have the option of referring offenders to Balund-a as a condition of their bail. The residents are managed by community offender services staff, half of whom are indigenous, including three local Aboriginal elders. The program has a strong focus on cultural reconnection, literacy, vocational skills, life skills, substance abuse treatment, and the rebuilding of family and community relationships. At full capacity, Balund-a will house a total of 50 men and women, each aged between the ages of 18 and 35. I am pleased to inform the House that the program is already producing positive outcomes. Of the 14 offenders who have completed the program, magistrates have determined that 13 made such progress that a sentence of imprisonment was not warranted upon their return to court.
The hopes on which Balund-a was founded are that young Aboriginal men and women will return home prepared to work and study, look after their partners and children, take responsibility for their behaviour and, most importantly, never commit crime again. At the opening of the new facility we were greatly honoured by the presence of the Governor of New South Wales, Her Excellency Professor Marie Bashir. Her Excellency has great faith in rehabilitation and in the idea that no person, especially a young person, is a lost cause or is unworthy of a second chance. Following the official proceedings and a tour of the remarkable facility I had the opportunity also to meet with some residents. In particular, I heard from Tom, who, after four months at Balund-a, was adamant that he will never offend again. He said:
My mind has never been this clear, and now I can think properly. When I leave here I am going to go to court and speak up for myself, which is something I have never thought I could do.
I take this opportunity to thank the Corrective Services New South Wales staff who played a role in setting up the facility. These dedicated men and women should be commended for their commitment to finding new ways to drive down indigenous incarceration rates in the State's jails. In closing, and as an unfortunate postscript, I take this opportunity also to acknowledge the services of Uncle Bob Caldwell, who was employed as an elder at Balund-a since the program's inception in March 2008. It is with sadness and regret that I inform the House that Uncle Bob passed away on 5 September this year after a short and unexpected illness. His hard work, dedication, support and guidance will be greatly missed by many people involved with Balund-a, not least by the residents. My sympathies and thoughts go out to his family and friends.
ENDOSULFAN
Dr JOHN KAYE: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries. Is the Minister aware of a University of Pittsburgh study published in the September issue of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry that casts doubt on the validity of testing regimes used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and relied on by Australian authorities to assess the toxic effects of endosulfan and to permit its continued use? If so, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that Australian consumers are protected from health impacts of endosulfan that were not previously understood to exist? If not, will the Minister undertake to urgently assess the significance of the University of Pittsburgh study?
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: It's right beside Gourmet Traveller, isn't it?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: Gourmet Traveller? That is very good. I like that one. But the member has not understood yesterday's reference yet. I will explain that to her later. No, I am not aware of that report. I can advise that sorts of things I read late at night have nothing to do with toxicology. Endosulfan is a broad spectrum insecticide with a wide range of agricultural uses. While endosulfan has been banned in some countries and is under review in others, it remains approved for use on a number of crops in countries such as the United States of America, South Africa and Canada. The national chemicals regulator, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority [APVMA], completed a major review of endosulfan in 2005, and the number of approved users was reduced significantly. Endosulfan now is highly restricted in Australia and can be used only by trained and competent users.
Based on current evidence, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority is standing by its conclusion that a complete ban on endosulfan is not warranted. However, I am advised that the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority is monitoring the progress of reviews into endosulfan in Canada and the United States of America and will respond to any new evidence of negative health or environmental effects. Clearly, in this instance I am sure someone will have this particular report by his bed, ready to read and 17658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
evaluate. The recent announcement by Bayer CropScience that it will phase out its production of endosulfan by the end of 2010 is part of a company strategy to replace endosulfan in world markets with other new and potentially more profitable chemical technologies. However, endosulfan is an out-of-patent chemical widely produced by generic manufacturers. Therefore, Bayer CropScience's exit as an endosulfan manufacturer is unlikely to affect the availability of endosulfan products in world markets. I will forward the question to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority and see what it has to say.
GET THERE BUS IT PROGRAM FUNDING
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is directed to the Minister for Police, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs. Is it a fact that the Community Cabinet meeting the Government held in Macarthur on 19 May 2009 cost taxpayers $47,745.56?
The Hon. John Robertson: I saw you there.
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: That is right. I saw you blokes out there. I know you were there. Is the Minister aware of the Get There Bus It initiative in Camden, which provides an opportunity for young patrons of local pubs and clubs to get home safely on a Friday night? Is the Minister aware that a Camden crime prevention officer stated that the service has reduced antisocial behaviour as young people are not hanging about as much as they used to and vandalism to local shops has decreased? Is the Minister aware that this initiative, which costs around $60,000 a year, is now under threat due to lack of funding? What is the Minister going to do about this lack of funding?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: The member has asked a couple of questions. The first question related to the cost of the Community Cabinet, which would have cost a little less he had not been there sponging on the coffee.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: He's a taxpayer; he's entitled to be there.
The Hon. TONY KELLY: That is a good point because the purpose of Community Cabinets is to allow ordinary members of the community to meet members of Cabinet and to ask questions of Ministers and their directors general. The Hon. Charlie Lynn can ask us a question any day—just as he has done today. His being at that Community Cabinet was a complete waste of time; he took the time of local constituents and prevented them from asking questions. In response to the second matter raised by the member, I advise him that I will investigate it.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of the new domestic violence procedures of the New South Wales Police Force?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I thank the member for her question. Domestic and family violence is a devastating crime that inevitably tears at the hearts of families. The Government is committed to combating domestic violence in our community starting with over $50 million in funding to help make women and children safer. Included in that amount is $16 million over four years for a new statewide private rental subsidy scheme to help domestic violence victims escape violent homes and establish themselves in a new safe home. Included also is $2.6 million each year over the next three years to expand the Domestic Violence Court Assistance Program. This program helps women and children access legal representation, social welfare and other services to protect them from domestic violence.
The New South Wales Police Force plays a vital and key role in the fight against domestic violence: it is the police who first attend domestic violence incidents; it is the police who arrest and charge offenders; it is the police who provide instant support for victims; and it is the police also who seek to ensure the ongoing protection of victims by applying for and enforcing apprehended violence orders. The New South Wales Government recognises the difficulty of this job and has funded the creation of an additional 35 sworn positions to target domestic violence hot spots across the State.
These officers will be placed in areas with the highest rates of domestic violence and have significant problems with underreporting of domestic violence. Of the 35 positions, 20 have been allocated and the 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17659
remaining 15 will start next year. These new officers will work at local area commands across the State starting in areas where these horrific crimes occur most frequently. The appointment of additional officers follows the introduction by the NSW Police Force of a new domestic and family violence policy and a new standard operating procedure that will educate all officers in relation to the seriousness of the crime and ensure that officers deal with the crime with confidence and consistency.
The police also have rolled out improved specialised training to deal with domestic violence investigation and victim support. The Government has backed police officers and police efforts to tackle domestic violence by the introduction of special evidence kits in all front-line police cars. These kits will help the police to effectively prosecute domestic violence offenders.
I am pleased to advise the House that these reforms to police training procedures and equipment are delivering real results. I have been advised that since the changes to police procedures were introduced in the six months from January 2009 to June 2009, there has been a 9.35 per cent increase in domestic violence arrests and an 11.1 per cent increase in the number of domestic violence charges laid. The Government is committed to tackling domestic violence and to supporting domestic violence victims. We will continue to better equip our Police Force to deal with this devastating crime.
SCHOOL VIOLENCE
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: My question is directed to the Attorney General, representing the Minister for Education and Training. Is the Minister aware of an incident earlier today in which balaclava-clad students jeered as their fellow students entered Airds High School? Is the Minister aware that two students were suspended for 10 days and two others for four days after a brawl left three teenagers injured? In particular, is the Minister aware there has been an increase in violence in some State schools, such as in Airds High School, Merrylands High School, and the Mullumbimby High School, to name just three? Given the gravity of this problem, will the Minister inform the House of programs or measures that will be implemented to reduce the level of violence in our State public schools and ensure that violent and reoffending students are placed in appropriate rehabilitation programs?
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: As it happens, before question time I heard the Minister for Education and Training being interviewed on radio 2UE. She responded to many of the matters that the member has mentioned in his question. I refer Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes to that very useful interview, which I think will respond to most of the issues he has raised. If there is anything further that arises from the question, I will obtain the answer for him.
RABBIT MEAT HEALTH STANDARDS
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: I direct my question to the Minister for Primary Industries. Will he outline the measures that the Department of Primary Industries currently is taking to enforce Australian health codes in relation to the rabbit industry? Specifically, will he outline the health measures that are in place to prevent shooters from illegally selling rabbit carcasses to licensed abattoirs in defiance of Australian standard health regulations and explain why measures currently are not being enforced to combat this practice in Hillston and surrounding regions? What action is his department taking to uphold the relevant health standards and protect rabbit meat consumers as well as the livelihoods of shooters who are licensed to hunt rabbits for game meat?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: That is a very good question. Recently I made announcements relating to rabbits, particularly their eradication.
The Hon. Rick Colless: The question concerns illegal sale of them to licensed abattoirs.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I will get to that. I appreciate the importance of the question. As I recall, I have not had any evidence presented to me indicating any problems concerning the sale of illegally caught rabbits—
The Hon. Rick Colless: It is not just that. They are being illegally sold to abattoirs.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: —or rabbits being illegally sold to abattoirs. I will examine the matter closely and provide an answer to the Hon. Rick Colless. I will burrow deeply into the issue. 17660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
ROCK FISHING SAFETY
The Hon. TONY CATANZARITI: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. What action is the Government taking to try to prevent rock fishing deaths?
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: There is no doubt that the sport of rock fishing can be dangerous: people engaged in the pursuit have died as a result of being swept off rocks. The sad fact is that there are no 100 per cent guarantees when people fish from rocks, but the Government and recreational fishers are working together to improve safety. I am pleased to say that vital funding for rock fishing safety programs will continue as a result of more than $113,000 being provided from the New South Wales Saltwater Recreational Fishing Trust. The funding is part of the trust's $30 million spending on more than 60 recreational fishing projects across New South Wales over the next year. The ongoing funding will help to provide life-saving resources to try to put an end to tragic accidental deaths.
The New South Wales Recreational Fishing Saltwater Trust has allocated $62,675 to install another 30 angel rings at various locations around the State while ensuring that the current 87 angel-ring facilities are maintained and replaced over the next three years. For those who do not know, angel rings are lifebuoys that are installed at popular and dangerous ocean rock fishing spots along the New South Wales coastline. They keep a victim afloat and allow the person to swim away from the rocks until help arrives. This year alone there have been six confirmed rescues using the angel rings. The new rings will be placed at locations including the Botany Bay National Park, the Royal National Park and the Pittwater area.
This is a further extension of the successful angel rings project carried out since 1994 by the Australian National Sportsfishing Association, New South Wales branch. The New South Wales Recreational Fishing Saltwater Trust also will provide $50,750 to continue funding the successful rock fishing safety resource folder. The funding will ensure that more than 30,000 resource folders will be distributed free of charge to anglers over the next three years. Unfortunately it is a fact that many anglers who find themselves in trouble while rock fishing are from non-English-speaking backgrounds. The folders, which have been coordinated by the New South Wales Recreational Fishing Alliance and developed in conjunction with the Department of Sport and Recreation, will include DVDs on how to fish from rocks safely, and the instructions will be translated into Korean, Chinese and Vietnamese. Another 100,000 copies of these DVDs have been distributed free of charge to migrant centres, community groups, tackle shops and local grocery stores.
The program already is proving to be so successful that we have seen a marked increase in the number of anglers who now wear lifejackets on shoreline rocks, especially when fishing alone. I should point out that during the past few years the Government has conducted a large number of publicly available wide-ranging educational and advisory services. They are in a form that is suitable for those of a non-English-speaking background. For example, during 2007-08, fishing workshops and information days were held for more than 700 people from non-English-speaking backgrounds. That work continues. The department also has distributed fisheries information and educational material in a number of different languages. Our website has a multilingual fisheries section to include more languages other than English in material on fishing rules and regulations.
There is more that the Government is doing to protect rock fishers. Industry and Investment New South Wales currently is working with the Royal Life Saving Society and recreational fishing groups to undertake a research study that will identify and examine recreational fishing related deaths, including rock fishing, since 2002. I should add that rock fishers also will be surveyed to gather information about previous rock fishing injuries and the precautionary measures fishers take to ensure personal safety. All these initiatives in combination will lead to improved water safety initiatives and will help to keep our rock fishers safe.
AUBURN ATTACK ON POLICE
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: In directing my question to the Minister for Police, I refer to an issue I raised yesterday regarding the riot by approximately 150 Muslim youths at Auburn and seek clarification on a number of points related to the Minister's reply: Were any of the outside 150-member crowd who harassed police officers as they carried out their authorised duties, charged with riot or affray? If not, why not? What is the Government doing to address the problem and alleviate the fear of non-Muslim residents in that area?
The Hon. TONY KELLY: I have an updated response. At the conclusion of question time yesterday, I provided additional advice. 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17661
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: But it was not in regard to the crowd; rather, it concerned search warrants.
The Hon. TONY KELLY: Yes. I will provide the member with updated advice. If that does not answer the question completely, I will provide additional advice to the member. As I said yesterday, on Tuesday night, police officers from the Middle Eastern crime squad and other commands conducted raids on four premises as part of a planned response to recent shootings in south-west Sydney. A large crowd gathered outside one of the premises, necessitating police calling in assistance to maintain control. A number of bottles sporadically were thrown at police during the incident. Officers from the public order and riot squad, the dog squad and local area commands moved several groups on from the area. No member of the crowd was injured or arrested. I repeat: No member of the crowd was injured or arrested. The situation was diffused and order was maintained. I commend the police for containing the situation.
Two people from the household were charged on 9 September as a result of search warrants. One man was charged with wounding a police officer, assault and resisting arrest. Another was charged with assaulting police, hinder and resisting arrest. I am advised that a woman was arrested but released without charge. Police are continuing their investigations and further charges are expected. If anyone has a complaint regarding police conduct at this or any other incident, they should contact the local area command involved, the Ombudsman or the Police Integrity Commission. I understand that the Opposition has questioned why police did not use their emergency powers. These powers were not needed. Police advise that the situation in Auburn was kept under control and the crowd was dispersed in an orderly manner. In addition, I undertake to ensure that I have answered all the components of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's question.
The Hon. TONY KELLY: If members have further questions, I suggest that they put them on notice.
GREATER WESTERN AREA HEALTH SERVICE STAFF CUTS
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: On 2 September the Hon. Rick Colless asked me a question about staffing levels in the Greater Western Area Health Service. I can advise that there is no proposal to cut services at Bathurst health service, and there has not been a proposal put forward to decrease clerical staff by 9.8 per cent, as suggested by the member's question. Nor has there been a proposal put forward to change 48 registered nurse positions to enrolled nurse positions, as suggested by the member's question. Under the new New South Wales Health episode or case mix funding formula, Bathurst health service has been allocated an initial budget allocation of the order $44 million this financial year. Bathurst health service and the Greater Western Area Health Service are developing and implementing a number of strategies to reduce expenditure while keeping frontline services at optimum levels.
As part of this strategy Bathurst health service is reviewing staffing and has included a review of clerical and nursing staff. Bathurst health service is also undertaking a major clinical services redesign project to optimise the configuration and delivery of services. This project is being overseen by the area's clinical council, which is an internal body consisting of senior nurses, doctors, midwives, allied health professionals, consumers and managers. I can also advise that Bathurst health service management has been open to any questions from staff and the unions, and looks forward to consultation as they work through this issue. In fact, a Bathurst health service consultative meeting occurred on Friday 4 September, which was attended by representatives of the Health Services Union and New South Wales Nurses Association.
DUBBO BASE HOSPITAL PATIENT TREATMENT
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: On Thursday 3 September the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question relating to a patient at Dubbo Base Hospital. I can advise that an independent clinical review of the care provided to this patient is being sought by Dubbo Base Hospital. Therefore it would be inappropriate to discuss details of the matter at this stage. I am further advised that the area health service will ensure that it keeps the patient and her family fully informed of the findings of the investigation. The Acting General Manager of Dubbo Base Hospital has spoken to a family member regarding their concerns and has offered to meet with the family.
CAMDEN HOSPITAL MATERNITY SERVICES
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: On 8 September the Hon. Charlie Lynn asked me a question about Camden maternity services in response to the release of the Sydney South West Area Health Service 17662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
Maternity Services Plan 2006-13. I can advise that the Macarthur Maternity Service is an integrated service that operates across two sites, Camden and Campbelltown hospitals. Midwives are rostered to work on both sites. Camden hospital provides antenatal and postnatal care, and the Camden Midwifery Group Practice continues to provide care to low-risk women. In response to concerns raised by key stakeholders regarding the arrangements in place for maternity services at Camden hospital, a review of Camden maternity was carried out in early 2005. In line with the recommendations of this review, birthing services ceased to be provided at Camden hospital in February 2005 and a midwifery group practice commenced in March 2006.
A formal evaluation of the Camden Midwifery Group Practice was completed by the Centre for Health Equity Training Research and Evaluation, and the report was released in March 2008. The evaluation demonstrated positive outcomes of care. I am advised that based on this evaluation the New South Wales Health Maternity Services Taskforce made a number of recommendations, including that the current model of the Camden Midwifery Group Practice be maintained. At this time I am advised that there are no plans to reintroduce birthing per se at Camden hospital.
FORBES DIALYSIS SERVICES
The Hon. JOHN HATZISTERGOS: On 8 September the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about Forbes dialysis services. I can advise that expansion of the Forbes renal dialysis unit is being progressed. It is no secret that the Greater Western Area Health Service faces many challenges due to the increasing incidence of end-stage renal failure and the resulting growth in demand for renal dialysis services. In addressing this growing demand, the Greater Western Area Health Service was successful in obtaining enhancement funding from New South Wales Health for 2008-09 that permitted an increase in shifts and the redevelopment of a hospital building into the new dialysis unit. The redeveloped four-chair unit opened on 27 March this year, and operates six mornings each week, Monday through to Saturday. The unit currently provides a haemodialysis service for eight people.
I am also advised that the Greater Western Area Health Service has submitted an application to the New South Wales Department of Health statewide Services Development Branch requesting additional capacity for the Forbes unit. I am advised that this submission is currently under consideration as part of statewide planning for renal dialysis services. The draft Greater Western Area Health Service Renal Services Plan aims to address the ever-increasing demand for renal dialysis services. The planning process involves working in collaboration with the area renal clinicians and patients to identify priorities and develop strategies to address these areas of need. The service plan puts forward many initiatives to be implemented over the next five years to meet the current and future demand for renal services. The enhancement of the dialysis services provided at the Forbes unit has been identified as a priority by the area health service.
Questions without notice concluded.
LIQUOR AMENDMENT (TEMPORARY LICENCE FREEZE) BILL 2009
Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly, on behalf of the Hon. Ian Macdonald.
Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:
That standing orders be suspended to allow the passing of the bill through all its remaining stages during the present or any one sitting of the House.
Second reading set down as an order of the day for a later hour.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Motion by the Hon. Tony Kelly agreed to:
That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 22 September 2009 at 2.30 p.m.
[The President left the chair at 1.08 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.] 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17663
PRIME TELEVISION PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CLOSURE
Ministerial Statement
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Police, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [2.30 p.m.]: It is not often that I praise the work of journalists in this House.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: I understand that.
The Hon. TONY KELLY: Yes, I think that is a universal comment. But today I acknowledge the great work of Prime Television Parliamentary Bureau staff members George Wood and Sam Catford. I am saddened to have to advise the House that today they covered question time for the last time. In fact, it is their last working day in this House.
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Shame!
The Hon. TONY KELLY: Yes. Coming from the other side of the sandstone curtain, I admit my bias. I think their coverage of the workings of the New South Wales Parliament—and I am sure I can speak for all members of the House—has always been well-informed, balanced and accurate.
Ms Lee Rhiannon: Good questions.
The Hon. TONY KELLY: That is correct. More importantly, what they cover is essential for the people in rural and regional New South Wales. Our democracy depends on the electorate being able to make informed decisions about the Government, the Opposition and the crossbenches to know and understand what the different parties and members are doing and saying, and for it to be accurately reported. George and Sam in their role as the Prime television representatives were extremely effective in conveying the issues of the day and probing members from different areas on issues that were relevant to their viewers in the bush. They did not submit generic reports but targeted, individual reports—for example, on Dubbo Hospital.
All members of this House have come to know both George and Sam through their interviews over the years and have come to appreciate their even-handed approach. One would be hard pressed to find someone friendlier than George, but he is never slow in asking the hard questions, and then persisting in his line of questioning if he does not think the question has been answered. Part of a politician's training is not to answer the question. I should add that I think it is short sighted of Prime Television to close its parliamentary bureau. The metropolitan media is strong but too often is narrowly focused on stories and issues that have little relevance to anyone outside Sydney. It is a big State, and the people off the coast deserve coverage of what goes on in this House and in the Government. They were guaranteed that with George and Sam. I think their departure is a great loss to the people of regional and rural New South Wales and also a great loss to this Parliament. I thank George and Sam very much for their years covering the events of this Parliament. I commend them for their work.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.35 p.m.]: I concur with the comments of the Minister and thank him for informing me of his ministerial statement and for allowing me, on behalf of the Liberal-Nationals, to respond on the departure today of George Wood and Sam Catford from Prime's Sydney news bureau. All members know them as George-Sam—a dynamic duo and a great team. They both have a wry sense of humour and nice manner. All members of the House respect them. As I did the initial work to get them into the press gallery I am saddened that now I am, with the Minister, delivering what, in effect, is a eulogy in relation to their time in Parliament House. I hope there will be a re-appraisal or that someone picks up on their ability.
The Hon. Tony Kelly: That is right. Prime can still change its mind.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I hope Prime does. I know it has been inundated with letters. I wrote to Prime reminding it that originally it approached me to get representation in here—and what a great success it has been. The departure of these boys will mean that the New South Wales parliamentary press gallery once again becomes the Sydney press gallery. New South Wales Parliament will once again become the Sydney Parliament. People in regional New South Wales will not get a look in as far as reporting. Members of the press gallery are very pleasant—I sometimes believe I am treated better than the Minister; it depends on the day—but when I try to pitch a story on Forbes dialysis, Livestock Health and Pest Authorities or branch lines at the back of Bourke their eyes glaze over. That will not make the News Limited front page or the opinion piece in Fairfax. 17664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
Mr Ian Cohen: Ovine Johne's disease!
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yes. The people of regional New South Wales miss out. Currently I hire staff, and have in the past, from WIN and Prime. The Prime staff have always told me of the importance of the resource that George and Sam provide to complete articles that link the country story with events in Parliament back to the region on the day. Conversely, staff who have been hired from WIN say they do not know how WIN existed without such a resource. Both stations are great and important in our regions, and they should continue to have the resource to link the regions with the city so that New South Wales is not just Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. The feeling of goodwill engendered by George and Sam is exceptional. Not one member of Parliament believes they are biased. They have been here for a long time. Just when we relax, that smooth-talking George Wood, as the Minister said, would ask a probing question with that nice, gentle smile. He would not let go of the question.
As I said, both sides of Parliament have been happy with the reports by George and Sam. The regional areas will notice the gap—not only will the regions no longer be relevant to Parliament; Parliament will no longer be relevant to the regions. That is my great concern about Prime's decision no longer to have a base in Parliament House. I wish George and Sam all the very best. They are great guys. They are both great family men and during interviews with them I found out what was happening in their families on a day-to-day basis. I really hope that this is not their last day here.
Mr IAN COHEN [2.40 p.m.], by leave: It is appropriate that I make a short contribution. George and Sam have been great friends to me, as I am sure they have been to all members of Parliament. I reiterate the sentiments and comments of previous speakers in acknowledging their patience, their very friendly attitude and their convivial demeanour. In dealing with me over the years George was always keen to get a story. I cannot remember the number of times I have gone to do a press conference and only George and Sam were present. I live in a country area, although not west of the sandstone curtain. Nevertheless, regional issues are of great interest to my community. At times a press conference has been the conduit to get my message out.
The Hon. Tony Kelly: The only conduit.
Mr IAN COHEN: It is the only direct conduit from Parliament. Of course, ABC and other radio stations are accessible but there is a problem with getting information out to regional areas. In this House it is difficult to raise issues that are of interest to people in the regions. Country areas can receive city television transmissions but access to them is difficult. George and Sam have undertaken a very important role and have been extremely diplomatic and polite. I imagine they deal with all parties. They have treated me, as a Green, with friendliness and respect. They will be a loss to Parliament.
In certain situations I have often felt quite satisfied that, although I was not reported in the city media, at least my home community and others around the State would receive information and know that we are alive and well at Parliament and know that we are doing our best to represent their views. Prime's departure is a loss for Parliament and a loss for democracy. Country people have a right to be informed about what goes on in Macquarie Street. Quite often that has little relevance to people in country areas, and quite often matters that are relevant to country people are not given appropriate attention. I hope that ways will be found to make up for that loss. I wish George and Sam the best. The Greens and everyone in this House will miss them a great deal. Their dry sense of humour has that touch of country. Recently I saw George in the garden waiting to interview someone. He appeared to be looking at the distant bush, something that he does well. Perhaps other media people would do well to learn from him. Good luck to both George and Sam.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.44 p.m.], by leave: I express my disappointment at Prime Television's decision to move from Parliament House and to remove George and Sam from the role they have carried out so well over the years. That was a serious decision, and I ask Prime Television to reconsider it as it undermines the role of Parliament. Other media groups may consider making the same decision. There have been reports of News Limited wanting to save money. The departure of Prime from Parliament House will not help the community, or Parliament, if news coverage is not conveyed at first hand, particularly about what is occurring in the upper House. I express my regret at the decision.
AMBULANCE RESCUE SERVICES
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [2.44 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the motion moved by the Hon. Marie Ficarra. This is a very important issue. When one studies the history of the Government's toing and froing 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17665
over the future of the ambulance rescue service it is clear that behind the scenes there has been an ongoing power struggle pulling the Minister for Health in one direction and then in another direction—with the ambulance rescue service pleading with the Minister to retain the rescue service and then NSW Fire Brigades pulling him in the other direction.
It is obvious that historically there has been a power struggle behind the scenes. On 21 August 2008 the Government announced that it would not axe ambulance rescue services in New South Wales. On 3 September 2008 the then Minister for Health, the Hon. Reba Meagher, announced that the ambulance rescue service was axed, and some officers were notified of their sacking via text message. On 2 December 2008 the then Minister for Health, the Hon. John Della Bosca, announced that the decision of his predecessor had been reversed pending a 12-month review. One would think that with such a black-and-white statement it could be relied on as truthful and that no further action would be taken for 12 months.
Yet on 17 February 2009, less than two months after the health Minister's announcement of the 12-month review, there was no review and the ambulance rescue service was axed. The handling of this matter has been disgraceful: it has not been handled in an honest, up-front and transparent way. Certainly, there has been a failure to consult Ambulance Service staff, particularly the ambulance rescue staff, and the community on the future of the service. I support the motion to condemn the Government for its continued neglect and failure to properly manage the Ambulance Service, particularly ambulance rescue, and for the disrespectful manner in which the Government announced the sacking of some officers via text message, particularly while some officers were volunteering their services in Victoria during the bushfires. Even now, at a minute to midnight so to speak, I call on the Government to review its decision and see if it can retain the expert services of the staff of the ambulance rescue service, which will enable both rescue staff and medical staff to deal with serious accidents. I call on the Government to reinstate the ambulance rescue service.
The Hon. MARIE FICARRA [2.50 p.m.], in reply: On 3 September 2008 the Labor Government announced it was closing eight metropolitan ambulance rescue stations and handing their rescue role to NSW Fire Brigades. Regrettably, the paramedics found out about this decision the night before via a text message on their mobile phones, with those same officers required to relinquish their rescue role a mere 36 hours later. The Government announced that, of the 181 paramedic land rescue operators, 88 staff would relinquish their rescue roles and be redeployed to general ambulance duties. The Government justified this decision for five main reasons, which I will now review.
First, it said that the Ambulance Service of New South Wales was the only ambulance service to have a rescue function. My response is that ambulance rescue was one of the early pioneers of rescue in New South Wales. They are not the new kids on the block trying to wrest rescue services away from the fire brigade to establish a new direction within ambulance services. They are the veterans of rescue, with a strong experience base—45 years of continuous rescue service to the community, and not just local communities. They were a State resource that was called in to assist with major incidents such as the Thredbo landslide, as well as interstate, for example, with the recent Victorian bushfires.
Second, the Government argued that there was duplication and overlap of rescue resources as the fire brigade already had enough specialised equipment and personnel to provide the services previously provided by the ambulance units. It is true that NSW Fire Brigades currently does the majority of rescue work, with over 180 units compared to the ambulance rescue service's 14 units. Clearly, this is not the point. These units were never in competition with each other but rather complemented each other's expertise. The move was purely a political furphy and those involved know of the lobbying by the powerful Fire Brigade Employees Union to take over ambulance rescue services.
The Government administers NSW Fire Brigades under the banner of emergency services. It receives the majority of its public funding through a direct tax on the insurance industry known as the fire services levy. Only 14 per cent of its total operating budget comes directly from the Government's purse, thus transferring rescue operational expenses to the fireys is cost-effective for this cash-strapped Labor Government. That is the reason it is being done: it is purely for financial reasons.
The third reason the Government gave was that the Head review reported that the workload of rescue officers was only 11 per cent of their total workload. The focus of public safety is prevention. We all want fewer people requiring rescue services, but when a person needs the service we want them to receive the best care. The average rescue workload will be the same regardless of which agency is responsible for rescue services. Rescue paramedics do not respond exclusively to rescue jobs. If only 11 per cent of their workload is rescue work then 17666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
the residual 89 per cent must be medical work. For the majority of the time they respond to medical calls for help, assess and treat patients and then request a transport vehicle if required. They essentially operate as rapid responders, working out of a rescue truck. They are most efficient and experienced. Clearly, this reason given by the Government was misleading.
The fourth reason given was that sending two ambulance crews, where the rescue truck was responding to incidents along with a general ambulance crew, was clearly a duplication of resources. The point is that rescue paramedics have a specialist role. If they are at a motor vehicle accident and another ambulance arrives on the scene, the role of the rescue officers and their paramedic colleagues is not identical; it is complementary. The responsibilities within the team are shared, and have been shared in the past, but the rescue officer's primary role is rescue and the paramedic's primary role on the scene is medical. They are clear about it and understand it and have operated efficiently with these guidelines for many years.
The third reason was that redeployment of ambulance rescue officers would boost front-line services, particularly through rapid response vehicles. These officers are currently employed as front-line officers and putting them in a different uniform and asking them to drive a different vehicle will not boost services. They will be absorbed into the general ambulance system, a system that is chronically short-staffed. There is no boost to rosters that are currently so short of staff that they struggle to cover staff on annual leave, maternity leave, long service leave and workers compensation.
The officers have been told that they can staff a rapid response vehicle—they can work out of the vehicle by themselves. The use of a single-officer response has inherent problems: paramedics will be personally at risk in attending to violent patients or dangerous scenes. Secondly, the patient receives care from only one person. Obviously, critically ill patients need prompt treatment and transport, not just a "rapid response". Treatment from one paramedic in a non-transport car when compared with that from two paramedics and an ambulance equipped for transport is not best service delivery.
The truth is that the Government is so keen to introduce and expand a rapid responder service because one of its key performance indicators is response times. The response service is measured by the amount of time it takes the service to take a call, dispatch a car and have the car arrive on the scene. So why is this Government so keen for NSW Fire Brigades to assume responsibility for rescue services? The short answer is funding, funding and funding. The long answer is that the decision to increase the fire brigades' rescue responsibilities is all about costs that will be borne by the private sector through the fire services levy. This levy accounts for 73.7 per cent of funding for NSW Fire Brigades. Local governments contribute 12.3 per cent and the State Government just 14 per cent. That's it, folks: it is all about dollars, dollars, dollars.
The Labor Government has run out of money so it will shift the responsibility to the insurance industry, which in turn will shift it onto consumers—New South Wales residents who find it difficult enough as it is to provide adequate insurance for themselves. In future their increased premiums will be required to fund rescue services. This whole measure involves shifting costs from the Government to New South Wales families.
It has been stated that firefighters performing rescue is best practice because that is what is done elsewhere in the world. I believe the cooperative approach we had until the Government decided it would bend to the union power of NSW Fire Brigades was world's best practice. The community does not want emergency care turned into a political football. It is not too late to restore the ambulance rescue service. I draw members' attention to the wording in part (3) of my motion: "That this House calls on the Government to reinstate the NSW Ambulance Rescue Service pending a proper independent review of the service". I call on members of this House to support the motion.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 16
Mr Ajaka Mr Khan Mrs Pavey Mr Clarke Mr Lynn Mr Pearce Ms Cusack Mr Mason-Cox Ms Ficarra Reverend Dr Moyes Tellers, Mr Gallacher Reverend Nile Mr Colless Mr Gay Ms Parker Mr Harwin 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17667
Noes, 21
Mr Catanzariti Mr Macdonald Ms Voltz Mr Cohen Mr Obeid Mr West Ms Fazio Ms Rhiannon Ms Westwood Ms Griffin Mr Robertson Ms Hale Ms Robertson Mr Hatzistergos Mr Roozendaal Tellers, Dr Kaye Ms Sharpe Mr Donnelly Mr Kelly Mr Tsang Mr Veitch
Pair
Miss Gardiner Mr Della Bosca
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
PROTECTION OF PUBLIC OWNERSHIP BILL 2009
Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by Dr John Kaye.
Second Reading
Dr JOHN KAYE [3.07 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Protection of Public Ownership Bill gives Parliament the final say on privatisation and outsourcing of assets and services. The Greens introduced this bill at a time when the public sector is particularly vulnerable to a Government seeking a quick injection of cash to offer those things that it sees as being advantageous in its March 2011 election campaign. The Greens introduce this bill at a time when the public sector is vulnerable to the ideology that runs through Treasury—an ideology promoted by every single Treasurer since Michael Egan, and probably before—that job satisfaction is akin to one going home at night and saying, "Honey, I shrunk the Government." Kevin Rudd said that neo-liberalism is over, but we need to take a much closer look at New South Wales, where Labor's fire sale of assets is the embodiment of a neo-liberal ideal of downsizing the public sector and reducing public sector involvement in the economy.
The intention of this bill is to prevent, without the consent of both houses of Parliament, the sale of any publicly owned asset, corporation or undertaking where the value of the asset is greater than $1 million. It also prevents the outsourcing of public services and other activities with a cost or income worth more than $1 million and it prevents, without the consent of both houses of Parliament, the sale, lease or disposal of travelling stock reserves. The bill also prevents the sale of public education land unless the public education authority has entered into a contract to purchase land of equal or greater value in the same locality, and it prevents the leasing of land owned by a public education authority if it is required for a public education purpose. If it is not required for that public education purpose, it may be used only for another public sector purpose. The bill does not prevent the sale of major public assets or services; it requires the Executive Government to submit its privatisation plans to Parliament for the approval of both Houses to ensure appropriate levels of debate and public involvement in those decisions.
The New South Wales Government has engaged in a fire sale of assets—a fire sale of assets that was never foreseen at the previous State election. I remind the House that at the previous State election the Public Service Association [PSA], of which I and many members of this House are proud members, asked candidates to sign a public interest pledge that said job cuts equals service cuts. Item 3 of that pledge was a guarantee to protect public sector delivery of services for New South Wales. One of the most famous signatories of this pledge was none other than then Premier, Morris Iemma, who signed the Public Service Association pledge just before appearing on the stage before a crowd of about 3,500 people outside Sydney Town Hall. His signing of the pledge was welcomed by all present and was seen as a commitment over the ensuing four years by the Labor Government to not privatise public sector service delivery and services. 17668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
That pledge has been broken resoundingly on more than one occasion, and clearly it is the intention of the Government to break that pledge on far more occasions between now and March 2011. That is a breach of faith not only with the union movement and the people of New South Wales, but also with the membership of the Australian Labor Party. This bill, although motivated by a deep concern for the future of public sector services and assets, is not about stopping all sell-offs and outsourcing; it is about ensuring parliamentary oversight. Nothing in this bill in respect of major public assets or major public services, other than education land, stops the Government privatising or outsourcing services provided it is willing to submit plans to the Parliament to convince both Houses of Parliament that its plans are appropriate and ought to proceed.
The bill is about ensuring parliamentary oversight. It is about stopping the behind-the-closed-door deals that were evident with the attempt to privatise electricity holdings without public scrutiny and without regard to commitments made during a previous election campaign. The bill will ensure that debate is held in the open to force all governments to have their plans subjected not only to the scrutiny of Parliament, but also to the scrutiny of public debate so that the community can have a say in the assets of the State, which, after all, they paid for, built and maintained. The bill is about political accountability also. It is about saying that every member of Parliament at the next election should face the voters on the basis of their track record in respect to privatisation.
We want to remove all ambiguity when a politician goes to an election so there is no hiding behind phrases like, "Well, that was party politics" or "That was Caucus solidarity" or "Well, I didn't have a say in it because in the end it was determined by the Executive Government or by Cabinet." Every politician must own up to the actions of his or her government. Every politician needs to be prepared to face the voters and say, "Yes, I voted for electricity privatisation", "Yes, I voted for privatisation of lotteries", "Yes, I voted for things that were yours and I have decided they should no longer be yours." Only then can we have a fair and honest debate about the future of public sector provision.
In 2008 the Iemma Government's electricity sell-off failed to obtain approval from this House, and that brought down both the Treasurer and the Premier. In 2009 a new Premier, a new Treasurer and a new proponent of electricity privatisation, finance Minister Joe Tripodi, intend to sell off the retailers who provide electricity sales and services to 94 per cent of customers. The electricity retailers have a large public sector workforce and their sale will have huge consequences for the quality of service delivery and electricity bills, and huge impacts for the workforce and for greenhouse gas abatement. The Rees Government intends also to sell off the trading rights of the large electricity generator. Last year in budget estimates hearings senior Treasury officials admitted to questions posed by the Greens that the effect of selling off the trading rights was to hand over control of the generators to the private sector for 25 years with enormous consequences for greenhouse gas emissions and also for the workforce.
A third component of this sell-off is to sell off development sites for the potential development of 4,700 megawatts of fossil fuel power stations at Mount Piper west of Lithgow, at Bayswater in the Upper Hunter, and at Munmorah on the Central Coast. If these power stations are built by the private sector from coal by data contained in the Owen inquiry and in submissions to the Department of Planning, about 30.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide will be emitted from them. That represents a 57 per cent increase in the State's electricity sector emissions and the greenhouse gas equivalent of another seven million cars on roads in New South Wales. In short, this will have a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions, on employment and potentially on household electricity bills—and all this despite not getting parliamentary approval in 2008 and despite massive and overwhelming opposition, with opinion polls showing somewhere between 75 per cent and 80 per cent of the people of New South Wales being firmly opposed to electricity privatisation.
Nothing has changed between then and now. This is the same plan rebadged. This is the same plan going through without parliamentary scrutiny and without the support of the people of New South Wales and with the same impact on jobs, the environment and household bills. This is a fire sale with long-term consequences not only for the environment, but also for the revenue stream of New South Wales. This is giving away control over the future of the electricity industry in New South Wales, which is not only a major source of greenhouse gas emissions—it is responsible for about 37 per cent of the State's total greenhouse burden—but which is also a major component of the economy. Handing that to the private sector would be like a motorist taking his hands off the steering wheel when entering a particularly tight curve. It makes no sense to privatise the electricity industry. Whatever arguments were persuasive at the end of 2008 to stop privatisation are even more persuasive today. They are just as relevant and just as applicable to the proposals that finance Minister Joe Tripodi is pushing, and just as relevant to the employment, the economy and the New South Wales environment. 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17669
The only difference is that in 2008 the then Treasurer, Michael Costa, promised to bring the plans before Parliament. So, there was some public scrutiny. Now, however, Minister Tripodi and Premier Rees are trying to sneak this through with the same impacts but with a different strategy—a more clever and devious strategy. At least Treasurer Michael Costa, for his many failings, took things head-on and was prepared to have a debate in public about his intentions. Finance Minister Tripodi is doing this behind closed doors, away from parliamentary scrutiny and away from the public gaze. He knows full well that the public would be furious at the idea that what was rejected last year is being brought back this year with the same consequences. This is a breakdown of democracy. At the very least it is a denial of trust to the voters of New South Wales who elected this Government. This was never mentioned at the 2007 election. In fact, as I stated earlier, the opposite was said at that election. Then Premier Morris Iemma signed a pledge on behalf of the Labor Party that he would not privatise public sector services.
In the 1999 State election Labor campaigned against the Coalition strongly on a platform of no privatisation—a platform with which the Greens agreed strongly. Privatisation has been rejected by the people of New South Wales and it has failed to get through this Chamber. Now, in a back-door exercise, it is being run through without any scrutiny. How can the Government get away with this? In 19999 Treasurer Michael Egan rewrote the State Owned Corporations Act and the Energy Services Corporations Act 1995 by inserting two provisions. Section 20Y of the State Owned Corporations Act 1983 makes it clear that a main undertaking of a statutory state-owned corporation can be sold or disposed of with the prior written approval of the voting shareholding Ministers. That section was an invitation to privatisation without reference to Parliament.
Section 11 of the Energy Services Corporation Act prohibits the privatisation of an energy services corporation. But the Government has been clever. The plans announced by Premier Rees, just like those pushed by his predecessor, Premier Iemma, were not to involve the transfer of shares in the distribution or generation companies, and thus would not be affected by the provision. By cleverly structuring the privatisation, it avoids the provisions of section 11 of the Energy Services Corporation Act 1995.
This bill rectifies that error. It will ensure proper scrutiny of the power transactions. It will not stop the sell-off entirely unless this House and the Legislative Assembly say so, but it will ensure that the sell-off is not a fire sale. It will ensure that the terms, agreements and conditions are in the public domain so that there will be no surprises if the privatisation goes through. It will ensure that the public will have an opportunity to debate and have an input into the future of their electricity industry. It also will ensure that adequate scrutiny is brought to bear on a massive transaction that is being conducted behind closed doors by the Minister for Finance, Joe Tripodi. This is an important principle. These assets were paid for by the people of New South Wales, built by the working people of New South Wales, and maintained and run by the working people of New South Wales. No argument can be advanced that these assets belong to Joe Tripodi, Premier Rees or the Cabinet. They do not even belong to this Parliament. We hold them in trust for the next generation and we must do the best we can with them for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren. Privatisation is not satisfying that trust and fulfilling that responsibility.
In the mini-budget delivered on 11 November 2008, one line item that caused a great deal of grief for the Government was $239 million in accelerated land sales from public education holdings from both public schools and TAFE colleges. One-half of that money, approximately $120 million, was to provide new buildings and refurbished buildings in public schools and TAFE colleges. The other half was to go to general revenue. As the Director-General of the Department of Education and Training, Michael Coutts-Trotter, stated in a memorandum that was issued shortly after the mini-budget, the money was to go to support the salaries of nurses and police in this State.
In the Treasurer's second reading speech on the mini-budget, he identified both Seaforth TAFE and the Hurlstone Agricultural High School in Glenfield in south-western Sydney as target sites for the accelerated sale of land, although I think he acknowledged at that point that it would not be possible to raise all $240 million from the sale of just those two sites. The Hurlstone Agricultural High School fought back hard. Sheep grazier organisations and various other organisations, teachers, parents, particularly the students, the Teachers Union and the community are fighting the sale not only because they are concerned about the devastation in agricultural education in Sydney and in other parts of New South Wales, but also because of heritage, green space and equity reasons and for the support of agriculture within the Sydney Basin.
The overwhelming concern is for future public education as a well-resourced system that can stand proud in the education landscape. As part of the campaign to stop the sale of the Hurlstone Agricultural High School this House approved a call for papers. One of the papers that emerged was a Department of Education 17670 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
and Training memorandum that identified all public schools with a land-holding of more than six hectares and all public primary schools with a land-holding of more than three hectares as having surplus land. The exact term used was that the land was "surplus to requirements". That land would be deemed to be surplus. The Government was deeply embarrassed by the release of that memorandum. In July this year the Minister for Education and Training said that there would be no major land sell-offs. A media release dated 15 July 2009 states:
Ms Firth said there was no plan by the NSW Government to sell off large quantities of school land.
There is no pressure from Treasury to sell large quantities of school land.
It is impossible to understand what the Minister is talking about. There is a black ink line item in the mini-budget that states very clearly that the intention is to sell off $239 million worth of public education land. Somewhere between the Treasurer and the Minister for Education and Training there has been a substantial breakdown in communication. That created a lot of pain in the public education sector. Regardless of the details of the mess that the Government got itself into over its attempts to raise money off the back of public education lands, there can be no question that selling off public education land to raise revenue is a disaster for future generations—and even for the current generation. There is no question that there will be population increases in Australia. The question is: When we have more children, where will they go to school?
Balancing the budget's bottom line by selling off school land is simply a guaranteed method of impoverishing the future of public education. Once the land is sold it will be developed for strata title houses or units. It is a one-way street; there will be no returning to the large holdings of land that will be needed for public education. The Rees Government has in mind the irreversible run-down of public education land-holdings. There will be inevitable consequences of overcrowding in public school buildings and lands with public education becoming less desirable than education by the private school sector. It is very interesting to note that The King's School in Parramatta is situated on 40 hectares of land. The New South Wales Government is quite happy to give that school $1.4 million in recurrent funding without any requirement to sell off any of its 40 hectares, yet the Government is targeting public schools that have a land-holding of only six hectares. There is incredible inequity in the New South Wales Government's approach to public education.
The Government sees public education as a cash cow that can have funding cuts and land sell-offs inflicted while many private schools continue to receive massive amounts in subsidies and retain large areas of land. On top of that there is the economic insanity of selling off a capital asset to pay for running costs. I am often accused of preaching to this House about economics, but is it not absolutely a truism that selling off a capital asset to pay for running costs of any enterprise inevitably will be an unsustainable strategy that will result in running out of money in the long term? The Government is looking for $139 million from public education land. At least half of that amount will go into general revenue to pay for the salaries of nurses and police officers. For how long can that go on? What other assets will be sold in another three years time to continue to pay the salaries of important public sector workers? Members should make no mistake: the Greens support high salaries for public sector nurses and police, but selling off public sector land to pay those salaries is an unsustainable economic strategy that will impoverish the State in the long term. It will also deny us our duty to hand over the State to our children and grandchildren with as much wealth intact in the future, if not more, as when it was handed to us.
This bill recognises the challenges in demographic and urban geographical changes attaching to the management of schools. Certainly there may be some sites that the effluxion of time will render less suitable than when they were first purchased. This bill affords flexibility to the Department of Education and Training while insisting on maintaining the same total value of land-holdings within the public sector. Certainly it allows the department to sell land when a school site is no longer suitable, but with the big proviso that other land is purchased to compensate for the loss of that land. The idea is that there should be no net loss of land. When land is held against future increases in population, it should be leased to other non-educational purposes within the public sector. The Greens are not trying to tie the hands of the Department of Education and Training in managing its land-holdings to suit the educational needs it must meet. What we are trying to do is tie up the meat-cleaver approach of Treasury and prevent Treasury from chopping off the choice cuts of land-holdings from the public sector to convert them to cash in a fire sale. This is an important commitment to public education and to the future of the public sector.
Henry Parkes had a vision 129 years ago of comprehensive public education for all young people in New South Wales. As part of that he convinced his Treasurer and his Treasury to purchase land and begin a process that continued for approximately another 100 years whereby land was purchased across New South 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17671
Wales to create the great public school system that we have inherited. It is our honour and our duty to protect public education landholdings and to enhance them to ensure that in another 129 years there is still a fully functional, successful public education system sitting on a generous allocation of land so that young people can enjoy a free and secular education without being cramped into buildings that are too small on inadequate lands.
My colleague Ms Sylvia Hale will talk about the privatisation of prisons and the impact of this legislation on prisons. Suffice it to say that the Greens remain totally opposed to handing over prisons to the private sector for the reasons we have enunciated in this House, No doubt Ms Sylvia Hale will enunciate those reasons when she contributes to this debate. This legislation would stop the privatisation of prisons. My colleague Mr Ian Cohen will talk about the consequences of privatising travelling stock routes and the waste services network. He will explain how this bill will stop the privatisation of those important public sector activities. My colleague Ms Lee Rhiannon will talk about transport and ferries, and the impact of privatisation on them.
I refer to Pillar Administration, the superannuation services arm, and the consequences on the Illawarra, particularly in Wollongong, of privatisation of Pillar and the potential loss of up to 600 jobs, which will have devastating local economic consequences. That points to one key problem with privatisation: When a private sector owner takes over, the first thing they do is cut the workforce to push down costs and push up profits. There is no question that a privatised Pillar will see jobs slashed in the Illawarra, which already has high unemployment. It is simply irresponsible for the Government to privatise Pillar for the small handful of dollars it will receive and the large social costs it will incur.
It remains to be seen what else the New South Wales Government will put on the agenda, on the privatisation chopping block. It certainly remains to be seen what the Coalition will seek to privatise. This is not only about the immediate exigencies of a government strapped for cash and facing a difficult election seeking to sell off assets to fund a series of election promises. This is about all future governments. This is about ensuring that no future government can conduct privatisation behind doors. This is about ensuring that any government that wants to sell off an asset is forced to justify to the Parliament its exact plans and why those plans are in the best interests of New South Wales.
There are common principles across all privatisations. These are public assets; they belong to the people of New South Wales. They were built by, and are managed and maintained by working people in this State, and they were paid for by members of the community. They do not belong to the Treasurer, the Finance Minister, Cabinet or even the Parliament of New South Wales. We hold them in trust, and we must execute that trust with great caution. We must be mindful of what people expect us to do. We should be able to look the people of New South Wales in the eye and say, "We've done the right thing." At the moment we can hide behind Executive Government and say, "It's their problem, not ours."
This legislation will make privatisation firmly the provenance of Parliament. It will make it firmly our responsibility to ensure that assets in the public domain are looked after appropriately. All sell-offs have huge social and environmental consequences and result in job losses for public sector employees. Even when short-term protections are put in place, fewer employees in the long term can be guaranteed, with large-scale social consequences that can devastate the economy of rural and regional areas in New South Wales. It is important to put the check on all governments, to have a system of public sector regulation that ensures that public sector enterprises and activities are not sacrificed in a short-term dash for cash. In conclusion, I address the Labor members of this Chamber. I remind them of the pledge on their Labor membership cards and of what they have all signed off.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. It is not appropriate for the Dr John Kaye to speak on behalf of the Labor Party or any other party in this Parliament.
Dr JOHN KAYE: To the point of order: I am not speaking on behalf of—
The Hon. Rick Colless: You are verballing them.
Dr JOHN KAYE: I am sure Labor members can look after themselves. In the short time I have left I will talk about a public pledge that members of the Labor Party, which is in government, made.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! There is no point of order. Dr John Kaye has the call. 17672 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
Dr JOHN KAYE: The Labor Party membership card states:
I further pledge that I will actively support the Constitution, Platform and Principles of the Australian Labor Party including the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields …
If that pledge is to be anything other than hollow words, signed off in a desultory act of palming off the history of the Labor Party, Labor members must support this legislation.
The Hon. Michael Veitch: Point of order: I move that the membership card referred to by Dr John Kaye be tabled in the Parliament.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! Standing Order 56 applies to documents quoted by Ministers in debate. Therefore, the motion is out of order. However, Dr John Kaye may offer to table the information.
Dr John Kaye: To the point of order—
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! I have ruled on the point of order. The motion is out of order. However, Dr John Kaye may seek leave to table the information.
Dr JOHN KAYE: For the record, I have removed the personal identification on the card. The card belongs to someone who is no longer a member of the Labor Party.
The Hon. Rick Colless: You!
Dr JOHN KAYE: No, it does not belong to me. I have not removed the information on the front of the card; I have simply removed the information from the back of the card to avoid embarrassment.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! Are you seeking leave to table that document?
Dr JOHN KAYE: I seek leave to table the front of the document.
Leave granted.
Document tabled.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Rick Colless and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
PORT MACQUARIE BY-ELECTION RESULT
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [3.40 p.m.]: I move:
That this House notes the failure of The Nationals to win back the seat of Port Macquarie demonstrates that they are a spent political force in New South Wales.
I say from the outset that it gives me no great particular pleasure to move this motion. Nevertheless it is necessary for a host of reasons—not the least being that good government requires an effective Opposition. And in New South Wales, the junior member of the Opposition is simply not performing. The Nationals have had a number of name changes through the party's chequered career, but let us get one thing straight: The party bears no resemblance to the Country Party of old; not least because most of its members are not farmers and have no real connection to the agricultural sector in this State. Members of the Country Party were true country representatives, members of the landed gentry—they lived in the country, were involved in agricultural businesses, pretended to be part of the squattocracy and looked down on rural workers.
Not so the party that succeeded it. We now have The Nationals, a party of small business owners from the coastal strip and former public servants. People who claimed a connection to rural New South Wales now live in the inner city, sipping lattes and pretending to be relevant to the readers of the Land, subscriptions to which is the last vestige of the link for most of them to country New South Wales. On 2 April 2009 in the Land, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition actually admitted that he spends eight months a year in his Redfern home. 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17673
I do not have to provide the evidence: members of The Nationals have provided it themselves. What a difference a generation has made. How the fortunes of this party have declined as it becomes increasingly irrelevant. Who is it trying to appeal to these days? Is it coffee shop proprietors and small business owners on the coast or retirees living in the sun? It simply does not know and neither does anyone else. One thing is for sure, is does not appeal to women and young people in the electorate.
The party is now on its fourth name change. The party is rapidly increasing in irrelevance and speeding down the slippery slope to total insignificance. It is no secret that I have never held a deep affection for The Nationals. And these days I am definitely not alone. Many more members of the voting public in New South Wales are feeling exactly the same, and many of them live in the seat of Port Macquarie. Mr Rob Oakeshott is exhibit "A" in the spectacular decline of The Nationals' fortunes in Port Macquarie. As we all know, he is an intelligent, perceptive and hardworking local member. At one time he was also one of the great hopes for the future for The Nationals. After his election to the seat of Port Macquarie in November 1996 he went on to serve as the shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation, and Fisheries and Ports until 9 March 2002 when he jumped from the sinking ship of The Nationals and became an Independent. And before some of the bright sparks opposite make derogatory comments about him, let us hear what George Souris, the then Leader of the National Party, had to say in his press release of 9 March 2002. He very much regretted Mr Oakeshott's decision to leave the National Party and continue in politics as an Independent. He said:
Rob Oakeshott has been part of the youthful rebuilding of the National Party and, as Shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing, his future in the Party was bright. Rob has been a hard-working member of State Parliament and the people of Port Macquarie have shown their support for him. I wish Rob Oakeshott the very best for whichever path he choses for his future.
When he resigned, Rob Oakeshott took a shot, "There are too many Bob Jellys in the National Party", a hardly complimentary reference to the fictional mayor and developer in the television drama Sea Change. He did not name anyone, but deputy mayor and property developer, and former deputy chair of the National Party Port Macquarie Branch, David Morton, had no hesitation in putting up his hand. "He's talking about me and everybody knows it," he said. The people of Port Macquarie were very happy with Rob Oakeshott's decision to become an Independent, and at the subsequent State elections he got approximately 80 per cent of the vote. More than seven years ago, Rob Oakeshott came to the correct conclusion that The Nationals were a party in terminal decline. Just as, I might add, did Tony Windsor, Bob Katter, Peter McGauran and a rapidly growing number of The Nationals branch members. All those people were fully paid up, politically active members of The Nationals who left in absolute frustration because the party had become totally irrelevant to the political process. To demonstrate how out of touch The Nationals are, when Peter McGauran resigned, the State Director of the New South Wales Nationals, Scott McFarlane, stated, "The McGauran resignation has nothing to do with us."
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Point of order: I will assist the Hon. Amanda Fazio. I know it pains her, but I am hoping to assist her in getting her facts straight. Whoever wrote this speech is clearly wrong. The person she was referring to was Julian McGauran, not Peter McGauran.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! There is no point of order. However, the Hon. Amanda Fazio may listen to the information.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Quite frankly, I wish both McGaurans had resigned. Scott McFarlane stated, "The McGauran resignation has nothing to do with us." I think he should have thought about it and realised that it did have something to do with him. On 6 February 2006 the Sydney Morning Herald noted:
Some of the same trends which have lead to the identity crisis within the federal party are seemingly creating the same tensions within the State Nationals. Start with the statistics. According to Antony Green, the ABC's election analyst, the Nationals State lower House representation has fallen from a high of 19 seats in 1988 to 12.
Green points to Coffs Harbour to see what could be in store for The Nationals. When Matt Singleton retired in 1990, the Nationals lost 30% of their vote.
I note that The Nationals now have 13 members in the other place. It seems that on an almost daily basis The Nationals are rebuffed by the electorate at large. Then Mark Vaile, the former member for Lyne, decided that he could not continue to serve his electorate after being outed swanning around Dubai moonlighting as a consultant for Servcorp, a private firm. Rob Oakeshott announced that he intended to run for Lyne in the by-election and was approached by senior Liberal senator and power broker, Bill Heffernan, to stand as a joint Liberal-Nationals candidate. Andrew Stoner rejected this suggestion as "unhelpful". Well, we all know what happened next. Rob Oakeshott romped in the by-election and resoundingly defeated Robert Drew, The Nationals candidate. 17674 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
Following its loss in Lyne, The Nationals now hold only nine seats in the House of Representatives—a record low for the party. We then come to the by-election for the seat of Port Macquarie. I have been advised that the Hon. Melinda Pavey was the campaign manager for The National's by-election campaign. May I say, well done Melinda. What a sterling effort.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Point of order: I again very willingly assist the Hon. Amanda Fazio.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! The Hon. Melinda Pavey will state her point of order.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: That is the wrong information. Could she get her facts right? I was not the campaign manager. For the record it would be good for the Hon. Amanda Fazio to be accurate. I am just trying to help.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! There is no point of order.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I would have hoped that the sensitivities of The Nationals were a bit stronger than to try to waste my time with spurious non-points of order. The Nationals held very high hopes for the seat of Port Macquarie. In fact, one may go so far as to say the party was even cocky about its chances. It ran Leslie Williams who had been its candidate at the last general election, when she polled 21.8 per cent against Oakeshott's 78.2 per cent. Labor had no candidate, nor did the Liberal Party, and The Nationals ran a bevy of Independents, all to no avail. Peter Besseling, a former member of staff for Rob Oakeshott ran as an Independent. The National party said it was ready for the by-election fight. After its defeat in Lyne, Andrew Stoner was quoted as saying:
This by-election is going to be a tough fight for The Nationals and we are certainly taking nothing for granted. Certainly The Nationals, I think, have had their fingers burnt off the back of the federal by-election, what we are doing this time around is to build a grassroots community campaign.
The local community decided to stick with an Independent member, and Peter Besseling won the seat with 55.6 per cent of the vote compared with The Nationals 44.4 per cent. It was reported in the local media that The Nationals' grassroots campaign cost more than $250,000 in an attempt to break the Independent stronghold on the seat. No wonder the electorate rejected its grassroots local campaign—spending that much is a very lavish grassroots campaign. Electoral Funding Authority figures show that of its total spend of $258,494, The Nationals spent $132,800 in Queensland, $38,000 with local company Uptin Print and about $8,430 in newspaper advertising. When questioned why it spent so much money in Queensland, the State Director, Ben Franklin, tried to explain that its media buyer was Queensland based. This of course begs the question: Why could The Nationals not find a New South Wales company to fulfil this role?
Of course, as soon as the by-election loss was apparent, the Federal Liberal Party started talking about the need for a merger between the Liberal Party and The Nationals. The Federal Liberal Party was outraged that the State Executive of the New South Wales Liberal Party had, with the support of Barry O'Farrell, voted eight to four against contesting the seat. The Nationals had been allowed to stand without contest from its Coalition partner. Yet again it ran a dreadful campaign and lost another by-election. On 20 October 2008 the Sydney Morning Herald reported:
Tensions were exacerbated during the campaign when the NSW federal Liberal MP Alby Schultz travelled to the seat to support Mr Besseling against the Nationals' candidate Leslie Williams.
This caused The Nationals Senate leader, Barnaby Joyce, to complain to the Federal Coalition leader, Malcolm Turnbull. "He is campaigning in the electorate against a Coalition colleague, wearing T-shirts and handing out leaflets for the independent." Senator Joyce told the Herald several days before the election, "There have been heated discussions about it. If we did that the sky would fall in. Malcolm Turnbull says he wants unity but you can't have calls for unity then have a Liberal MP campaigning for independents against the Nationals. Mr Turnbull described the result as disappointing. "We would rather see The Nationals win a seat, particularly if there is no Liberal candidate" he said.
The NSW Liberal senator Bill Heffernan said it was time the parties merged. Modern communications and transport made obsolete the concept of separate parties for the cities and regions. The Liberals' Port Macquarie president, Ken Dodds, was so angry at the decision not to contest that he supported Mr Besseling.
Mr Schultz, who supports a merger, defended his actions last week. "The hypocrisy of the Nationals is breathtaking, " Mr Schultz said.
10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17675
Over the years on a regular basis we have had National Party candidates running against Liberal candidates and preferencing the ALP.
They are the worst perpetrators of opportunistic politics of any political party in Australia.
The NSW Nationals leader, Andrew Stoner, said the Liberal Party needed to control "some of the Nats haters in the Liberal Party" as it tried to repair the rift between the parties.
As to which party would stand in Port Macquarie in the future, "that will be worked out by the Coalition agreement", Mr O'Farrell, said. "We both can't run. That wouldn't work."
Finally, we hear a few words of common sense. The article continued:
And of course let's not forget Andrew Stoner's incredibly inappropriate comments at the press conference called by Barry O'Farrell on the Monday after the by-election.
Blaming Alby Schultz for his party's loss Stoner quipped:
I'd like to march him outside, blindfold him and shoot him.
This is from a man who wants to be the Deputy Premier of New South Wales! What an absolute disgrace. There is a very simple reason for the decline of The Nationals: Australia has moved into the twenty-first century: The Nationals have not. Just to prove my point, on 2 June the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner referred to the "Soviet-style administration of health by the States". I have some news for her and the rest of her colleagues: The Cold War is over. Stop living in the 1950s! The Nationals Coalition partner, the Liberal Party, is only too well aware that its political cousins have become nothing more than a quaint anachronism—a relic of our colonial past—cannon fodder to be trotted out at election time in the hope that a handful will make it out of the trenches and provide just enough numbers for the Liberals to form Government. Unfortunately for the Liberal Party that has become a very forlorn hope.
The Nationals now provide a capital M writ very, very large to the words "minority party" and the overwhelming majority of Australia's voting public, some 96 per cent or so at the last election, are continuing to guarantee that. I remember only too well during the Howard years, the sight of The Nationals popping up from behind the Liberal Party, cockily referring to the Greens as a minor party. It may come as a shock to The Nationals, blinkered as they are, not just to the needs of rural and regional families, but to political reality as well, that the Greens outpoll The Nationals roughly three to one. I confessed earlier to having no affection for The Nationals, and it would be fair for those opposite to express the view that one would expect nothing else from a member of the Labor Party.
So, let us look at how, relevant to today's world, others see The Nationals and in particular the ever-growing number who are deserting its ranks. When the member for Coffs Harbour speaks out publicly about factionalism in his party, as he did in February in the Land, you can be 100 per cent certain that The Nationals are in crisis. That is the same member who was dumped as Deputy Leader of The Nationals in the other place after the party's devastating loss in Port Macquarie. Andrew Fraser gave what the Land described as a candid interview, which ranged from rejecting allegations of drunkenness to his increasing isolation from other members of Parliament. He said that his party must deal with factionalism for the first time in its history.
Andrew Fraser pointed the finger at the Hon. Melinda Pavey, the Hon. Trevor Khan, the member for Murrumbidgee and the member for Barwon, calling them a strong clique that is not disciplined in party matters. The Nationals have been engulfed by a crisis of confidence brought about by an acute crisis of relevance. Remember, Andrew Fraser's electorate is almost next door to the seat of Port Macquarie. He has seen first-hand the indifference voters now openly show towards his party and without a doubt he is aware that it is spreading into his own electorate. How he is going to be controlled has been identified as a major challenge for the Opposition. In the Sun-Herald on 9 January it was stated:
There is no doubt dumped front benchers Andrew Fraser and John Turner can create headaches for Stoner, and for the broader Coalition, if the poison of their festering bitterness spreads.
Even Andrew Fraser has stated:
That is the trouble with the National Party at the moment … if they don't [change their mindset] the Nats will continue to decline.
It would be remiss of me, in any fair assessment of The Nationals, not to give some space to the views held by Alby Schultz. As honourable members would be aware, Mr Schultz is the Federal Liberal member for Hume 17676 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
and obviously, as all Nationals members of Parliament are aware, a member of the Coalition. I refer members to his article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 26 October 2008 in which he detailed a litany of National party failures: losing the Federal New South Wales seats of New England, Farrer, Page, Richmond and Lyne, and its failure to win the State seat of Port Macquarie. I have it on extremely good authority that despite assertions to the contrary, despite the New South Wales Leader of The Nationals very public wish to have Mr Schultz hauled out at dawn and shot, and despite saying that he had "slaughtered better animals" than Barnaby Joyce, he bears The Nationals no ill.
Liberal Party insiders inform me that Alby Schultz is not regarded as a malicious man but that his anger at The Nationals is driven by their increasing irrelevance to the community at large—an anger that boiled over a while ago when once again the Liberals squibbed on making a hard decision about three-cornered contests. Like many in the Liberal Party, Alby Schultz believes The Nationals are not pulling their weight either in the Coalition or out there in the community, and he at least has the courage of his convictions and is prepared to say it publicly. On 8 July 2005 he said:
The National Party is becoming irrelevant whether they like it or not.
On 20 October 2008 he said:
The hypocrisy of the Nationals is breathtaking.
On 21 October 2008 he said:
The Nationals are a spent force and should merge into the Liberals.
On 11 July 2005 he said:
The Nationals are an arrogant Party that forces its political will on rural Australians with grubby and dirty tactics.
Remember, they are the words of a member of the Liberal Party—The Nationals' Coalition partner. The problem for anyone in today's National party who may disagree with Alby Schultz is that four highly respected former leaders of The Nationals agree with him. Doug Anthony, Ian Sinclair, Peter Nixon and John Anderson have all called for The Nationals to merge with the Liberal Party for the simple reason outlined by Mr Anthony, who said:
It is better to merge than fade away.
There is only one reason that political parties fade away, and that is that they have nothing in common with the electorate. Just look at the Australian Democrats, or One Nation, or The Unity Party or The Better Future for our Children Party, or Reform the Legal System, or even the Outdoor Recreation Party. People on the opposite side of the Chamber may be in denial but the sad reality for anyone in that boat is that the four former leaders of the National party I just mentioned have got it dead right. That old blue cattle dog—once called the Country Party— that Bob Menzies got as a pup is pretty useless these days. He cannot muster stock and he has been biting the grandkids when they come to visit.
We all know that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. It is time The Nationals faced that reality. To those members of The Nationals opposite I say, "Your party is irrelevant and if you really want to do something for the bush, apply to join Country Labor". But I caution you, as I do everyone else who makes some sort of silly comment about joining the Labor Party or Country Labor, we have very stringent admissions policies and most of you would not meet the high standard required. It is best in the interests of the community, and best in the interests of politics in this State, if you would simply just fade away. I commend the motion to the House.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.56 p.m.]: I oppose the motion with great vigour, honesty and discretion, of course. It is disappointing that a member who is renowned for never doing anything positive in the House, a member who is renowned for opening the bucket and dropping the filth on anyone and everyone in the House, is the self-appointed defender of Country Labor in this place.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order—
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Oh, she is sensitive already. She can throw it, but she cannot take it.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: My point of order is that I went to the effort of placing a motion on the Notice Paper that allowed me to speak about my concerns with The Nationals. The Deputy Leader of the 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17677
Opposition has not placed a substantive motion on the Notice Paper to allow him to make a personal attack on me. If he wants to do so, he should put a motion on the Notice Paper along those lines, then it would be in order for him to speak along those lines. But, as he has not bothered to do that, I ask that he be reminded that he cannot make reflections on and imputations against me in the absence of a substantive motion on the Notice Paper.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! Items of private members' business do not allow for less than acceptable robust debate. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that if he wishes to malign another member, he must seek to do so by way of substantive motion.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Of course I will take your wise ruling into consideration, Madam Deputy-President. In her venomous attack, the Hon. Amanda Fazio forgot about anything of real substance concerning Port Macquarie. She made no mention of the highways, or of the fourth pod at the hospital. And, coincidentally, in a week in which a Minister had to resign and when a standover man connected with her party was killed, the Government decided to bring on this motion. This would have to be the greatest—
[Interruption]
Here he is: the Hon. Tony Catanzariti, the man from Griffith, the Underbelly of the Labor Party, flies in to continue the attack.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: The remarks the Hon. Duncan Gay made in relation to the Hon. Tony Catanzariti are offensive and outside standing orders and cannot be made without the moving of a substantive motion. I ask you to direct the Hon. Duncan Gay to withdraw the comments he made about the Hon. Tony Catanzariti—
The Hon. Rick Colless: You can dish it out but you can't take it.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: In response to the Hon. Rick Colless, my motion is about a political entity, not about individual members in this Chamber. If he cannot understand the difference, it is about time he wrapped his head around the standing orders. Madam Deputy President, I ask you to rule accordingly and ask the Hon. Duncan Gay to withdraw the outrageous allegation against the standing in the community of the Hon. Tony Catanzariti.
The Hon. Tony Catanzariti: To the point of order—
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: If the member finds it offensive, I withdraw it.
The Hon. Tony Catanzariti: Do I have the call?
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! The statement has been withdrawn.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It has been withdrawn, unless you want to take another point of order.
The Hon. Tony Catanzariti: No. I asked to speak on the point of order. I think I was before you.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! The Hon. Tony Catanzariti has the call.
The Hon. Tony Catanzariti: The Hon. Duncan Gay has offended me and I ask you to call on him to withdraw his remark. If he does not do so, would he prefer to say it outside this House?
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! The Hon. Duncan Gay has formally withdrawn the statement. The point of order is upheld.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: They do not like it. They can dish it out but they do not like to take it. Labor Party members have the biggest glass jaws in history. They bring on the filthiest motion in this session of Parliament to play politics on a day when we should be addressing issues of state, but when someone throws it back at them not one of them has the guts to take it. They are absolutely pathetic. 17678 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Christine Robertson): Order! The Hon. Duncan Gay will continue his speech without abusing and directly addressing members across the table.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Hon. Amanda Fazio has moved that this House note that the failure of The Nationals to win back the seat of Port Macquarie demonstrates that they are a spent political force in New South Wales. I move an amendment:
Omit all words after "this House" and insert instead:
(a) notes that on Saturday 18 October the Labor Party suffered the biggest by-election swing in the Party's history, and
(b) notes that Country Labor exists in name only, having failed to provide a candidate for the seat of Port Macquarie.
I now wish to speak about something positive, unlike this lot opposite. There is not one Country Labor member in this House, including the Hon. Tony Catanzariti. They claim to be Country Labor—
The Hon. Tony Catanzariti: That's a lie.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is not a lie. I will say that anywhere in the world. The Hon. Tony Catanzariti knows that when he signed the ticket to come into this Parliament he stood as an Australian Labor Party candidate, not as a Country Labor candidate. Wake up, look at your own rules and understand what you have not done. There is no Country Labor in this place. They not only do not exist, they are not proud of what they do and not one country-based Labor member in this Parliament has ever voted against the ALP. They have toadied along, toed the party line and gone along with the regime. They have talked a lot in the back rooms and they have back-briefed the press. They are very good at back-briefing: "This is what Country Labor members want; this is what Country Labor members are going to do." But not one of them, when it has come to the crunch, has voted against the ALP. They are world class wimps. They are totally irrelevant.
On the weekend that they are trying to pretend did not happen, because they have moved a motion against The Nationals, there was a swing of 20-odd per cent in our favour. In fact, Leslie Williams and The Nationals team in Port Macquarie achieved a swing of 23 per cent to her on our 2007 vote. There was a 10 per cent swing to Leslie and The Nationals in the Port Macquarie booths compared with the results of the Lyne by-election, which took place only a fortnight later. Leslie and The Nationals have lifted the primary vote since the 2007 election by 13 per cent, from 20 per cent to 33 per cent. Members opposite might well look glum. I know they do not like the truth and they do not like figures that show how bad they are. It should be noted, as I indicated earlier, that the Labor Party did not even run a candidate in Port Macquarie. Talk about gutsy! These heroes opposite come in here and move a motion against The Nationals. Test your arm. Have a go. Put your toe in the water and give us a Labor Party candidate. They have not done that. They are wimps. "You're gutless", they say in the bush when people will not have a go.
The Hon. Rick Colless: They're sooks.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: They are big sooks. They make a lot of noise but when it comes to putting the wheel to the road in the bush they are not worth a cracker. That is their problem. We are part of a happy Coalition in New South Wales, full of friendliness and brotherhood, unlike those on the other side. Our side just reeks of love! On the other side there is stony-faced silence, with knives, payback and chaos. It is pretty sad. What happened in Ryde? The swing in Cabramatta was 22 per cent. Where is Charlie Lynn, the hero of Cabramatta?
The Hon. Trevor Khan: Who was the member for Cabramatta?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yes, who was it? The Coalition ran in Cabramatta.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: It is typical of you, Duncan, you can't be bothered trying to defend a substantive issue and you bring forward an amendment that is all over the place.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The Hon. Amanda Fazio is absolutely delightful. That is why everyone in her party loves her as much as we do. It is the sweetness and light that comes from her, the joy—the fact that you can see she loves the people around her and loves everyone else in this Parliament! We accept that the Government has moved a political motion when it should be doing real things for the people of New South 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17679
Wales. We have no choice but to defend ourselves against it. Then we have the temerity to move an amendment to the motion! Oh, dear me, we have moved an amendment to her motion, and she is a bit of a sook. She is more than a little bit upset. I am being attacked because I dared to move an amendment and called her a sook.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: It is the same point of order that I raised before. If the Hon. Duncan Gay wants to attack me personally, he should make the effort to put a notice of motion to that effect on the Notice Paper rather than avoid the substantive issue of the motion that is on the Notice Paper. I ask you to remind him that he is out of order and that he should be speaking either to the motion I put on the Notice Paper or to his amendment, rather than continuing to denigrate me. It does not do him much good if he has no information to back up his arguments. I take offence at his continually calling me a sook because I am not a sook, as he well knows. I am quite prepared to take people on, but only if they do it within the standing orders.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order! I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that he should speak to the motion.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: If the Hon. Amanda Fazio is offended by the word "sook" I will refrain from calling her a sook. It is no coincidence that the Liberal-Nationals Coalition won the seat of Ryde, nearly won the seat of Cabramatta, and had a record swing in Port Macquarie.
The Hon. John Ajaka: We got a huge swing in Lakemba.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Of course. On average there was a swing of about 20 per cent to the Coalition that weekend. What would a 20 per cent swing to the Coalition mean to current members of the Labor Party? The New South Wales electoral pendulum reveals the impact of such a swing on the Labor Party. It would affect the electorates of Maitland, Newcastle and Miranda. Frank Terenzini in Maitland has a margin of 2 per cent; Jody McKay in Newcastle, the new hero of the Labor Party, would be affected, and Barry Collier in Miranda has a margin of 0.8 per cent.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Gone!
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: He would be gone. It would affect Geoff Corrigan in Camden and Verity Firth in Balmain. Phillip Costa in Wollondilly has a margin of 2.7 per cent. It would affect Allison Megarrity in Menai. If we had a 10 per cent swing—only half the swing that we saw that weekend—we would have the Ryde electorate, which we already have, John Aquilina's electorate of Riverstone; Palu-, what is her name, Paluz-zooroo in Penrith; Paul McLeay's electorate of Heathcote; Angela D'Amore's electorate of Drummoyne; Ms Carmel Tebbutt's electorate; and Paul Pearce's electorate of Coogee.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order—
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: You would be hard pressed to object to this!
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order!
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: I am not sure what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was up to at lunchtime, but he is making what I regard to be offensive and racist comments in pronouncing the surnames of members who do not have standard Anglo-Saxon surnames. I find that offensive and I think it is racist. He should be asked to refrain from that sort of behaviour in future. He is either being racist or stupid, and in either case both are offensive.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: To the point of order: I genuinely could not pronounce that name. I made a genuine attempt to do so. I had a glass of Zero Coca-Cola for lunch. It was pretty low of the Hon. Amanda Fazio to imply that I had been drinking. I can spell the name of the member for Penrith— P-A-L-U-Z-Z-A-N-O—but I am sorry, I just cannot pronounce it.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order! I do not uphold the point of order but I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to speak to the motion before the House.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: A swing of only 10 per cent will result in the demise of Angela D'Amore, Carmel Tebbutt, Paul Pearce, Matthew Morris, Alan Shearan, David Harris, Stephen Whan, Marie Andrews and Grant McBride. Members of the Labor Party are implying that The Nationals are having problems when the 17680 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
truth of the matter is that they have huge problems. The motion has been moved in an attempt to shift responsibility for this huge swing against the Labor Party. Like ostriches, members of the Labor Party are hiding their heads in the sand and pretending that they do not have a problem. When they have a problem they attack the people that they think are causing the problem. We are not the problem; members of the Labor Party are the problem. The Hon. Amanda Fazio might feel good about moving this silly motion in the House today—a motion that I amended to turn it back on her—but it is a silly motion and members of the Labor Party are very silly people.
The Hon. Tony Catanzariti: You are a racist!
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: If there were a 20 per cent swing against the Labor Party, Graham West in Campbelltown, Cherie Burton in Kogarah, Michael Daley in Maroubra, Sonia Hornery in Wallsend and Ninos K-H-O-S-H-A-B-A in Smithfield, would also be gone. Am I racist?
The Hon. Tony Catanzariti: Yes, you are.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: You are lovely.
The Hon. Tony Catanzariti: You should be ashamed.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: When Labor members do not have a real argument they call someone a racist.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order!
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is the lowest card.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition! I was calling the House to order. I remind all members that all interjections are disorderly and I also ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to direct his speech and his comments through the Chair.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Point of order: I take offence at being called a racist. I ask you to get that member to withdraw that comment.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order! There were interjections from all sides.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: He called me a racist. I clearly heard it.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Helen Westwood): Order! All interjections are disorderly. Please continue.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I will let him get away with it. Other Labor members who would be affected include Virginia Judge with a margin of 15.1 per cent and Premier Nathan Rees. Nathan Rees is gone anyway. Members opposite are doing the numbers on him. He is gone; he is history. Government members are quiet now but they know there will be carnage. Labor members cannot relate to people; all they can do is call people names and try to blame the Opposition. They have no affiliation with the people of New South Wales. They do not care about developing New South Wales, which is why we have these problems.
If Labor had a 20 per cent swing against it, Kevin Greene, Alan Ashton, Tanya Gadiel and Gerard Martin, the Bundy bear and hero of the Blue Mountains, would no longer be members of Parliament. Kerry Hickey, Matthew Brown and Andrew McDonald would be gone. Phil Koperberg will take himself out, as I am sure he is already fed up with this Government. David Borger, Diane Beamer and Robert Coombs would be gone. The last member to whom I wish to refer is Frank Sartor, the hero of the southern suburbs. Frank Sartor would be gone. I extol the virtues of my sensible amendment, which reflects what happened on the day of the by-election rather than the dream being portrayed by Labor members.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA [4.16 p.m.]: I oppose the motion moved by the Hon. Amanda Fazio and support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I had not intended to speak in debate on this motion, but with all due respect to the Hon. Amanda Fazio I could not believe what I was hearing. I will not 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17681
speak in this debate for too long, as I do not want to give the member's motion any credibility. The motion is nonsense and a waste of the time of the House. Much important work has to be undertaken by the House and many vital matters have to be dealt with, but we are wasting time debating this ridiculous motion. I had thought better of the Hon. Amanda Fazio, who should not have moved a motion such as this.
Other members have been criticised for wasting the time of the House with motions that have no effect, but this motion says absolutely nothing. There is no practical reason for this motion and it offers no benefits to the people of New South Wales. The Hon. Amanda Fazio said that The Nationals were a spent political force in New South Wales because of the election results in Port Macquarie. With all due respect, the Labor Party is a completely spent force. Look at the election results in Ryde, Cabramatta and Lakemba—Labor's electoral jewel—where there was a 13 per cent swing against Labor. If the Hon. Amanda Fazio is serious in accusing The Nationals of being a spent force, she should have a close look at those results.
If Labor members believe in this motion and are thinking of supporting it, I challenge them—as the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of The Nationals have done on many occasions—to call an early election. We will then establish which party is a spent force in this State. Call an early election. We do not need a 25 per cent swing, which is what we obtained in Ryde and in other electorates. We have important work to do. Some time ago I placed a motion on the Notice Paper—a motion that deals with the safety of schoolchildren and flashing lights that can save their lives—yet we are debating this motion. When will my motion be debated? When my term finishes in another 5½ years might I get a chance then? This motion is ridiculous. Why are we debating it? There is no reason to debate this motion. I ask all members not to vote for this motion and to seriously consider supporting the amendment of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. That is enough.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY [4.19 p.m.]: Is it any wonder so many people within our community have no respect for political parties when the political party in government in this State would use this Parliament's time in such a wasteful and pathetic manner? The motion moved by the Hon. Amanda Fazio is disappointing on so many levels. The people of Port Macquarie are concerned that their hospital is not servicing the community's needs. They are concerned about getting caught at the Wrights Road roundabout at the Oxley Highway extensions, which have gone on and on and now are five years over construction time frames. The community is concerned about real issues and also about the state of New South Wales. This motion is an absolute waste of the Parliament's time when genuine issues deserve to be heard on behalf of the people of Port Macquarie, the mid North Coast and the North Coast. That is why I support the sensible amendment of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, my Nationals leader.
The Labor Party was nowhere to be seen during the Port Macquarie by-election. I do not blame the people of Port Macquarie for voting as they did. I am not angry with them. But the people of Port Macquarie must be aware that not proposing a candidate at the Port Macquarie by-election was a clear and calculated plan by Labor to support an Independent, who just happened to be the godfather of a Federal Independent's children. Behind the scenes a tactical game is going on, which is not delivering the fourth pod at Port Macquarie Base Hospital. That is why the amended motion is far more sensible: it deals with the fact that the Labor Party is hiding from Port Macquarie. Labor Party members might visit, have a nice day at a local hotel, take a walk on the beach in the morning and have a walk through the hospital, but that is the extent of the Labor Party's connection with Port Macquarie. This motion is an absolute waste of the Parliament's time.
I acknowledge the 23.2 per cent swing to Leslie Williams, The Nationals candidate at that by-election. Leslie is a local nurse and also has been a teacher in the public education system. She is a real person from that community who has not given up the fight on their behalf. The Nationals is a proud party. It will learn the lessons and listen to the community. It has been around for 90 years. I assure the Hon. Amanda Fazio that she will not be around in another 90 years, nor will I, but I guarantee that a party representing regional New South Wales and regional Australia under the name The Nationals will be.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [4.22 p.m.]: I make some observations about the motion. Putting aside the issue of Port Macquarie, the motion of the Hon. Amanda Fazio seeks essentially to argue that The Nationals is a spent political force. The force of a party is measured in a variety of ways. Of course, it has been said often that The Nationals is the tail that wags the dog. Members have referred to Federal Liberal Party member Alby Schultz. One of his essential grievances concerns The Nationals being the tail that wags the Liberal Party. That indicates not a spent political force but, rather, a party that politically punches well above its weight. Another basis and no better demonstration of the great significance of The Nationals in the life of the present Australian political scene is its proposal for community preselection. This truly innovative proposal will provide for community participation in candidate preselection—something that can truly juxtapose Australian Labor Party candidate preselection—instead of candidates being parachuted in from afar. 17682 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
The involvement of a number of members in the other place in the Australian Labor Party or, indeed, in a particular region, is next to nothing, yet those members now sit in that other place because perhaps of how photogenic they look or some other trait that in some way made them suitable to stand as Labor Party candidates. What they did not have was a grassroots base. The Nationals proposal truly moves away from the city-centric and internal mass style preselection to enable the community to select their candidate for the party. The community preselection model will be trialled at the next State election whereby people not in any political party—in fact, they could be members of the Labor Party or the Greens—will have the right to vote for the candidate if they choose on the day set down for preselection to do so. All they have to do is meet the existing basic requirements, one of which is to not be a member of The Nationals. It is a truly innovative proposal. It is the sort of return to grassroots group politics that Australia has missed for so long. It is a return to the style of politics that allows people to become re-engaged with politics in Australia. Yet the Hon. Amanda Fazio says that The Nationals is the spent political force. The community preselection model demonstrates that, far from being a spent political force, The Nationals are leaders in innovative politics in Australia and New South Wales.
I conclude by making the observation that notice of the Hon. Amanda Fazio's motion was given on 21 October 2008, a mere two days following the by-elections in four New South Wales electorates. One might consider that a demonstration of Australian Labor Party politics at the time—panic that set in following its loss of Ryde and poor showings in the other by-elections. In a sense this motion was a defensive mechanism. What happened in October 2008 was that the primary vote of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales fell to something in the order of 29 per cent. Since that time the primary vote of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales has bobbed along at 29 per cent, 30 per cent and 31 per cent until today. The so-called great Australian Labor Party, the party that in New South Wales is supposed to be almost the default party of government, has now collapsed to the extent where its primary vote is 29 per cent, 30 per cent and 31 per cent.
Members opposite should be concerned about the position to which they have now sunk. They should be defensive in their tactics because come March 2011, or an earlier date if they so desire, the electors of New South Wales will hand out a truly magnificent spanking. We will see then who really is the spent political force in New South Wales.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [4.29 p.m.]: I briefly participate in debate to admonish the Hon. Amanda Fazio for moving the motion before the House. I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Duncan Gay. In the 2007 election I worked quite hard in the Murray-Darling electorate. I doorknocked in many places, including Broken Hill and towns in the Murray-Darling electorate, with The Nationals candidate, John Williams. The Nationals candidate subsequently won by achieving a swing of approximately 30 per cent against the sitting member, Peter Black. Against that background, how could anybody in his or her right mind possibly suggest that The Nationals are a spent force? The Nationals knocked off a Labor Party icon in an iconic Labor Party electorate centred on Broken Hill.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: It was the first time the Labor Party had lost it.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS: That was the first time ever that the Labor Party did not represent Broken Hill, and that defeat was achieved by The Nationals. In the light of that, I do not know how the Hon. Amanda Fazio could suggest that The Nationals are a spent force. I also doorknocked extensively during the by-election campaign for Port Macquarie. The outstanding feature of that by-election was that there was no Labor candidate. The Labor Party did not bother to nominate somebody to contest that by-election. How can the Hon. Amanda Fazio possibly suggest that The Nationals are a spent force when we achieved a 23 per cent swing and when the Labor Party failed even to offer a candidate in Port Macquarie?
The Nationals have suffered as a result of Independent members being elected under The Nationals ticket and then leaving the party. However, it is worth examining voting in electorates represented by Independents since that happened. The State electorate that is closest to my heart is Northern Tablelands. Traditionally the Federal electorate of New England and the State electorate of Northern Tablelands were represented by The Nationals. The Australian Labor Party used to poll between 45 per cent and 49 per cent of the vote and The Nationals polled between 51 to 55 per cent in those electorates. The Labor Party always found it very difficult to beat The Nationals, but the margin of victory was always narrow.
Guess what the results have been since the Independents became candidates for those seats? The polling is now between 30 per cent and 35 per cent for The Nationals, between 60 per cent and 65 per cent for the independents, and Labor's vote is approximately 5 per cent. Country Labor has lost 40 per cent of the vote in 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17683
those electorates. While The Nationals do not hold those electorates, we are still a much stronger force than is the Australian Labor Party. It is ridiculous to suggest that The Nationals are a spent force in New South Wales politics. I strongly support the amendment moved by the Hon. Duncan Gay and commend it to the House.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER [4.32 p.m.]: I support the amended version of the motion. I pay tribute to my friend and colleague Leslie Williams for the fantastic double-digit swing she attained in the Port Macquarie by-election. It is rather peculiar that the motion refers to that by-election given that she achieved such a fantastic result for The Nationals. I wish her every success in her future endeavours. I suppose in a general election the Labor Party will drag out a candidate for Port Macquarie in an attempt to gain some votes for the upper House, but that would be the only reason Labor would propose a candidate. Labor does not have any credibility in the Port Macquarie electorate. In fact, that is truly the case in the whole State.
The electorate at large is waiting to hit the Labor Party over the head with a baseball bat—or several millions of them—in the next general election. One can understand why Labor members move motions such as this: they want to fill up the Notice Paper to ensure that the agenda for public debate is balanced against newspaper and other media headlines relating to what is going on in New South Wales politics. The headlines are overflowing with references to the Labor Party. I cite these headlines as examples: "The ALP Left ready to fight—Costa"; "Meagher hits back at Roxon"; "It don't look good—Morris"; "Councillor's code for phone a friend"; "MP named in Wollongong probe"; "Former MP helped teen shoot heroin"; "Milton Orkopoulos found guilty of 28 out of 30 charges"; "Iemma tries to keep Cabinet in line"; "Iemma must show he's in charge"; "Matt Brown: just an astute investor—Iemma"; "Rebel MPs planning to oust Morris Iemma"; "Della Bosca faces fresh sacking push"; "Iemma tipped to boot Della Bosca"; "Sacked or pushed—Della Bosca quits", which was the first time that happened.
The headlines go on: "Coalition rescues Iemma"; "I drank nothing but mineral water—Della Bosca"; "Morris horribilis: Iemma looks stuffed"; "Warring Labor in danger of schism"; "Costa"—that is Michael Costa—"hits back at disgruntled Labor MPs"; "Plot to destroy Iemma"; "Unions NSW boss unaware of moves to destabilise Iemma"; "Power squabble: Iemma ruins Costa"; "Labor paralysed by conflict"; "Iemma says ALP campaign wants to unseat him"; "Rats in the rank: ALP in turmoil"; "Bruised Iemma calls for unity"; "Morris Iemma again faces open defiance as Labor implodes"; "Preferred leader Nathan Rees backs Morris Iemma"; "Labor told donations will fall if brawling continues"; "Unsworth moves to split Right"—that is Barrie Unsworth in a modern mode; "Keating and Carr asked to heal NSW Labor"; "Iemma's mentor joins the mutiny—Richo", which is a reference to Graham Richardson, who keeps cropping up everywhere; "MP Paul Gibson escapes expulsion from ALP over backing rival"; "Della Bosca not fit to return, say principals"; "Michael Costa calls Labor critics stupid"; "Sartor's development appeal kicks off"; "Iemma will still be the one, new aides say"; "The rot sets in early in the ranks of NSW Labor"; "Watkins departure shows Labor in disarray"; "Watkins overboard, Morris shuffling deckchairs"; "ALP crisis grows as Iemma deputy quits".
The Hon. Rick Colless: But there's more!
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Yes. Then "Michael Costa sacked in reshuffle"; "Labor in turmoil as Iemma dumps Michael Costa". It is sort of like today, but not.
The Hon. John Ajaka: Oh, you are talking about today?
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Yes.
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: It is like a re-run. It just gets better and better.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: It's like Groundhog Day.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: It is like Groundhog Day. The headlines go on: "Morris Iemma on the brink of political oblivion—Costa"; "Costa hits out after his sacking"; "Desperate stakes in NSW politics"; "Iemma's future in serious doubt"; "Premier dumped by faction—will resign today"; "Nathan Rees confirms he's the new Premier".
The Hon. Rick Colless: He had to tell himself.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Yes. The headlines go on: "Iemma comes to the end of a rocky road"; "Iemma resigns after faction blocks reshuffle plan". And then, "Here's my A-team, says Rees". 17684 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
The Hon. Rick Colless: How many are from the Left?
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Not many. They all have little circles on their pictures—gone, gone, gone.
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: It is Labor's Brady Bunch.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: Yes. Then there are these headlines: "Refreshed? Recycled? [No] Reality"; "Spectre of jailed minister back to haunt new Premier"; "Rees fails his first test as Premier". I know my Coalition colleagues will like this one: "Smaller Della Bosca has a big role".
The Hon. John Ajaka: We like them all.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: There is more: "Nathan Rees' Cabinet MPs well past their use-by date"; "Minister quits over sex antics". That was Matt Brown. "Underpants dance not befitting a Minister: Brown"; "Council polls send Labor a grim message"; "Rees admits blunder over Meagher resignation"—that was another Minister gone—"Labor Mayor linked to developers"; "Hay wins factional position in NSW ALP rounds"; "Obeid link to Offset Alpine in Wood murder trial told".
The Hon. Duncan Gay: No! Really?
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: That is the same Eddie Obeid.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Not Moses?
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: No, it is Eddie; he is the true stayer. The headlines continue: "Housing troubles for ALP"; "Tawdry affairs show NSW can handle its problems: Rees"—that was a previous tawdry affair; "Wollongong sex scandal damns State Labor"; "NSW: Head of Premier's Department leaves her post"—that was the last estimate hearing. Members can imagine what will arise next week. The list goes on: "Labor shaken by poll rort"; "Time for a cardigan revival as Rees retreads Unsworth's track"; "Minister accused of abusing female staffer"; "Rees refuses to back Stewart"; "Noreen Hay avoids embarrassing encounter with Matt Brown"; "I was offered a seat before murder, says Reba Meagher"; "Sacked Minister Tony Stewart receives star support"; "The people of NSW have spoken—sack yourself, Mr Rees"; "NSW has had a gutful of State Labor"; "Roozendaal? Try Confusedaal!"; "Time Rees did the right thing and sacked himself"; "Rees denies crisis of confidence"; "Rees faces revolt as MPs grow nervous over sacking and cuts"; "Tripodi maintains silence on meeting"; "Rees dashes major road plans as Opera House refurbished"; "Della Bosca denies leadership rumours"; "Deputy Premier says Rees' premiership is stable"; "NSW Rees says no plans to demote senior Ministers in reshuffle"—we are still waiting to see that; and "I'm not out for revenge, says Rees". That was before he locked Della Bosca out of his office. The headlines continue: "Premier polling to silence rivals"; "Keneally rules out tilt at Rees' job"; "I'll sack the campaign plotters, said Rees". And so it goes.
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: No, don't stop; keep going. There's more!
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: There is a lot more, but I think members get the message. To the people in the niche market who are watching this debate via the Internet, the people of New South Wales who are interested in New South Wales politics but who have been on another planet for some time—
The Hon. Charlie Lynn: Yes, a parallel universe.
The Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER: A parallel universe. I simply tell them that all the matters I have referred to are true and are still happening. It is like Groundhog Day. If The Nationals and our colleagues in the Liberal Party get a similar swing to those that were achieved in the Port Macquarie and Ryde by-elections, obviously the baseball bats will come out and the people of New South Wales—particularly those who sell baseball bats—will be the winners come March 2011, when this Government will get what those headlines suggest it deserves: a total drubbing. I hope that Leslie Williams will be elected as the member for Port Macquarie at that time.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [4.42 p.m.], in reply: As I said earlier, The Nationals should have seen the train wreck of the Port Macquarie by-election coming. Their fortunes have been in decline for a number of years. In 1995 the rot started to set in. They lost the seat of Tamworth when Tony Windsor, a former member of 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17685
The Nationals, stood as an Independent after he failed to win preselection for his party. The Nationals previously held the seat and the sitting member had retired. In 1999 The Nationals had a very bad year. Richard Torbay won the seat of Northern Tablelands as an Independent. The Nationals had held the seat from 1987 to 1999, when the sitting member retired. They also lost the seat of Dubbo after a stoush over Nationals preselection to replace the retiring member. Popular local mayor Tony McGrane won the seat by defeating the Nationals candidate by 14 votes.
Tony Windsor resigned from State Parliament to contest the Federal seat of New England in the 2001 Federal election, which he easily won from The Nationals Stuart St Clair. It should be noted that Stuart St Clair held the seat for only one term after the retirement of the long-serving Ian Sinclair. At the 2001 Tamworth by-election The Nationals John Cull won back the seat after the main Independent candidate, Mayor James Treloar, was unsuccessful. But we should note that The Nationals regained the seat only from 8 December 2001 to 21 March 2003. Perhaps the rejection by local voters of St Clair and Cull after such short periods in office says a lot about the quality of the candidates that The Nationals are foisting on country seats.
In the 2003 State election the Independent candidate Peter Draper was successful in defeating The Nationals in the seat of Tamworth. Rob Oakeshott also retained his seat of Port Macquarie with a massive increase in his vote. The voters rejected The Nationals candidate and endorsed Oakeshott's decision in March 2001 to resign from The Nationals and to sit as an Independent. In November 2004, after the tragic death of the member for Dubbo, the popular Tony McGrane, the electorate again rejected The Nationals. Independent Dawn Fardell won the by-election by 56 per cent to The Nationals' 44 per cent. I refer members to the Sydney Morning Herald article of 23 November 2004, which stated:
That Nationals had been confident of reclaiming the seat … but a loss in what should be a National heartland seat, the recriminations have begun. The Nationals Leader Andrew Stoner emailed his colleagues saying the Nationals had not lost the seat because they had not held it— that is pretty damn smart—
Some Opposition MPs were scathing.
"They ran a truly appalling campaign", one MP said … The Nationals put a big effort into the election, sending people in by bus to work on the booths. The Opposition leader, John Brogden, visited the seat twice."
What are the common denominators for these events? The Nationals should be wary of letting sitting members in the lower House retire because they usually lose their seats. They should be wary of high-profile Independents such as mayors and business people who are favoured by the electorate over the candidates put up by The Nationals. The Nationals should review the quality of their candidates, especially in the New England region where even the benefits of incumbency do not help them. Even The Nationals know that their candidates are not up to scratch. That is why they are committed to trying a United States primary-style election system. In January Peter van Onselen stated:
The proposed primary trial would be open to all voters in one state electorate about 12 months ahead of the 2011 NSW election. The seats likely to be considered for their trial are Dubbo, Tamworth and Port Macquarie. All are former Nationals strongholds now held by rural independents.
The Independents who have defeated The Nationals have been described as larger-than-life characters in their local areas—ex mayors, civic heroes and do-gooders. They are certainly not the sorts of candidates that The Nationals attract. These Independents believe that they have tapped into a deep well of disaffection in rural communities. The Nationals, being under the thumb of the Liberal Party, have not spoken up for rural communities. They toady along, following the lead set by their senior Opposition partners. And demographic changes are against them. Not only are The Nationals usually the losers when it comes time for redistributions— remember the abolition of the seat of Lachlan—they cannot even get the Coalition to have a united position when it comes to making submissions on redistributions. The Nationals were steaming about the proposal of the Liberals to amalgamate the Federal seats of Riverina, held by The Nationals, and Hume, held by the straight-talking Alby Schultz, who is a great friend of the Hon. Charlie Lynn. The sitting member for Riverina, The Nationals Kaye Hull, said:
The crux of the Liberal Party's suggestion to the AEC is that they are happy for regional NSW to lose another seat.
The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order—
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: That's pretty rich, considering that the Hon. Don Harwin was not here for the debate. 17686 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
The Hon. Don Harwin: I have been here for the entire debate. I understand that the right of reply is an opportunity for the member to reply to comments made in the debate by other members. I do not recall any other speaker in this debate raising either State or Federal redistributions, so I am not sure whether the Hon. Amanda Fazio's comments are in order.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Traditionally wide-ranging debate is encouraged in this place, and it is partly because of that tradition that very few debates are confined by time limitations, thus enabling members to speak as broadly as possible. However, the point taken by the Opposition Whip is valid. President Johnson ruled that when speaking in reply a member is entitled to reply to assertions that have been made by other members during debate. He ruled also that when speaking in reply, members should relate their remarks as far as possible to the debate that has already taken place. Accordingly, I ask Hon. Amanda Fazio, bearing in mind the wide-ranging nature of the debate, not to introduce new material in her speech in reply. However, the member is free to reply to assertions made by members in their contributions, whether implied or specific.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I will reply specifically to matters raised in this debate. Not one member of The Nationals said anything in support of his or her party. In fact, one member merely attempted to move an amendment to turn the whole issue around. All of their contributions, particularly that of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, were personal attacks, slanderous and vitriolic, against Government members. When claiming victory in Murray-Darling the Hon. Rick Colless failed to mention anything at all about the effect of the redistribution, which changed the seat from Labor-held to notionally The Nationals-held. I will refer to some of the personal vitriol and attacks against the Labor Party. The Hon. Jennifer Gardiner demonstrated her legendary skills in keeping dirt files—which shows why she has always held top spot on the ticket for The Nationals. She was quite happy to throw mud about the Milton Orkopoulos affair, but I think she was skating on very thin ice, given Orkopoulos very close personal friendship with a member of The Nationals in the other place. Of course, she chose not to talk about that.
In relation to the performance of members of The Nationals, which was raised by them during the debate, I will refer to some of the good newspaper headlines about The Nationals. The members representing the electorates of Myall Lakes and Clarence only bothered to speak 15 times in Parliament, and each of those speeches was calculated by the Sydney Morning Herald to cost approximately $11,000. In 2008 in the Legislative Assembly the member for Clarence was ejected for clowning around with a stuffed toy in the Legislative Assembly.
The Hon. Don Harwin: Point of order: Again I refer to my previous point of order on the issue of the right of reply. This is again substantially new material.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Yes, I understand the point being made by the Hon. Don Harwin.
The Hon. Don Harwin: Also, in contravention of Standing Order 91, the Hon. Amanda Fazio is reflecting on members without moving a substantive motion—which is exactly what she accused the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of doing earlier.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Amanda Fazio may continue her speech. The member was replying to assertions that had been made during this very broad, wide-ranging debate.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: In 2005 the member for Coffs Harbour physically attacked a Minister in the Chamber and last year pushed one of his female colleagues. On both occasions he denied being drunk.
The Hon. Greg Pearce: Point of order: Mr President, I do not think you ruled on the second part of the point of order made by the Hon. Don Harwin—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Yes, I did.
The Hon. Greg Pearce:—which related to casting aspersions on a member of the other House. I raise the same point of order again. The Hon. Amanda Fazio is casting aspersions on two members of the Legislative Assembly.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I am not casting aspersions: I am making statements of fact.
The Hon. Greg Pearce: Are you speaking to the point of order? 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17687
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: Yes. I was speaking to the point of order.
The Hon. Greg Pearce: The President might want to rule on it.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: No, a member is entitled to raise a point of order and other members are entitled to speak to the point of order, prior to the President giving a ruling. In doing so, I say that during the contribution of the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner a number of assertions were made about members of the other Chamber that were based on newspaper articles that are in the public domain, and for that reason I did not raise a point of order on her contribution. In my contribution prior to the point of order that was taken by the Hon. Greg Pearce I was talking about articles that had been reported in newspapers that reflected on behaviour of members of The Nationals, which I believe go directly to my motion. To argue against being allowed to raise these issues when The Nationals earlier used exactly the same arguments in debate is both hypocritical and inconsistent. I think that being able to raise in reply matters that were reported in the newspaper about the appalling behaviour of members of The Nationals is in order, given that that argument was put into the debate by the Hon. Jennifer Gardiner. Therefore, I ask Mr President, that you rule that the point of order of the Hon. Greg Pearce is not valid, and that my contribution was in order in this debate.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind all members that offensive words and all imputations of improper motives, and all personal reflections against members of either House are considered disorderly under Standing Order 91 (3).
Question—That the amendment of the Hon. Duncan Gay be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 16
Mr Ajaka Mr Gay Mrs Pavey Mr Clarke Mr Khan Mr Pearce Ms Cusack Mr Lynn Ms Ficarra Reverend Dr Moyes Tellers, Mr Gallacher Reverend Nile Mr Colless Miss Gardiner Ms Parker Mr Harwin
Noes, 21
Mr Catanzariti Mr Macdonald Ms Voltz Mr Cohen Mr Obeid Mr West Ms Fazio Ms Rhiannon Ms Westwood Ms Griffin Mr Robertson Ms Hale Ms Robertson Mr Hatzistergos Mr Roozendaal Tellers, Dr Kaye Ms Sharpe Mr Donnelly Mr Kelly Mr Tsang Mr Veitch
Pair
Mr Mason-Cox Mr Della Bosca
Question resolved in the negative.
Amendment of the Hon. Duncan Gay negatived.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 17
Mr Catanzariti Mr Obeid Ms Voltz Ms Fazio Mr Robertson Mr West Ms Griffin Ms Robertson Ms Westwood Mr Hatzistergos Mr Roozendaal Tellers, Mr Kelly Ms Sharpe Mr Donnelly Mr Macdonald Mr Tsang Mr Veitch 17688 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
Noes, 20
Mr Ajaka Mr Gay Ms Parker Mr Clarke Ms Hale Mrs Pavey Mr Cohen Dr Kaye Mr Pearce Ms Cusack Mr Khan Ms Rhiannon Ms Ficarra Mr Lynn Tellers, Mr Gallacher Reverend Dr Moyes Mr Colless Miss Gardiner Reverend Nile Mr Harwin
Pair
Mr Della Bosca Mr Mason-Cox
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. TONY KELLY (Minister for Police, Minister for Lands, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [5.07 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
WRITER PERSECUTION
Mr IAN COHEN [5.07 p.m.]: Recently I attended and participated in a number of events at the Byron Bay Writers Festival—an event that has grown in size and status on the cultural map of Australia since its beginning in 1997. Its continuing success demonstrates that culture and the arts are not confined to the metropolis and that the far North Coast of New South Wales both generates and attracts creative people and people who are interested in what creative people do. It is probably no secret that the North Coast also breeds, or is in the habitat of breeding, many specimens of that endangered species, the political activist. It was perhaps to help keep this colony alive that this year's writers festival sought to provoke the activists in the audience by drawing their attention to a very different literary world—that of the dissident writer.
Writers festivals can be quite glamorous events: authors on international festival circuits tour the globe, sign their books and attract the fawning attention of fans and the approbation of the local literati. Often they achieve celebrity status akin to film and television stars. The festival provided a powerful antidote to the celebrity writer syndrome. It introduced the audience to writers who were the polar opposite—writers who were being kept from public view. At each event, the name of a writer who was in detention was read out, along with the circumstances of their detention. The names of those writers were supplied to the festival by International PEN, an international organisation committed to freedom of expression both in Australia and in the rest of the world. It uses its influence on behalf of writers anywhere who are silenced by persecution, exile or imprisonment.
The International PEN case list from January to June 2009 records 644 cases of abuse of writers for that period. It details the imprisonment, assault and even killings of writers, journalists, and publishers in 98 countries. It includes details of 22 deaths directly attributable to the individual's work, or the detail of deaths that are suspicious. More than 200 writers and journalists are serving long sentences in contravention of their rights to freedom of expression and association. Those writers are far from the glare of fans and festivals, and are obscured from view because what they write makes politicians and people in power uncomfortable.
Maung Thura, also known as Zargana, is a leading Burmese comedian, poet and opposition activist. Last year he was arrested and sentenced to 35 years imprisonment for leading a private relief effort to deliver aid to victims of Cyclone Nargis, which struck on 2 May 2008. The Asian Human Rights Commission reported that Zargana had given interviews to overseas radio stations and other media about his work and the needs of the people, and that he had ridiculed State media reports about the effect of the cyclone. He is being held in the remote Myitkyina prison, in the northern state of Kachin.
Closer to home, Jose Antonio Belo, who is editor-in-chief of the weekly newspaper Tempo Semanal, is facing charges of criminal defamation after publishing in October 2008 an article on alleged corruption and nepotism. Under articles 310, 311 and 312 of the Indonesian Penal Code—parts of which are still in force in East Timor—Belo could face up to six years imprisonment if found guilty. 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17689
The Sydney Centre of International PEN is also deeply concerned by the recent arrest of Tibetan writer and editor Tashi Rabten. According to PEN's information, Tashi Rabten was arrested on 27 July 2009 and is being held without charge at a prison in Ruoergai, Sichuan province. International PEN's Writers in Prison Committee fears that Tashi Rabten may be held for his critical writings and his articles on the suppression of the March 2008 protests in Lhasa and surrounding regions. He is the editor of a banned literary magazine and author of a collection of political articles entitled Written in Blood. Tashi Rabten is also a student at the Northwest Minorities University in Lanzhou. He has been under surveillance for sometime and there are fears for his safety.
A journalist writing about the goings-on in this House or anywhere in this country can do so with few limitations on the right to freedom of expression—the freedom to express ideas without fear of attack, arrest or other persecution. This ideal has been at the heart of International PEN's work since it was formed in 1921. It now has 144 branches in 102 countries, including Australia. It has been argued that PEN helped to define the concept of freedom of expression that is now enshrined under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
I know that many journalists and writers in Australia support the work of PEN and advocate internationally for their detained or oppressed colleagues. We as politicians—even if we are sometimes loath to admit it—appreciate the importance of a free and unfettered media to the transparent operation of government. The important contribution of writers to a vibrant cultural and political life in the regions is evidenced by the great support of events such as the Byron Bay Writers Festival. The festival drew the attention of many hundreds of people to PEN and the dire situation of writers who are trying to change or develop civil society in their own countries. I urge members of this House to support the mission of PEN for human rights and freedom of speech for writers everywhere.
PROBLEM GAMBLING
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [5.12 p.m.]: Few in this Chamber would fail to recognise the prevalence of problem gambling. Poker machines turn over approximately $4.6 billion per year in New South Wales. In 1999 the Productivity Commission delivered a report finding that 2.55 per cent of the adult population had a serious problem with gambling. New South Wales now uses the Canadian Problem Gambling Index to measure the number of problem gamblers in New South Wales. This is the benchmark by which we can measure ourselves against other States.
This survey found that 0.8 per cent of the population are problem gamblers and about 1.6 per cent are at high risk of becoming problem gamblers. That means that they can probably pay their rent this week but may not be able to pay it next week. They are high-risk gamblers and their behaviour has a tremendous impact on their families and the community around them. This 2.4 per cent of the adult population is and must be a serious concern for any Government. That 2.4 per cent means that at any time around this State approximately 137,000 people are either problem gamblers or at high risk of becoming problem gamblers. Once low-risk gamblers are taken out, that significant part of the community that buys lottery tickets, the figures are of even greater concern.
In July 2003 a report for the Casino Community Benefit Fund, which can be found on the Department of Gaming and Racing website, noted that the estimated 71,708 problem gamblers in New South Wales lost on average more than $27,000 each and created an additional community cost of $7,700 each, or $576 million in the State. Even with the benefits delivered by the 35,000 jobs in the gambling industry these social costs are a considerable concern, particularly when high-risk figures are taken into consideration.
Over four years the Government will spend $44 million funding 49 problem gambling counselling and support services operating from more than 200 locations across New South Wales. The New South Wales Government will also spend $6 million over the next three years on eight specialist problem gambling counselling and support services. Six of these services will support ethnic communities to ensure that those from non-English speaking backgrounds can access help for gambling problems from people who are familiar not only with their language but also with their culture and customs. The remaining two services will provide training and legal advice to counsellors working at all New South Wales Government-funded problem gambling services across the State.
It is important to remember the impact gambling has on our community. The top 25 gaming pubs raked in nearly $150 million in revenue with all but two being in Sydney's west and south-west. It is important for members to remember that poker machines are amongst the most addictive forms of gambling as they give an immediate sense of gratification. It is imperative for Governments to reduce the impact of gaming machines as much as possible. 17690 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
The Gaming Machines Amendment Bill will reduce the statewide gaming machine cap by 5,000—from 104,000 to 99,000. This means that 5,000 fewer gaming machine entitlements will be available for hotels and clubs to operate than there were six years ago. The Act provides that the cap will be further reduced at least once every five years. The Government is committed to an ongoing reduction in gaming machine numbers in New South Wales. It is important that the Government continue to work to reduce the number of gaming machines to reduce the impact of problem gambling on the people of New South Wales, particularly those who can least afford it.
PERPETUAL LEASE PURCHASE
The Hon. GREG PEARCE [5.16 p.m.]: The people and the economy of New South Wales are suffering not only because of the incompetence of this Labor Government but because Ministers are distracted by Labor's internal wrangling, corruption allegations and dubious associations. The issues cover the gamut of government services. One example of this, surprisingly, is the Department of Lands. At a time of crisis in home affordability and rentals, the Department of Lands is being mismanaged and allowed to waste significant amounts of taxpayers' money.
Today in question time I raised the issue of a perpetual lease application that had been mismanaged by the Minister and the department. I do not normally raise individual cases because I do not believe that the role of Ministers and members of the Government and Opposition is to deal with those sorts of cases. Rather, the role of the Minister is to set policy and ensure that a department carries out that policy and is properly managed. In the case of the perpetual lease there were clearly administrative errors. Indeed, the Minister in his correspondence and the department in its correspondence have pointed out the significant and duplicated administrative errors made by the department in dealing with this important lease application. The Minister has been involved in this matter since at least 29 August 2003, when he issued a press release in relation to his proposed Crown lands tenure review and the various conditions and proposals that would flow from it. The case in question involved a significant amount of money. On 21 June 2005 the department wrote to the person in question and said:
The Department has considered your request and has determined that Perpetual Lease … can be purchased under the provisions of Schedule 7A of the Crown Lands Legislation Amendment (Budget) Act 2004.
Action has now commenced to refund part of the purchase price. A time frame for the refund cannot be given at this time, as this Office understands the refund will be paid by Treasury.
This was a matter of great significance to the people involved because a very significant amount of money was at stake. One would have thought they were entitled to expect the department was administering its processes properly. When the department reviewed its practices and the internal audit section looked at the issue it came to a conclusion and at a meeting of a number of departmental officers on 12 July 2005 said, "The decision to refund was made on procedural fairness." In other words, departmental officers admitted that there had been no procedural fairness in this matter.
This is not the only issue of concern in relation to the Department of Lands. Last week I asked the Minister about blow-outs in IT projects in the Department of Lands. He did not know the answer on the day I asked the question so he took it on notice. The next day he told me there were no blow-outs. The fact is there are cost blow-outs on seven projects alone of $7.15 million, or 53 per cent of the total original estimated cost of these projects. The projected completion dates for the same projects have also blown out by eight years. As the Minister does not seem to know, and the department does not seem to have advised him, I can point to some of these projects.
The completion of the IT human resources upgrade has blown out by a year. There is a cost blow-out in the Government property interests IT system. It was supposed to cost $2 million and is now to cost $3.171 million. That is a blow-out of more than $1 million, or 50 per cent. The imagery and mapping online service has had a one-year blow-out plus a $251,000 cost blow-out, or 25 per cent. The National Electronic Conveyancing System has had a one-year, $448,000 blow-out. The survey infrastructure project has had a three-year blow-out and a cost blow-out of $4 million. In fact, the blow-out is greater than the original project cost of $3 million. I could go on naming these projects but I hope the Minister will take note of this speech, focus on what he should be doing and ensure that the department is proceeding according to the rules he should be setting. He should also make sure that the department does not waste taxpayers' money as a result of his distraction. 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17691
WILDLIFE DESTRUCTION PERMITS
Ms LEE RHIANNON [5.21 p.m.]: At a recent public meeting in Wahroonga and on ABC Radio, Shooters Party member Mr Robert Brown explained that the recreational shooting of native water birds continues to take place under the present destruction permit system. This has occurred since 1995 when recreational duck shooting was banned in New South Wales. This is a damning admission considering the fact that Mr Brown wants the Game Council to be fully responsible for regulating wildlife destruction permits. Laurie Levy, Campaign Director of the Coalition Against Duck Shooting, informed me that a senior wildlife officer from the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment told him he believed that more native water birds were being shot in New South Wales for recreational purposes under the wildlife destruction permit system than were shot during past New South Wales recreational duck shooting seasons.
The wildlife destruction permit system allows recreational shooters to have their duck shooting seasons away from public scrutiny and without any supervision by wildlife officers, police, the RSPCA, or the media. To safeguard native wildlife it is essential that the Game Council of New South Wales does not gain control of the permit system. The intention of a wildlife destruction permit is not to destroy waterbirds and other wildlife; it should be about resolving the situation with non-lethal methods. The system should operate in this way. When a landowner applies for a permit, wildlife officers should first visit the property and determine the relevance of the application. The role of wildlife officers should be to assess the situation, recommend non-lethal methods as a first option, and instruct landowners on how to live with native wildlife.
The moment recreational shooters are involved the destruction permit becomes a bag limit for hunters, yet it may be totally unnecessary to shoot the quota on the permit. Firing close by without making contact with the wildlife usually will achieve the desired result. Using recreational hunters stifles any new humane, non-lethal options for dealing with the problem. Mr Levy told me about the case of a Victorian farmer with a property close to a Ramsar wetland. Last year he was issued with a permit over the phone to shoot swans. When the local community vented its outrage the relevant department sent wildlife officers to the property to investigate and recommended the use of non-lethal options that successfully solved the problem. With a little initiative both the needs of the farmer and the swans were accommodated.
The present permit system allows recreational shooters to ask their farmer mates to apply for destruction permits so that they can have a recreational shoot, even if wildlife is not causing the landowner problems. In 2007, when the Victorian Government called a moratorium due to low bird numbers, the editor of Feathers and Fur, the magazine of Field and Game Australia, suggested that its members contact their mates on the land and ask them to apply for permits to shoot wood ducks. That meant they could still have a duck season through the back door. That shows how easy it is for the wildlife destruction permit system to be abused and corrupted. The Coalition Against Duck Shooting was able to stop the proposed illegal shoot of Field and Game Australia after receiving a copy of its magazine and informing the Department of Sustainability and Environment of its illegal scheme.
Duck shooting on New South Wales rice fields has always been considered by Victorian hunters as a recreational shoot under the guise of a destruction permit. Because this system had operated for a long time, it became accepted as normal and was never seriously questioned by the relevant authorities. CSIRO research going back to the 1930s shows that waterbirds were never a major problem on rice fields, but instead their presence can help to remove real pests such as blood worms and invertebrates. With shooting on the rice fields all but over because of irrigation and climate change, and southern New South Wales and Victoria drying out, it is obvious that recreational shooters will be looking to other landowners to accommodate their recreational activities.
Adding to all this, the New South Wales Government must now take into account that over the past 25 years waterbird numbers have declined by an overwhelming 82 per cent across eastern Australia—according to Professor Richard Kingsford of the University of New South Wales. With climate change and global warming, waterbird numbers will only decline further in the years to come. Another aspect to consider is the high wounding rates associated with the shooting of native birds. The New South Wales Government's Animal Welfare Advisory Committee first recommended a ban on the recreational shooting of native birds in 1988 because of the cruelty and high wounding rates. It took until 1995 before the activity was finally banned for those very reasons.
Experience over the past 25 years has shown that waterbird welfare cannot be left in the hands of recreational shooters. The New South Wales Government is on notice. The New South Wales Game Council 17692 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
must not be allowed to take control of native wildlife and an urgent review into the present New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service destruction permit system must be conducted immediately. The Premier must ensure that that occurs. We do not have confidence in Primary Industries Minister Ian Macdonald to be objective about this matter.
BANKSTOWN BITES FESTIVAL
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [5.26 p.m.]: I inform the House about Bankstown Bites, which is more than a food festival. On Saturday 25 July this year I had the delicious experience of participating in the food festival. The city of Bankstown is a living and breathing example of Australia's immigration policy. Since 1797, when Governor Hunter named the area in honour of Sir Joseph Banks, through until today Bankstown has been welcoming migrants and refugees and offering them a new home in Australia. Currently, more than 182,000 people live in the Bankstown local government area, and more than 60 different languages are spoken in the area. Bankstown has a high percentage of children, with 26.3 per cent of its population aged 17 and under, which is 3 per cent higher than the Sydney average, and at the other extreme 8.8 per cent aged over 70, which is 1.5 per cent higher than the Sydney average.
How does a community representing people from all corners of the world—young people, older people and families—find common ground? What do they have in common? What activities do they all enjoy? What would Bankstown have to offer that would encourage Sydneysiders to make the trip to Bankstown? The answer, in a word, is food. Now in its fifth year, Bankstown City Council's Bankstown Bites food festival has become one of the most popular festivals in Sydney and has secured its place on the food calendar. The festival was developed with the aim of encouraging residents to celebrate their similarities—in this case food—as too often multicultural communities rely only on observing the differences. By showcasing the culinary delights that each culture has brought to the city, the Bankstown community now proudly promotes itself as an exciting foodies paradise.
Bankstown Bites is one of Sydney's most authentic and diverse food festivals through its focus on a blending of Asian, European and Middle Eastern cuisines. More than 35,000 Sydneysiders came to Bankstown this year to enjoy cooking demonstrations, food craft and the popular mini food tours, which showcased the central business district's 330 food retailers. Seven themed tours cover the "what" of grocery buying through to the "how" of spice selection, as well as cooking and sweets. The success of these mini tours led to Bankstown being a grant recipient in this year's Sydney International Food Festival in October when Bankstown council will, for the first time, run commercial Asian explorer tours and a progressive dinner entitled "Around the World on a Plate". Each course will feature foods from a different culture based in the Bankstown central business district. A self-guided food map has also been produced so that people can take a mini tour at their leisure.
Bankstown Bites includes elaborate cooking demonstrations. This year the popularity of the four cooking demonstrations led to a sponsorship arrangement with UBI World TV, which ran a 30-minute program in Arabic using footage filmed on the day. The diversity of the community and the size of the crowd that attended this festival also attracted many other sponsors, including Bankstown Sports Club, which provides its sous chef as one of the demonstrators. On the day I had an opportunity to witness his demonstrations, which were so popular and well attended it was hard to find a spot to watch him. The Cumberland newspaper is also a sponsor as are the Express and Lebara Mobile Phones. Demand for recipes produced on the day and more details on the places visited on the tours have led to the creation of a dedicated website, which can be found at www.bankstownbites.com.au.
Between cooking sessions, local performers entertained and added to the colour of the day. Those performers were also from within the local area. Food is the theme and all the stores must reflect that fact. One of the local youth programs in Bankstown joined the festival for the first time this year, running a cake decorating competition where young people partnered with police officers to produce the best looking cake. Another new feature was a fully functioning eco-garden along with a worm farm to show how easy it is to grow one's own vegetables on a small amount of land or in a tub in a water-efficient way. Stemming from this festival the Benevolent Society recently asked Bankstown council to partner it in its western Sydney community garden campaign and a master chef-style cook-off.
Bankstown council is investigating a coffee and wine Twilight Bites festival to be held in another of its vibrant town centres next May. What started as a simple harmony project for Bankstown residents developed into a new and positive image for that city. Bankstown is used to getting more than its fair share of attention but too frequently for the wrong reasons. Its new status as a food landmark is bringing revenue, life and 10 September 2009 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17693
acknowledgement to the old city plaza area as a unique culinary corner of south-west Sydney. It is also resulting in positive media coverage with a new generation of Sydneysiders keen to experience something a little different. Most importantly, it has generated a sense of pride in the community as well as successfully generating genuine harmony.
AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [5.31 p.m.]: On 26 August I visited the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation [ANSTO] at Lucas Heights to attend a Women in Nuclear Breakfast and hear an inspirational address delivered by Ms Christine McLoughlin, a most eminent Australian with experience at the highest levels of industry and a former Telstra Businesswoman of the Year. Ms McLoughlin was appointed to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation board in March this year. She was the special guest at an event to relaunch Women in Nuclear, which is a special group of women who have extraordinary intellectual gifts, a passion for science and service, and a great pride in their work and colleagues. Women in Nuclear was founded in 1993 by a group of women wanting to promote awareness of peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Today it supports women working in nuclear and radiation industries around the world. Women in Nuclear has many outstanding scientists, foremost of course being Madame Marie Curie, who received two Nobel prizes and is one of only two people to receive that prize in different fields. She is an inspiration for all scientists in nuclear fields, but particularly for the thousands of gifted young women around the world whose quiet and under-recognised labour is saving lives and breaking new ground in all fields of study, especially the environment.
Globally, Women in Nuclear has 2,500 members in 68 countries. In Australia the focus for the group is at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. I was pleased to attend the launch of Women in Nuclear and to see their new logo, which is a fabulous image of an atom containing the Southern Cross. We can take enormous pride in the outstanding achievements of our Australian women scientists. This was my second visit to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation this year. It is a facility I would gladly return to many times as its work is complex and hugely significant. As legislators we need to try harder to interface with science to inform our policies and better direct our use of scarce public resources. Working at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation are 950 scientists and engineers with PhD qualifications, and hundreds more are employed in services such as security to support the facility. What an extraordinary resource.
The facility is recognised internationally for its research capabilities. It is a key player in United Nations missions such as monitoring other nuclear facilities and detecting breaches of international conventions designed to preserve global security. Nobody should underestimate the seriousness and significance of its work and the role it plays in preserving world peace. During both visits I attended the Institute for Environmental Research to try to gain an appreciation of its capabilities and applications to benefit our natural environment. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation's work is instrumental in understanding Australia's climate, its history and the advance of climate change. Radiocarbon in tree rings and corals helps our understanding of abrupt changes, changes in ocean currents and atmospheric transport. Radiocarbon analysis of polar ice sheet air bubbles is establishing accurate histories of carbonaceous greenhouse gases.
At the institute I met young women scientists engaged in studying water. One had discovered that some of the groundwater we use for irrigation is more than 30,000 years old. Using dating and trace techniques the scientists are able to measure supply and recharge abilities. Another scientist studied water storage along the Murray River and is able to assess accurately how best to maximise the supply of water. Study of the movement of water in and out of the river, whether through surface diversion or natural underground aquifers, is all within the capability of these scientists, subject to resources needed to monitor or capture data. Sadly, because there is so little funding for this crucial work, these scientists are clever at piggybacking their research off other projects so that they can harvest valuable data at low cost. While I admire their passion and the results they are achieving, clearly we are desperately short on research funding and are failing to maximise use of the capabilities and expertise on offer at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation.
Other amazing works include studying the use of plants to sequester dangerous contaminants in soil. How smart is that? The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation studies the movement of dust. Australia is the greatest source of dust in the Southern Hemisphere. All air quality monitoring for New South Wales is conducted through the resources of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. I was dismayed by the paucity of air monitoring stations and will pursue this issue later with the Minister. In 17694 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 10 September 2009
2009 we appear to have fewer stations than when the Coalition left office in 1995. If this is so, it is a dreadful indictment of the Environment Protection Authority, and if the Coalition is successful at the next State election, we will have to urgently rectify the research deficit.
I thank Dr Adi Paterson, Chief Executive Officer at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. He is providing focused and charismatic leadership, including initiatives to promote women and youth. Professor John Dodson and his team at the Environmental Research Institute are an inspiration. I thank them for their patience in answering numerous questions and for a positive presentation of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation's capabilities. I am grateful to Andrew Humpherson, who, as General Manager of Government and Public Affairs, proposed and organised the visit. I thank particularly Karyn Laxale, who invited me to the Women in Nuclear launch and guided my visit. The work being undertaken at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation is essential to the future of our environment. The passion, expertise and ingenuity of these outstanding scientists should be recognised and celebrated. It was both exhilarating and humbling to spend time at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. Again, I thank Adi and his team.
CASULA RAIL NOISE NUISANCE
Ms SYLVIA HALE [5.36 p.m.]: A matter raised in the other place and in this House, and which has been the subject of petitions, is the construction of the new freight line that will link Macarthur and Sefton. The line will carry about 1,000 train movements per month, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Whilst the Greens support freight lines, this development is appalling for Casula residents whose homes are immediately adjacent to the rail line. When the freight line opens in January 2010 those residents will be exposed to noise in excess of 90 to 95 decibels. The World Health Organization states that 30 decibels will result in sleep disturbance and that 70 decibels will cause hearing impairment. These residents are exposed to excessive noise levels already, but the opening of the freight line will increase the frequency of those noise levels extraordinarily.
The residents do not oppose the freight line but they want freight noise barriers to be erected to protect them from some of the worst effects. Herein lies the problem: The State Government, which controls the corridor and has allowed the Australian Rail Track Corporation [ARTC] to build the freight line, refuses to erect noise barriers, and so too does the Australian Rail Track Corporation. The residents are the meat in the sandwich.
[Time for debate expired.]
Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.37 p.m. until Tuesday 22 September 2009 at 2.30 p.m.
______