5493
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Thursday 26 September 2002 ______
Mr Speaker (The Hon. John Henry Murray) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.
Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.
RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENCE (IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL LIABILITY) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.05 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Right to Self-defence (Immunity from Civil Liability) Bill will ensure that people who exercise their right to self-defence cannot thereafter be subject to legal action in the civil courts for damages. The bill is a simple bill. Clause 1 sets out the short title. Clause 2 provides for the commencement of the proposed Act on the date of assent. It further provides that the bill is not to be retrospective. It will not, therefore, apply to conduct carried out before the commencement of the Act. Clause 4 sets out the requirements for self-defence before immunity from civil liability is made good. Clause 4 spells out what constitutes self-defence for the purposes of the Act. Clause 4 states:
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary:
(a) to defend himself or herself or another person, or
(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful imprisonment of himself or herself or another person, or
(c) to prevent property from unlawful appropriation, destruction, damage or interference, or
(d) to prevent criminal trespass, or
(e) to remove from any land or premises a person who is committing a criminal trespass
and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them.
The clause further states:
(2) Conduct is not excluded from being self-defence merely because the person:
(a) in defending himself or herself or another person, or
(b) in preventing or terminating the unlawful imprisonment of himself or herself or another person used a higher level of force than that used by the person against whom the conduct in self-defence is carried out
The bill originates from an earlier bill that I presented to Parliament in 2001: the Right to Self-defence Bill. That bill contained a clause similar to clause 3 in this bill. The Government did not support my original bill. The Attorney General disparaged the bill. The Government opposed the bill and then it simply proceeded to introduce its own legislation, which was the same as my bill. I regard that as a genuine form of flattery. I was thrilled to see my idea taken up by the Government, which is bereft of any ideas or initiatives in these important areas of law reform. Nonetheless it reflected the cynicism of the Carr Government in relation to this whole issue of self-defence.
Significantly, at the time the Attorney General said that there was no need for this clause. The Attorney General disparaged this clause and said a number of things about it. In September, almost exactly one year ago, before the whole public liability crisis, the Government was quite cavalier in its attitude. When the public liability crisis arose, the Government got excited and its attitude was to change very quickly. In debate in September 2001 the Attorney General said: 5494 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002
The amendment cannot be supported by the Government. It should not be an amendment to the Crimes Act but more properly should be separate legislation dealing only with the subject of civil liability.
The Government now has a bill dealing only with the subject of civil liability. The Government now has before the Parliament its own civil liability legislation which is designed to exclude criminals and drunks from claiming, but it does not guarantee to any person the right to immunity from action arising from the exercise of self-defence. While the Government purports to address this whole issue of how criminals are using civil liability claims to advance their case, it still has not addressed this issue in its legislation. It will probably realise, once again, that the Opposition has come up with appropriate ideas and it will probably steal them. This is an opportunity for the Government to take this legislation on board and support it now.
At the time the Attorney General admitted that it was not a bad concept, but he then went on to say that it could lead to absurd and unjust results. The difficulty for the Attorney General was that he could not find an appropriate example of how my bill, which states that people defending themselves in accordance with the law cannot be sued, could lead to an unjust or unfair result. He had to resort to the most far-fetched and extreme cases to illustrate a point that was badly made. Last year the Government had the opportunity to close the loophole, but it missed that opportunity and is now being forced by the insurance crisis, which has arisen since, to address the whole issue of who can sue and in what circumstances. The Government has still not closed this loophole in the law.
The Liberal Party and National Party are prepared to close the loophole for the Government and put before the House appropriate legislation. When I introduced the bill last year the salient story was the break-in of a home in Western Sydney, which was reported in the Daily Telegraph at the time. That offender launched a civil action for compensation against his victims. The police statement tendered in the court states that the owners arrived home to find that their front door was ajar and the criminal was in their lounge room. They confronted the criminal, who threw a bag of coins at them. The criminal then ran out the back door, was pursued and then attacked by the victims' dog. It is ridiculous that an offender can sue his victims for $40,000 because he was attacked after breaking into their home.
The Government has done nothing to stop that ridiculous situation. Last year it had an opportunity to close that gap in the law, but it still has not done so. Following on from that case is the well-known case of the young teenager who broke into a flat above a hotel. The manager had a fight with the intruder in an endeavour to protect his wife and children and as a result the young intruder received an award of damages for $50,000 and his mother an award of $19,000 because she saw blood on her son. The Premier agrees it is ridiculous that intruders can break into the homes of people and then sue them. However, the Premier has taken no action to close that loophole, but the Opposition is prepared to do it for him. The Opposition is prepared to come into this Parliament and end that ridiculous situation. In that case the hotel manager lost his job and his flat. He was the victim yet the criminal walked away with $50,000 and his mother with $19,000.
One of the reasons for the insurance crisis is that the Government fails to address legal issues until it is forced to. It simply sits back, waits for a public clamour, and then responds. The Government never takes the initiative and plans for the people of New South Wales, be it in law reform, health, education or roads. The Government is totally reactive and waits for the appropriate media crisis so that it can be seen to act on that crisis. The Government now has its media crisis with this huge insurance crisis and the widespread concern by the community that people are not safe in their homes. To add insult to injury, when a criminal invades the homes of innocent people, the criminal can sue the victim. The Opposition does not agree with that and is determined to close that option for criminals. If the Coalition does not close it now, and the Government does not support this bill, the Coalition will close it upon obtaining office in 2003. The Carr Government has a perfect opportunity to act and I call upon it to so act. When I introduced the bill I put out a media release, which stated:
A court judgment awarding $50 000 to a person breaking in to another person's premises sends the completely wrong message.
Shadow Attorney General Chris Hartcher said the judgment of $50 000 for "excessive force" and $19 000 to the mother was extraordinary and should be reviewed.
"No legal systems can tolerate situations where criminals are allowed to use the law for their own profit," Mr Hartcher said.
That is the crucial point here. The legal system cannot be so manipulated that criminals are allowed to use it to make a profit. Unfortunately, the Carr Government is doing nothing about that situation. The media release further stated: 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5495
Last year the Coalition introduced legislation into the Parliament that barred people engaged in criminal conduct from suing for civil damages.
It followed the outrageous situation where a man who broke into a house and attacked the homeowner launched a civil action against his victim after he was bitten by their dog.
The Carr Labor Government voted against it.
In doing so they sent the wrong message—to the criminal, the community and the courts.
Mr Hartcher said the Coalition would re-introduce the legislation, preventing criminals from launching civil suits against their victims.
That is exactly what we are doing. The Opposition is prepared to send a message supporting the community of New South Wales when people act in self-defence, be it in their home, in the street or anywhere else. It will ensure that criminals face the court and victims receive justice. It will ensure that people cannot be sued in those circumstances and that the legal system in this State looks after honest, law-abiding citizens and does not favour, by neglect and inaction, criminals who exploit the law.
This bill is clear and simple and I hope it receives the support of all honourable members. In particular, I hope it receives the support of members of the crossbench and those who take an interest in legislative reform. I urge the Government to put aside its bloody-minded attitude that the only legislation that can pass through Parliament is legislation introduced by the Government. It should take this opportunity to correct the mistake it made in 2001, before the insurance crisis was forced upon it, by supporting this bill and adopting legislation that encourages good citizenship and acknowledges the right to self-defence in our community.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Yeadon.
DEFAMATION AMENDMENT (COSTS) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BARR (Manly) [10.19 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Defamation law has been much debated recently; indeed, it is a continuation of the debate that has taken place for a couple of decades with all sorts of bodies looking into defamation law reform. The debate has occurred because our defamation laws are not working and, I believe, are a travesty of justice. The Defamation Amendment (Costs) Bill focuses on costs. The task force that recently looked into the issue of defamation and the consequential proposals that the Government will put forward in its bill do not focus on costs at all. The focus is on capping non-economic loss, reducing the limitation period from six years to 12 months, barring corporations from being able to bring actions in defamation, and various other measures.
Costs are a significant problem in the defamation debate, because parties use costs to punish their opposition. Costs become a huge factor in defamation cases. For example, even if the mischief done is fairly minor, the costs to a defendant can be significant. In a number of cases the costs have far exceeded the damages awarded for the mischief. The Ballina Shire Council case is one such example. That case basically determined that councils cannot sue in defamation. In another case that is being heard at the moment a councillor is seeking damages of $10,000 and costs of $450,000. Costs are used as a device to intimidate the opposition. The practice is not new; it has been going on for a long time.
This State's defamation laws are antithetical to the democratic process. They inhibit free speech and force self-censorship upon newspapers, individuals, councillors and many other people because people fear being sued. The fear of being sued is not simply that someone may be liable in damages; it is the fear of having to go to court and have enormous costs imposed. In other words, costs are very much used as part of the process, and I suggest that is a perversion of the way the justice system should work.
Defamation laws are not just a pimple on the face of democracy; they are a festering sore. They are a festering sore because they inhibit free speech, which is the very basis of our justice system. If there is not sufficient free speech we do not have a full, flourishing democracy. New South Wales has a statutorily modified 5496 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002 common law system, a very cumbersome, two-process system in which there is a trial before a jury followed by an appearance before a judge. The process drags out proceedings endlessly and it becomes enormously expensive. This State's defamation laws startlingly reveal the full pomposity of the law and the pretentiousness of the legal profession. A trivial matter can reach court and become a sick parody of legal mannerisms, phoney wordplay, and feigned protestations about the saintly and impeccable character of the plaintiff and the supposed terrible hurt done to his or her reputation by what may be a few relatively innocuous words.
I cite the example of a case in Victoria involving the Bannockburn Yellowgum Action Group. The group was formed after the local water authority, Barwon Water, announced plans to clear 20 hectares of woodland and the group conducted a campaign against it. The chief executive officer of Barwon Water was a person called Frank De Stefano. The objectors put up stickers that read "Barwon Water, Frankly Foul". In response, Frank De Stefano sued the group for that slogan and sought $2 million in damages from the seven members of the group. The writ stated that in saying "Barwon Water, Frankly Foul" the group was saying that Mr De Stefano "was a foul person, was a person smeared with the sewerage of that authority of which he was chairman; was a person who smelt like sewerage and was a person who was unfit to hold the position of the chairman of Barwon Water". That kind of exaggeration and posturing takes place in defamation actions. The lawyer representing the plaintiff will seek to allege imputations far in excess of any word that may have been printed or said about that person by the defendant. As a result, the legal profession and the courts are tied up with unnecessary litigation on fairly trivial matters.
The purpose of this bill is to restrict costs to the quantum of damages, thereby ensuring that much less litigation takes place than currently is the case. It is often said that New South Wales is the litigation capital of the world. The Sydney Morning Herald of 23 May this year quoted figures indicating that in New South Wales there is one defamation writ for every 79,000 persons. In England the figure is one for every 121,000, and in the United States of America the figure is one for every 2.3 million. I am not aware of the variance from state to state in the United States, but I think no-one would deny that New South Wales has a lot of defamation litigation. The situation is out of control, and it has never been taken properly in hand.
The Government has a golden opportunity in this session of Parliament to take serious action with regard to the defamation laws. My proposal is that we should not get caught up in the legal issues, such as public figure tests and many other issues that have been discussed over the years. In one fell swoop this bill will reduce the number of cases brought before the courts. Under the bill it will not be worthwhile for a plaintiff to bring an action for a minor matter, because the plaintiff would know that he or she may incur enormous costs in bringing the case and that those costs may not be recovered.
Under the existing defamation laws, the wealthy and the powerful can intimidate the ordinary people because they have the resources to bring defamation actions. They can put on slap writs. There are many instances of local community members having slap writs against them. This inhibits everyone else from taking action or saying too much in relation to something that may be happening in their neck of the woods that they do not like. Similarly with local councils, people are inhibited in what they say because of this issue of defamation.
Currently the law acts in favour of the wealthy and the powerful and against the ordinary person. The ordinary person does not have the resources to fight the big, powerful players. Under the Defamation Amendment (Costs) Bill, the not so wealthy, ordinary people will know that the worst that could happen to them is that they may have minor damages awarded against them. They would have minor levels of costs, instead of having minor damages awarded against them and the plaintiff seeking a higher level of costs. Schedule 1 [1] inserts new section 57A. New section 57A (1) provides:
In proceedings for defamation, the amount of the costs of the plaintiff (or of any particular plaintiff if there is more than one plaintiff) that are payable as party/party costs in the proceedings is not to exceed the amount of the damages ordered to be paid to the plaintiff in the proceedings.
I have run this provision by a number of people to see what possible complications or difficulties there may be, and it seems that there are very few. It seems that the main objection to the provision is that if a not-so-wealthy plaintiff comes up against a big player, that circumstance could cause some difficulties. However, the overriding concern that we must have in a democracy is to make sure that the little players, the ordinary people, and public officials are not inhibited by the fear hanging over them of being sued in defamation by powerful interests. I believe this House should look at the defamation law as it now stands as imposing a great inhibition on the democratic process, and that we should make sure that we free up our democratic system so that we do not have this inhibition.
The Free Speech Victoria Committee speaks about four forms of freedom it would like to see enshrined in law: freedom to speak about corporations, freedom to speak on matters of public interest, freedom to speak 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5497 about the performance of public officers, and freedom to speak without fear of unspecified damages. If we are to function as a thriving democracy we must ensure that free speech is not inhibited. We can achieve that aim by reducing costs to the quantum of damages. I believe that will reduce significantly the amount of litigation and free up public debate.
I call on the House, particularly the Government—I have spoken to officers of the Attorney General's Department about this matter—to support this bill. It presents a chance to clean up the defamation system dramatically, in one fell swoop. Rather than getting tangled in legal technicalities, the bill attacks the problem from a different angle: the cost side. I am sure the Government will propose the inclusion of mediation and that sort of thing. However, we do not want to reach even that stage: We do not want patently absurd cases even to begin. We want to stop the slap writs, and encourage free and open expression. If we limit costs to the quantum of damages people will feel more able to comment publicly about all sorts of issues. I call on honourable members on both sides of the House to support this bill.
Debate adjourned on motion by Mr Yeadon.
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT (ILLEGAL BACKPACKER ACCOMMODATION) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 5 September.
Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville—Deputy Premier, Minister for Planning, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for Housing) [10.32 a.m.]: The Government supports the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Illegal Backpacker Accommodation) Bill. The bill seeks to make minor amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to make it clear that the Land and Environment Court may rely on circumstantial evidence to find that premises are used as backpacker hostels. The bill will complement the existing means under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act for addressing unauthorised use of premises as backpacker accommodation—namely, issuing orders under section 121B of the Act, the use of penalty infringement notices, and the taking of court action for an offence against the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act or regulations.
The Disorderly Houses Amendment (Brothels) Act 2001 made it clear that the Land and Environment Court may rely on circumstantial evidence to restrain the illegal use of premises as brothels. The bill before the House extends this approach to the identification of backpacker hostels operating illegally in order to assist in closing down these premises. Tourism NSW figures for 2000 showed that, of the 423,000 backpackers who visited Australia in that year, 345,000 stayed in a hostel in New South Wales. International backpackers comprised 11 per cent of all international visitors to New South Wales. They add more than $2 billion annually to the New South Wales economy. It is estimated that backpackers spend twice as much as the average international traveller, stay longer, and travel further afield, spreading tourism dollars to more remote areas of the State.
It is important that our reputation as a popular international tourist destination is not diminished by those people who run illegal backpacker operations: They cut corners, exploit their clients and give the industry a bad name. Places are often overcrowded and poorly managed and maintained. They can be a health and safety risk to all those who stay there and they take business away from those operators who do the right thing and operate legally. They often disturb the amenity of residential areas, for example, through noise, antisocial behaviour and the dumping of rubbish.
The use of circumstantial evidence means that councils will no longer have to enter a premises to obtain evidence that a property is being used as a backpackers hostel. Councils may now rely on circumstantial evidence that includes evidence of people arriving and leaving the premises, including the depositing of luggage; the premises being advertised as a backpacker hostel; and signage and notices on the premises, including price lists, notices to occupants and offers of services. Closing existing illegal backpacker hostels and reducing the emergence of new ones will be welcomed by residents of areas presently affected and will allow councils to better manage legally operating premises. I am pleased that affected councils and the Backpacker Operators Association have endorsed the bill, which I commend to the House.
Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [10.34 a.m.]: The Opposition supports the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Illegal Backpacker Accommodation) Bill, which aims to crack down on illegal 5498 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002 hostels. We recognise that illegal backpacker premises are causing problems in many communities and council areas. The bill will amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to allow circumstantial evidence to be used in prosecuting the operators of alleged illegal backpacker premises. Such hostels are prevalent up and down the New South Wales coast, and certainly in parts of Sydney. Those that operate illegally—and obviously without council consent—impact unfairly and adversely on local amenity. The bill will address this problem.
It is important to ensure that backpacker premises adhere to appropriate standards. In that regard, the bill will enable the closure of those premises that fail to comply with such standards. It is unacceptable for backpackers from interstate and overseas to live in substandard conditions. We must encourage the establishment of legal backpacker hostels. The backpacker market in Australia is a thriving industry and we should encourage young people from around the world to travel here to enjoy everything that this country has to offer. Australia is a significant tourist destination. Likewise, many young Australians travel overseas and want to enjoy good facilities in other countries. Therefore, it is reasonable for us to establish a good standard of backpacker hostels in this State. Backpackers inject important funds into our economy, and their patronage should be encouraged.
Under the bill, councils may rely on circumstantial evidence to determine that premises are being used as a backpacker hostel. This may include evidence of persons arriving and leaving the premises; the depositing of luggage, which is consistent with the use of a premises as a hostel; the advertising of the premises, either expressly or implicitly, as backpacker accommodation; the provision of signage, externally or internally or even on the Internet; and the offer of services. Councils should be able to draw on such evidence to force the closure of illegal facilities. We should encourage the establishment of backpacker hostels in areas where they are needed and support those operators who have done the right thing by seeking and obtaining council consent and submitting their premises to the appropriate inspections.
They recognise that they must operate within the law and not impact adversely on local amenity. I understand that this bill has the support of local government. I assume that the mayor and council of Manly support it. I noted on the Internet that Randwick City Council and Waverley Council also support the legislation, as does Lgov NSW, the local government association. The Opposition joins them in supporting this bill, and we encourage its enactment as soon as possible.
Mr E. T. PAGE (Coogee) [10.38 a.m.]: I support this amendment to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to address a problem that is a running sore in my electorate and in other electorates with shared accommodation facilities. To date, councils have not had sufficient power to resolve the issue of illegal backpacker hostels. The vast majority of backpacker accommodation is illegal. This penalises those who have obtained council approval as illegal operators who do not follow the rules—such as abiding by fire and other safety regulations—can provide cheaper accommodation.
A major problem—which is not blatantly obvious as yet but will become obvious in the near future—is that of people being killed in fires in these premises. Honourable members who have been around for a while will remember that until a few decades ago there were insufficient provisions for monitoring boarding houses in the settled areas of Sydney. That was remedied eventually following a series of catastrophic fires in the Kings Cross area. People suddenly realised there was a problem when bodies had to be carried from boarding houses. Lives were also lost in the fire that was deliberately lit in the Childers backpacker hostel in Queensland. That could happen in Sydney with illegal backpacker operations.
Those places have no egress signs and no fixed means of egress. In many cases they have bars on the windows and deadlocks on the doors, and people could be incinerated. This amendment is a first step in fixing the continuing problem of illegal backpacker organisations. I believe we will revisit the problem in the near future when there is a fire in a backpacker operation. In 1993 the Coalition Government deregulated the licensing system for shared accommodation, removing the ability of councils to monitor such premises. Without the legal backing of licensing procedures councils have found it difficult to inspect and impose conditions upon shared accommodation. I believe a licensing system will have to be reintroduced.
Backpacker operations should be classified as commercial enterprises and should therefore be confined to commercial areas. For town planning purposes that is logical. Another problem with backpacker organisations is that they very often take over existing boarding houses. In the North Sydney area buildings were taken over and used for shared backpacker accommodation. That results in a shortage of lower-priced accommodation for low-income groups in our community. In economic terms, running backpacker 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5499 accommodation is like allowing one to print money. It is like winning the lottery. Unscrupulous people will do everything they can to continue to operate backpacker operations in all sorts of premises—boarding houses, flats, residential homes, and so on—because there is a financial incentive for them to do so.
Councils have reacted to this situation. A backpacker task force has been set up with Randwick, Waverley, North Sydney, Leichhardt, South Sydney and Manly councils to address the issues. The honourable member for Manly has obviously been approached by people involved with those councils to try to do something about a completely unsatisfactory situation. In my area, Randwick council received more than 100 complaints in the past 12 months about illegal backpacker operations. The effect on the local community can be quite horrendous. I was contacted by one of my constituents who owns three units in a block of flats in Vicar Street, Coogee. That is her retirement income.
Next to that block is a large, old block of flats. In her letter she told me that the noise, filth, general inconvenience and disorderly conduct from that block of flats caused her tenants to move out. Garbage was thrown out of windows, and bottles and used condoms were thrown out and littered the street and footpath near her property. That has had a huge impact on that small street in my electorate. To date, council has not been able to do anything to cut back on the illegal use of those premises. I believe that something will be done now. It will be one of the issues I will raise with council to make sure that something is done.
Another problem which has not been addressed by this amendment is that council officers cannot enter residential premises for inspections. They can enter commercial, retail and industrial premises but not residential premises. I believe that once this amendment is passed, if council has prima facie evidence that premises are being used as backpacker accommodation, it is reasonable to assume it is commercial property and, therefore, council officers should automatically have the right of entry for inspection. I know that councils will not overstep the mark on this: they are very sensitive about using their powers incorrectly. It should open the way for council officers to be given power of entry into premises believed to be used as backpacker accommodation.
There seems to be some doubt as to whether New South Wales Fire Brigades has automatic access into residential premises. Some say it has, others say it has not. I am sure that if there is any doubt about their legal status Fire Brigades staff will be reluctant to enter residential premises. If we are concerned about ensuring that people are not incinerated in these places the Fire Brigades must have the right to inspect the premises to see whether they are being operated in a manner that is consistent with fire safety regulations. Another problem with these premises is that the owner may enter a residential tenancy lease with one person and then argue that the other people staying at the premises are just friends of the lessee.
He need only say, "I have a residential lease of the premises. That proves it is a residential property being used for normal living purposes. If someone has friends over, I cannot do anything about that; it is their prerogative." That issue must be addressed to make sure that the screen of a residential tenancy lease cannot be used to prevent the place being considered commercial premises. I am not a mad law-and-order person, but the penalties are insufficient. Numerous people in my area are running backpacker premises because they provide lucrative returns with no great penalty. If the place has to be shut down they will move on and lease another house.
The Government has to impose some form of penalty so that those who are caught operating illegally in this fashion have to pay. Although I believe this amendment is a step towards solving the problem of illegal backpacker accommodation, I believe that more needs to be done by way of licensing, zoning, access provisions for council officers and Fire Brigades staff, and penalties, to safeguard the lives of backpackers who think this type of accommodation is normal in Australia. They do not realise that they are sleeping in death traps and may not get out alive in the event of a fire.
I believe we have a responsibility to make sure we provide safe accommodation for people who come here from overseas. They are legitimate visitors to Australia and have every right to expect that our society will look after their wellbeing. I congratulate the honourable member for Manly on introducing this bill. I see this as a first step along the track and hope that, as time goes on, other measures can be introduced to tie up this social and safety problem in our community.
Ms MOORE (Bligh) [10.50 a.m.]: I strongly support the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Illegal Backpacker Accommodation) Bill. This issue is important not only to the electorates of Manly and Waverley but also to my electorate and to many other electorates in the State. This bill will give councils the power to make a commonsense assessment as to whether certain premises are operating as an 5500 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002 illegal backpacker hostel. I support the concerns raised by the honourable member for Coogee about the illegal operation of backpacker hostels. I clearly remember the shocking and tragic fire that occurred in Kings Cross when I was a councillor.
If a place advertises like a backpacker hostel, has price lists and notices like a backpacker hostel, is organised with rooms, beds and luggage like a backpacker hostel, and has people using it like a backpacker hostel, then it probably is one. Up until now councils have been unable to act to protect residential amenity and the safety of young visitors. This bill will now enable councils to act in order to protect residential amenity. It will also provide support for legal operators who follow the law, comply with health and safety guidelines, contribute substantially to tourism in this State and, importantly, as the honourable member for Coogee points out, provide safe accommodation for young visitors.
Problems that occur from illegal backpacker hostels, which impact greatly on a densely populated area like my electorate, include noise and late-night parties. Often visitors to backpacker hostels are operating on a completely different time frame from people who are going to work and trying to go about their normal business. In my electorate we have experienced rubbish being left behind, and large numbers of people coming and going at all times of the day and night. That does impact on people who live in terrace houses and apartment buildings in the city.
When there have been very serious problems—and I have personally experienced this—the occupants of a backpacker hostel will say, when questioned, "Oh no, I just have a whole lot of friends over to stay". It is very interesting that you see those friends arrive, 10 at a time, in a little bus which has the airport emblem on it, and you see them leave, perhaps 10 at a time, out of a three-bedroom terrace house in a little city street. The impact on the neighbourhood can be quite substantial. I have received many complaints over the years. Sleep deprivation can be one very serious effect in areas like Manly, Waverley or Bligh. This bill will go a long way to address those quite serious issues that people have experienced because of the illegal operation of backpacker hostels.
Often we find that people who stay for only a few weeks or a month at a time have no concern about the neighbourhood or the impact on neighbours. Often they do not feel obliged to follow the laws which, hopefully, the rest of us do follow. When residents complain, they are told by council that as the premises do not have approval for that activity, , therefore, the activity does not exist. We know it does exist because we see the people being delivered to and collected from the premises.
I hope that next time I raise this matter with South Sydney council I will not be told that council cannot do anything, but that particular premises do not have planning consent and it is possible to establish that it is operating as an illegal facility. I believe there will be unanimous support for this bill. As the honourable member for Coogee said, as a Parliament we should be very concerned that councils should be able to act and close down illegal backpacker hostels. I also support the concerns of the honourable member for Coogee about insufficient penalties for people who exploit young people and neighbourhoods by setting up illegal operations. I hope that the Minister for Local Government will take that matter even further.
Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [10.55 a.m.]: I support this legislation. I represent Byron Bay, amongst other places. Byron Bay is a mecca for backpackers; it is on the international backpacker route. We do not know exactly how many illegal backpacker premises there are in Byron Bay but Byron Shire Council estimates that there are a least 20 it would like to prosecute but is not able to because of the level of proof that is required. That is what this bill seeks to address. The cost of the investigation and the acquisition of the evidence that is necessary for a successful prosecution essentially means that in Byron Shire Council's case, it is not feasible to prosecute these illegal backpacker operations.
Indeed, the general manager of Byron Shire Council wrote to the Minister for Tourism on 26 July expressing very serious concerns about the situation in Byron Bay in particular, and indicating that she was seeking financial assistance from the State Government in the form of a $25,000 grant to enable Byron Shire Council to make a concerted attack on illegal backpacker operations. There are a number of problems with illegal backpacker operations. First is public safety, particularly in relation to the non-compliance of these premises with fire regulations. As the honourable member for Coogee quite correctly said, we have an obligation in the tourism industry to provide safe premises. If there is a fire, people must have a reasonable chance of getting out.
We certainly do not want a repeat of the Childers disaster, and in Byron Bay I am very concerned about that aspect. We have at least 20 illegal premises operating and we have a duty of care to guests of the tourism 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5501 industry to protect them as best we can. The second point is that these illegal operations place an extra unfunded burden, an unfunded demand, on the infrastructure of the local council. Byron Shire Council is struggling as it is with the impact of tourism on infrastructure. It is wrong to have a large number of people hosted in illegal premises with those who make the money making no contribution to infrastructure costs. I quote from a briefing note from Byron Shire Council in relation to this matter:
The number of persons accommodated by way of illegal hostel use necessarily increases the demand for council services and infrastructure. This demand will increase in regard to garbage, parking and water and sewerage provision. The unpredicted rise in the sewerage load in the West Byron sewerage treatment plant that was measured between the Christmas period of 2000 and that of 2001 may well contain some percentage due to an increase in unapproved short-term or holiday accommodation.
The council is directly linking the increase in sewerage costs and the load on the sewerage system to the number of people who are being hosted in these illegal operations. The third reason I am most concerned about these illegal backpacker operations is that they provide unfair competition for those who abide by the law and operate legally. As several speakers have indicated, it gives tourism a bad name if visitors to Australia end up in illegal premises in places like Byron Bay. We must address that and this legislation certainly goes some way towards addressing some of those issues.
The honourable member for Bligh made a good point about the loss of amenity to local residents. Many of these places in Byron are in residential areas, and many people who stay in them do not have any regard for the local amenity. They tend to sleep all day and party all night—a bit like the Labor Party—with little regard for local amenity. That is a major problem for people who are trying to get some sleep between the hours of 11.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. Another thing that occurs is that many illegal backpacker places pay backpackers in cash, cash in hand, as quid pro quo for their accommodation. That deprives local people of the opportunity to work in the tourism industry because, as I said, many of these people are paid cash in hand, or they have an arrangement for cash and/or accommodation in exchange for doing some work in the illegal premises.
In terms of the totality of the tourism industry, the demand for backpacker accommodation, which certainly exists, can still be catered for if we have legal operations rather than illegal operations. If that were the situation, we would have more local employment as well. One problem is how to launch a successful prosecution. The level of proof required under part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is beyond reasonable doubt—in other words, the same level of proof that applies in criminal cases. This bill will enable the courts to use circumstantial evidence to obtain a conviction. That will be of some concern to legal purists who will say that we are dropping the level of proof. However, the bill—to the credit of the honourable member for Manly—sets out the types of circumstantial evidence the courts could consider.
It is worth indicating those types of circumstantial evidence: evidence relating to persons entering and leaving the premises, including the depositing of luggage, that is consistent with the use of the premises for a backpackers hostel; evidence of the premises being advertised expressly or implicitly for the purposes of the backpackers hostel, including advertisements on or in the premises, newspapers, directories or the Internet; evidence relating to internal and external signs and notices at the premises, including price lists, notices to occupants and offers of services, that is consistent with the use of the premises for a backpackers hostel; and evidence of the layout of rooms, and the number and arrangement of beds, at the premises that is consistent with the use of the premises for a backpackers hostel. This is not carte blanche; council will not be able to arrest any person it feels inclined to arrest because it suspects that a premises might be an illegal backpackers hostel. The bill provides guidelines with respect to the types of circumstantial evidence that will be required in order to sustain a successful conviction.
I agree that the legislation will probably only partially solve the problem. The honourable member for Coogee made a valid point about search warrants. I know that Byron council is concerned about the need to access premises by way of a search warrant. Generally, magistrates have not been predisposed to issuing search warrants in these circumstances. Recently in my electorate a magistrate made a particular point of saying that this was the first search warrant he had ever issued for such a purpose, which indicates how difficult it can be for councils to obtain search warrants. So there are other issues to be dealt with. I commend the honourable member for Manly for taking this initiative. I think it is good legislation. It may be necessary to add to the legislation to cover other problems that exist in relation to illegal backpacker premises, but I strongly support it.
Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [11.04 a.m.]: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill. However, I make the point—and I will return to this later—that it is long overdue legislation and I am a bit concerned about the timing of it. Basically, the fundamental of the bill is to make it easier to prosecute people for running illegal backpackers accommodation. In that regard, the bill is long overdue because it has been a 5502 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002 desperate problem for a number of years. Previous speakers said that it has been a difficult problem for more than a decade, but it has been a major problem for the past five or six years. We have raised the problem continually not only with councils, which have had to bear the brunt of the problem, but with the Carr Government. We have had no satisfaction whatsoever in raising the issue with the Government until this week, and I will return later to why it has arisen this week. Last night there were problems in Bondi, but that appears to be more local than related to backpackers.
Bondi has had problems with backpackers for a number of years, especially over the past five or six years, as that trade ramped up and we got more and more backpackers. The problem exists in all coastal areas of New South Wales, as we are hearing today. A number of members have highlighted exactly the same problems, which often relate to noise, rubbish and danger. The danger relates not only to overcrowding in premises but to the whole lifestyle, as the honourable member for Ballina said, of sleep all day and party all night. That often involves extensive use of alcohol and drugs, and creates a culture that is inherently dangerous to a large number of people in one location, not to mention other aspects of local amenity. Apart from danger for backpackers themselves, neighbours and the local community suffer as well. Time and again local members receive complaints about specific sections of streets and establishments in those streets, where noise is coming from certain properties at all hours of the day and night, almost continually seven days a week. The noise never actually stops, and other residents in the street never have any peace.
Rubbish seems to explode from these places. Often it is simply thrown out onto the footpath and left there. Again, council is trying to cope with each noise complaint and to settle people down—police try to do the same thing—as well as cope with the huge amount of rubbish generated by some people often in illegal accommodation. Local amenity has become a major issue for local communities. In my electorate it has even reached the point that some people have simply moved house. They have been unable to live with illegal accommodation close or next door to them and they leave their home. They have either sold their house or concluded their rental agreement and moved to another street simply to get away from the illegal accommodation. In that regard, anything that helps council fulfil its responsibilities and pursue illegal establishments is welcomed, and I appreciate it.
However, I make the point that the legislation has been at least five or six years coming, and there is a good reason that it has come now. We are in the final weeks of parliamentary sittings before the State election. Surprise! What do we see? We see the Premier not on Bondi Beach this time but on Manly Beach yesterday prancing around with the Independent member for Manly, saying he is delivering legislation that will save the community. For how many years has the community been terrorised by this problem? It has certainly been the past five or six years but, as I said, the problem has existed for more than a decade. How many years has the Carr Government been in office? It is now coming up to eight years.
Mr Fraser: Long enough!
Mr DEBNAM: As the honourable member for Coffs Harbour says, the Government has been in office for far too long. And the honourable member for Rockdale will not be in office for much longer. People have been crying out for a resolution to this problem for at least the past five or six years.
Mr Moss: You just said 10.
Mr DEBNAM: The honourable member for Canterbury, who also will not be here much longer, says that I just said 10. This issue has been around for 10 or 15 years. If the honourable member had been listening he would know that I have said more than once that the problem has been ramping up for the past five or six years and complaints have been made to the Carr Government. What has the Government done about it? It has done the same about this problem as it has done for everything else in New South Wales—absolutely nothing! In the last few sitting weeks before the State election the Carr Government is trying to shore up the election prospects of an Independent—he has achieved absolutely nothing for his electorate during his term in this House. This is nothing more than an election stunt from the Carr Government.
I welcome the sort of admission that this legislation represents. However, on one of the few private members' days that we have had during the eight-year term of the Carr Government, which bill gets the nod and will get through? It is a bill that will help a friend of the Labor Party, a friend of the Carr Government, because the member concerned—the honourable member for Manly—cannot rescue himself. Premier Bob Carr has pranced in to rescue the honourable member for Manly. However, for the eight years of the Carr Government's term and—for the benefit of the Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Minister for Transport, who is at the table—especially for the past five or six years, the Government has starved our communities of this solution and has simply said, "Sorry, we can't do anything about it. It is a council problem." 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5503
The Labor councils, in concert with the Carr Government, have been saying to their communities, "Sorry, we really cannot do much for you." But in the few remaining weeks of this Parliament, the Carr Government comes out in concert with the politically moribund honourable member for Manly and says, "We will rescue you. We will deliver some legislative amendments to make it slightly easier to prosecute these people for illegal backpacker accommodation." It is wonderful that we are actually seeing it, but the question that arises in relation to everything that the Carr Government does is simply this: Will this legislation have any effect? I have no doubt that this bill will be passed by the House and that it will be passed by the upper House.
Mr Fraser: But will it be proclaimed?
Mr DEBNAM: I hope it will be proclaimed. Much of the legislation that the Carr Government introduces is accompanied by headlines in the Daily Telegraph and the Sydney Morning Herald—one day's headlines for a piece of legislation or an amending bill—yet nothing happens because the legislation is not proclaimed. If it is not proclaimed, it is not implemented. We need political will instead of political stunts— something the people of New South Wales have not had for eight years. We need political will instead of a political stunt to save the honourable member for Manly, who clearly will not make it past the next election.
Mr Moss: Why don't you speak to the bill?
Mr DEBNAM: The Parliamentary Secretary will not make it past the election either. If the Carr Government wanted to do something for communities it might examine another problem associated with backpackers that is causing difficulties in all coastal areas: dumped vehicles. For the benefit of the Parliamentary Secretary, I point out that the problem has existed for the past 10 or 15 years, if not longer, and has become increasingly worse over the past five or six years. In my electorate of Vaucluse I have introduced an innovative program that encourages people to donate the cars so that they can be removed from the streets. The Carr Government has refused to provide assistance for this project. This is yet another issue on which the Government could go to local communities and say, "We want to help you", instead of trying to help the honourable member for Manly get past the next election. The Government could deliver to all the people who live in coastal electorates a resolution of the problem by taking action not only against illegal backpacker accommodation but also on dumped cars that litter the streets.
Year after year I have asked the Government to examine the possibility of creating a central impounding yard for dumped vehicles. What has the Government had to say about that? It says exactly what it has said for the past eight years in response to the illegal backpacker accommodation problem: "Sorry, we can't help you. It's a council problem." It is not a council problem; it is a community problem. The community of New South Wales needs a new government. On 22 March next year the people of New South Wales will not need political stunt after political stunt. They need a new government that does not have to rescue the honourable member for Manly, who has not done much for his electorate. We need a government that is interested in doing things for local communities. Many issues affect local communities. If the Carr Government were to leave its ivory tower and take its Ministers out into the streets to meet with local communities it would find that it would be possible to deliver solution after solution.
This Government could easily resolve the problem of illegal backpacker accommodation. It is a major problem and it is a raw nerve in my electorate, as it is in many electorates across New South Wales, particularly in coastal areas. However, there are many other issues, such as dumped cars. I would like to see the Carr Government get off its backside, get out into the community, pick up some of the solutions I have offered it and some of the suggestions I have made over the years, and do something for the community instead of just performing political stunts. Having said that, I support the bill.
Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [11.14 a.m.]: I look forward to the honourable member for Vaucluse introducing his dumped car bill after the March election. I support the legislation because backpackers who are en route to Byron Bay have to pass through the wonderful electorate of Coffs Harbour—the most magnificent spot in New South Wales. Unfortunately, an easy way for people on very low incomes to make money is to turn their homes or blocks of units into illegally operated, albeit inexpensive, backpacker hostels. Honourable members who have participated in this debate and I have expressed concern about the possibility of fire breaking out in these establishments. In New South Wales people who operate an illegal business—be it a panel beating business or a backpackers hostel—cannot be touched by regulating authorities. Why is that? Because licensed premises are subject to regulations, but unlicensed premises are not.
The bill provides a simple set of identification criteria to facilitate the gathering of evidence to categorise premises as backpacker hostels as a prerequisite to action being taken by a council or local 5504 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002 government authorities. Opposition members do not want illegal backpacker premises to operate. They impinge on and discriminate against legal operators who pay good money to ensure that their premises meet all fire safety and building code regulations—regulations which should apply. Illegal operators are making money at the expense of others who have spent good money on compliance. I hope that when this bill is passed and becomes law, prosecutions will be undertaken against people who operate illegal backpacker accommodation. I hope that the Government will discourage people from opening their doors and engaging in illegal accommodation operations. I hope that this bill will effectively close the doors of illegal operators and provide legal operators with the protections they need. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr BARR (Manly) [11.16 a.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who contributed to this debate and I note their unanimous support for the bill. Even the honourable member for Vaucluse will vote in favour of the bill. I thank the Minister for Planning, the honourable member for Davidson, the honourable member for Coogee, the honourable member for Bligh, the honourable member for Ballina, the honourable member for Vaucluse and the honourable member for Coffs Harbour for their comments on the bill. I emphasise that this is not an anti backpacker bill but an anti illegal backpacker accommodation bill. One of the pleasures I take in living in Manly is seeing young people alight from the ferries with their backpacks and flags from the United States, Canada, Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Norway. Young people come to my electorate to enjoy themselves, to enjoy Australian hospitality and a beachside culture, and to enjoy the other things we have to offer. I take a degree of pride in that, as I am sure all Australians do.
All honourable members appreciate that their sons and daughters will go overseas and do similar things, and they want to know that their children will be safe, that they will have secure accommodation, and that their health and safety issues will be looked after because the accommodation industry will be properly regulated. Importantly, from the point of view of residents of Manly and people who live in beachside areas, this bill will protect residential areas from illegal activities—for example, noise and other nuisance factors—that the illegal operations can create. There are two reasons for the introduction of this bill. The first is to make accommodation safer and better for backpackers so they are not packed like sardines into accommodation and forced to endure substandard conditions. The second is the protection of the urban amenity of residential areas because many illegal backpacker accommodation activities take place in residential areas.
People have come to my electorate office and told me that they have been kept awake at night, they have had people knock on their doors in the mistaken belief that their premises offer accommodation, and they have had people throw up and urinate on the front steps of their dwellings. I want to stamp out that type of behaviour and make the urban amenity reasonable for people who live in those areas. I also want accommodation for backpackers to be safe. The honourable member for Coogee indicated that in essence this legislation tightens the noose. I think it does. As he also indicated, complicated legal issues are involved in dealing with residential questions, such as the right of fire brigades to enter or not enter residential premises, the power of entry of council offices, and penalties. If we see this as a tightening of the noose, we will have to take it as it comes. We must hasten reasonably cautiously to make sure that we get this right.
The honourable member for Bligh talked about the loss of amenity of residential areas, a matter I have already spoken about. The cash economy does not necessarily work in favour of locals because some backpackers undertake work that they should not be doing and are paid cash for it. The lawful industry is thereby disadvantaged as against the illegal backpackers because it is not competing on the same level playing field. For all those reasons, it is important that the industry be properly regulated. In 1999 some 400,000 backpackers came to this country. That number is growing at a rate of about 20 per cent a year. In that year the backpackers spent $1.7 billion, a figure that is now heading towards $2 billion. This is an important industry. But, like all important industries and industries generally, it should be properly regulated, particularly where we are dealing with human lives and human conditions. I thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate. I am very pleased that the bill has the unanimous support of the House. The only people who will not be supportive of it are the illegal backpacker operators.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AMENDMENT (OPEN AND ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT) BILL
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 5 May 2000.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI (Lane Cove) [11.21 a.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who contributed to this debate. I would like to record my appreciation for the support of the honourable member for 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5505
Manly, who has foreshadowed that he will move amendments. The Opposition is happy to agree to those amendments. Coalition members have provided further examples of the necessity for this bill and why the Freedom of Information [FOI] Act as it currently stands fails to achieve the ideals of its founders. It is disappointing that the Premier, who has responsibility for this Act, has not bothered to speak in this debate. Instead, the honourable member for Newcastle led for the Government. Perhaps he will not be given another chance to lead, after the startling and revealing concession he made in his speech:
The FOI Act is working well.
I ask: Working well for whom? Members on this side of the House know for whom the FOI Act is working well—that is, for the secret and arrogant Carr Government. It is not working well for individuals and organisations who find that this secretive and contemptuous Government has hidden and denied information on a whole range of issues—so much so that even Neville Wran would be jealous! In the first four years of the Carr Government the proportion of finalised FOI applications granted in full has dropped dramatically, from 74 per cent in 1995-96 to just 60.5 per cent in 1998-99. The number of applications that were not granted in full has doubled.
Indeed, independent agencies have continued to report on the lack of openness and accountability. The Ombudsman has described the handling of FOI applications by government departments as "seriously deficient" and that "agencies rarely disclose sensitive, contentious or political information". A study of 129 agencies concluded the Premier's own department has the worst record, with 55 per cent of applications knocked back. In one example the Ombudsman's office was told by a departmental representative that FOI was "rubbish"—a startling admission from a public servant who was the FOI co-ordinator for that agency. In his 2000-01 annual report the Ombudsman reported that he received 457 complaints about freedom of information.
Mr O'Farrell: How many?
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: He received 457 complaints, and 106 of those complaints were about being refused access to documents. I wonder whether this same Government—which banned jet skis after receiving only 29 complaints—is prepared to act when it receives 457 complaints about FOI.
Mr Debnam: They ban FOIs.
Mrs CHIKAROVSKI: That is all they do; they ban FOIs. The former Auditor-General, Tony Harris, has said:
The audit office has seen examples of requests for information which plainly should have been met under law but were denied— some were denied because ministers would have been uncomfortable if they had been properly met.
No wonder Government members believe the Act is "working well". As the Sydney Morning Herald editorial of 2 July 1999 stated, the Act is:
… ineffective too much of the time in its ostensible purpose of making governments more accountable by making their processes more open ... As a rule, unfortunately, the more important it is for the public to know, the less likely it is that this or any government will tell.
This Government does not want the people of New South Wales to know how and why it governs. It has been clear that under Labor freedom of information has become freedom from information—the words of the Act have been twisted and the spirit of the Act ignored. It is time for reform and a new approach—which this bill will achieve. Let me now address a few issues raised in the speech of the honourable member for Newcastle. Firstly, he makes the point that the Administrative Decisions Tribunal can make binding decisions on FOI. Indeed, the tribunal is designed to be a cost-effective and convenient way for the people of New South Wales to have certain general complaints resolved.
The problem, of course, is that members of the public who front up to the tribunal seeking a review of an FOI application are faced with a government agency and its plethora of highly paid legal representatives— which, I remind those in the gallery and honourable members of this House, are all paid for by the taxpayers of this State. This can be very threatening for those who cannot afford legal representation, despite the more informal approach of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. I understand that the New South Wales police service recently spent more than $75,000 of taxpayers money keeping a consultant's report—paid for by the taxpayers of this State—secret. Secondly, the honourable member for Newcastle pointed out that the Government is opposed to the opening up of board meetings of government corporations. In response, can I simply quote from the Sydney Morning Herald editorial of 9 May 2000, which states in support: 5506 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002
This has strength. Opening up board meetings of agencies, for instance, may be the most significant shift towards freedom of information since the Greiner Government introduced the FOI legislation in 1989.
Thirdly, the honourable member said the "bill is unnecessary". For some time now the Ombudsman has believed reform is necessary, and has been calling for a review of the Freedom of Information Act. In his 1999-2000 report, the Ombudsman wrote:
... the FOI Act has not been comprehensively reviewed in the 11 years since it was introduced, we believe that there needs to be a rationalisation of the various statutory schemes that regulate access to, and amendment of, information held by NSW government agencies.
So does the Government agree or disagree with the Ombudsman's call for reform? And will it support this bill? Perhaps the final words should come from the Premier. In 1988, as Leader of the Opposition, Bob Carr said the FOI legislation would create a "false impression of openness" which would "be dispelled through the bitter experiences of applicants seeking to utilise the legislation". According to him, the legislation was "littered with clauses and schedules that even the most inept bureaucrat would be able to use to secrete embarrassing material from the public gaze".
That is exactly what has happened in the past 6½ years under the secretive Carr Government. The Premier has ensured that those provisions are being used to keep the public in the dark. But perhaps I am being a little bit hard on the Premier. He did say, a few days before the last State election, that he would "look at sensible amplification of FOI rights". The Premier now has a chance to do that. I appeal to him to support this bill. I appeal to him, listening to this speech upstairs, to come down into the Chamber and reverse the Government's approach.
The bill provides sensible measures to improve access to information for the people of New South Wales. Open, honest and accountable government is nothing to be afraid of. It should be the bedrock of all liberal democracies. If honourable members want to end the pervading culture of government secrecy in this State, I urge them to vote with the Coalition on this bill. We can either maintain the secret State or throw open the porthole and allow the fresh winds of openness and accountability to infuse our wonderful State. The Labor disease is spreading to South Australia. People wishing to access information using that State's FOI legislation can do so without charge.
However, I understand that the new Rann Labor Government is about to impose a fee. I ask Mr Rann not to do to his constituents what Bob Carr has done to his, that is, make it more difficult for people to understand how their Government works. People expect their Government to be open and accountable. That is what we expect of this Government, but it is not what we are getting. We will get it if we support this bill. If Government members truly support the concept of liberal democracy they should vote with the Opposition and support the bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 35
Mr Armstrong Mr Humpherson Ms Seaton Mr Barr Dr Kernohan Mr Slack-Smith Mrs Chikarovski Mr Kerr Mr Souris Mr Collins Mr McGrane Mr Stoner Mr Cull Mr Merton Mr Tink Mr Debnam Ms Moore Mr Torbay Mr George Mr O'Farrell Mr J. H. Turner Mr Glachan Mr Oakeshott Mr R. W. Turner Mr Hartcher Mr D. L. Page Mr Webb Mr Hazzard Mr Piccoli Tellers, Ms Hodgkinson Mr Richardson Mr Fraser Mrs Hopwood Mr Rozzoli Mr R. H. L. Smith 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5507
Noes, 47
Ms Allan Mr Hickey Mr E. T. Page Mr Amery Mr Hunter Mrs Perry Ms Andrews Mr Iemma Mr Price Mr Aquilina Mr Knowles Dr Refshauge Mr Ashton Mrs Lo Po' Ms Saliba Mr Bartlett Mr Lynch Mr W. D. Smith Ms Beamer Mr Markham Mr Stewart Miss Burton Mr Martin Mr Tripodi Mr Campbell Mr McBride Mr Watkins Mr Collier Ms Meagher Mr West Mr Crittenden Ms Megarrity Mr Whelan Mr Debus Mr Mills Mr Woods Mr Face Mr Moss Mr Yeadon Mr Gibson Mr Newell Tellers, Mr Greene Ms Nori Mr Anderson Mrs Grusovin Mr Orkopoulos Mr Thompson
Pairs
Mr Brogden Ms Harrison Mr Maguire Mr Scully
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
UNDERGROUND POWER CABLES
Ms MOORE (Bligh) [11.40 a.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(1) calls on the Government to honour its commitment to an achievable undergrounding plan to remove archaic, unattractive, unreliable, dangerous and costly aerial cables, to bring New South Wales into step with other Australian capitals, major international cities such as, London New York, Paris and Rome, and to implement twenty-first century energy and telecommunications technology;
(2) expresses concern that EnergyAustralia continues to mutilate street trees, degrading our urban environment and perpetuating the Australian ugliness;
(3) recognises the broad support for cable undergrounding in metropolitan and regional areas, and from all political parties represented at last year's local government and shires conference;
(4) acknowledges that the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal review into the costs, benefits and funding options for undergrounding provided advice that was flawed; and
(5) notes that Sydney Cables Downunder has developed credible funding alternatives that address the Government's stated concerns, including exempting pensioners and those who already have underground cabling, and that show that the benefits of underground cabling outweigh the costs in the longer term.
I call upon the Premier to honour his commitment to an achievable plan to underground aerial cables in New South Wales which he made in response to my matter of public importance in Parliament last November. Last week the Minister gave the reasons why he could not produce a plan, but his job is to find ways to make this long-term project happen for the future of New South Wales. Is this the can-do Government of the smart State in the twenty-first century? If so, why did the Minister not engage the expertise to tell him how to do it so that he could carry out the direction of the Premier to produce an achievable plan to remove overhead power cables and reduce risk during storms?
Other Labor States are doing it. Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory all have undergrounding programs. Last November the Premier said that Western Australia was 5508 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002 planning to provide at least half of Perth's houses with underground cabling by 2010. Similarly, New South Wales should be working towards that target. Should Australia's leading city not be bringing itself into line with other major international cities such as New York, London, Paris and Rome, as well as some Third World countries? Should we not be implementing twenty-first century energy and telecommunications technology?
I remind honourable members of the arguments for undergrounding. Aerial cabling is archaic, unattractive, unreliable, dangerous and costly. Undergrounding will reduce the human and financial costs associated with car crashes, power failures, maintenance, environmental damage and bushfires. Eighty per cent of electrical supply interruptions are caused by environmental factors. Overhead powerlines are consistently brought down by Sydney storms, creating a dangerous situation, unnecessary disruption for residents and loss of income for businesses. People in metropolitan and regional areas across the State support cable undergrounding.
The proposal has received support from all political parties represented at last year's Local Government and Shires Associations conference. Letters to newspaper editors and talkback radio show that there is strong and widespread support for burying cables. A survey last December by Ingenuity Research found that 61 per cent of Sydney residents would pay a levy over 30 years to fund the undergrounding of electricity cables. There was major support in all groupings, with strong support from young people concerned about our future. Underground cabling would end the brutal hacking of trees near powerlines which causes distress and anger for many residents who rely on street trees for their health, wellbeing and amenity.
The Premier is calling for improved apartment design, over which he has little control, but he has a direct say and control in undergrounding and can provide a real legacy of significant improvement in our cities and towns. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] has wasted the past year rehashing old arguments. We are no closer to the achievable strategy that the Premier asked for to remove overhead power cables and reduce risk during storms. I call on the Minister for Energy to abandon IPART's seriously flawed report and to find solutions.
In April I left an IPART forum with the impression that its inquiry had been set up to fail. It has, because it has not explored ways in which to achieve a plan. In the few days that Sydney Cables Downunder has had to review the report it has identified numerous inaccuracies and inconsistencies as well as a fundamental flaw in the key conclusion that the benefits do not outweigh the costs. The numerous problems include selective quoting of submissions opposed to undergrounding, failure to commission or seek out research on people's willingness to pay and use what data is available on supposedly unquantifiable benefits, lack of data on the cost of tree management around power cables, lack of information on costs to businesses of power outages, lack of attention to job creation during the project and sloppy inconsistencies in data and conclusions.
The fundamental flaw is that the IPART report, costs and benefits have been calculated using different methodologies, understating the quantifiable benefits and effectively inflating the quantifiable costs, as well as dismissing the permanent worth of the project. Benefits received and costs avoided accrue beyond a 40-year project time frame, permanently ensuring a cheaper, more reliable and significantly safer electricity supply. Sydney Cables Downunder reviewed IPART's flawed data and concluded that optimising the energy network in Sydney and undergrounding electrical and communications cables is a project that would break even by 2047, when benefits would begin to exceed costs.
The only significant new finding in the IPART report is that via a comprehensive undergrounding project Sydney's energy infrastructure can be optimised at an estimated cost of $1,800 per household over the 40-year program. This optimised approach redesigns the electricity distribution network using twenty-first century technologies to enhance the design and the reliability of this system while reducing the cost. Other States have funded undergrounding. They have provided models and an incentive for a better New South Wales program. From advice that has been given to the New South Wales Government I can report that Western Australia began undergrounding in 1994 following widespread blackouts. An ongoing program followed a $24 million pilot project undergrounding cables for 7,000 properties.
The Government shares costs equally with local authorities and it has committed $12 million annually until 2010. Councils have self-financed the projects through existing rate-based or special levies. South Australia began undergrounding in 1990 with energy utilities paying two-thirds of the cost and local councils the rest. The State Transit Authority provides part funding for work on main roads and State regulation requires a specific amount of undergrounding work each year. In Queensland, government-owned electricity distributors have done undergrounding projects. One has a general undergrounding policy. Councils mainly fund contributions from general revenue, particularly when projects benefit shopping centres and heritage areas. 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5509
In Victoria a State scheme assists in removing powerlines in environmentally and historically significant areas. The scheme subsidises up to 50 per cent, with local councils expected to manage the projects with some contributions from private electricity distributors. Sydney Cables Downunder has demonstrated that the key to undergrounding in Australia is not the cost but the funding method. Its funding method addresses the concerns raised, including the principles that it be affordable across the community and accommodate people on low incomes; be a stand-alone and totally transparent system; run for the full length of the project, reducing the cost over an extended period; and not impact on essential services such as health, education and policing.
Based on these principles and the IPART costing, it has proposed that a levy of $1.13 per week per household over 40 years charged as a separate line item on electricity accounts—less than $15 a quarter on accounts—excluding pensioners and people with existing underground cabling and a $20 charge on motor vehicle registration based on road safety benefits. We need a can-do hands-on visionary approach for the future of New South Wales that identifies how to achieve cable undergrounding. If a visionary government with a long-term commitment does not drive the project it will not happen and it will not provide the New South Wales public with the greatest benefit.
A voluntary approach creates serious economic inequities avoided only through a comprehensive and managed program. The current piecemeal undergrounding approach increases costs, as economies of scale are lost, and it limits opportunities to optimise the system and diminishes the benefits for the whole New South Wales community. One does not have to be driving in one's own neighbourhood to have a deadly accident. What will happen New South Wales does not develop and implement a comprehensive plan as other States have done? I say to the Premier that this is not the icing on the cake; it is an area of significant Government responsibility that other States have taken on. What is to be done about the serious issues identified by the Premier last November? It affects the people right across the board in our cities and regional areas.
What about the volunteers who risk execution and selflessly endanger their lives when wires are down after storms or bushfires? What about the lives lost from motor accidents? Telegraph poles cause 10 per cent of all road fatalities. What about the mounting insurance premiums? What about serious inconvenience to people in their homes when there is loss of power? What about their businesses? Is our sophisticated twenty-first century communications system only as good as the next storm? Are we going to ignore evidence that shows that underground power costs half as much to maintain and is five times more reliable? What about community anger over massacred trees and degraded neighbourhoods? Finally, I call upon the Premier to reaffirm his commitment to an achievable plan to underground aerial cables in Sydney, and I call upon the Minister to get advice on how this vital job can be done.
Mr YEADON (Granville—Minister for Information Technology, Minister for Energy, Minister for Forestry, and Minister for Western Sydney) [11.50 a.m.]: As the Government has indicated, the real issue with undergrounding electricity cables is the price tag and the inequities that the price tag will bring. I am a little disappointed by the honourable member for Bligh's railing against the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART]. The "I" stands for "Independent". I believe the honourable member does not do that organisation justice when she virtually indicates that the IPART and the Government are involved in some sort of conspiracy. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal has demonstrated that the cost of underground cabling outweighs the benefits by 300 to 400 per cent, which is not a minor matter. When the Government considers a project, it takes into account the costs involved and the benefits to be gained from the project. It seems that the honourable member for Bligh simply is not able to absorb or comprehend that equation.
The honourable member for Bligh spoke about road safety, the diminution of accidents, and the like. I agree that there is the opportunity to make some savings in these areas, as the IPART has identified. However, the reality is that the removal of electricity poles does not prevent motor vehicle accidents. If a vehicle careers onto the side of the road or the sidewalk and there is no electricity pole in the vicinity, the vehicle is just as likely to hit a fence, a building or some other object, and damage will be caused. Simply removing power poles will not eliminate urban traffic accidents. The honourable member for Bligh needs to understand that when electricity is undergrounded all infrastructure does not disappear underground; there is still a significant component above ground level. For example, substations cannot be buried in underground vaults. There are bollards on the sidewalk to which the service main for each residence is attached, and they are vulnerable to damage. There is also the need to maintain streetlighting, which must be attached to poles. Even if the cables were undergrounded light poles would still be a significant feature of the urban landscape, and cars would still run into them.
I acknowledge that one benefit of undergrounding cables is that it would avoid the problem of aerial cables coming down in violent storms, gales and the like. But again, the benefits are not as significant as might 5510 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002 initially be envisaged. If there is a fault in an underground cabling system—and make no mistake, faults occur in underground systems—it is a significantly more costly exercise to rectify such a fault compared with the cost of rectifying faults in an aerial network. If there is an underground cable fault, it is necessary to dig up the ground to get access to the system. Indeed, before that is done, the location of fault must be determined. Obviously, it is much easier to visually identify a fault in an aerial network; it is not so easily done in an underground network. First, the fault must be located, and then it is necessary to dig down to access the system so it can be repaired. In the urban environment in particular, that requires permits from councils and the excavation of roads and sidewalks, which disrupts traffic and the local amenity.
I will give an example. One of our metropolitan distributors, EnergyAustralia, has a five-day benchmark turnaround on the repair of streetlighting faults in aerial networks. With underground networks, the benchmark shifts to 21 days, which reflects the greater time and cost involved in rectifying the problems in an underground network. The benefits of underground cabling are not self-evident. I acknowledge that there are benefits, and the IPART has identified them, but the honourable member for Bligh seems to indicate that undergrounding electricity cables ensures that traffic accidents, storm damage, fire damage and so on simply do not occur.
Underground cabling certainly assists with bushfire prevention, but we need to consider where bushfire activity occurs. It occurs on the periphery of the city, where the urban landscape transforms into the rural environment. It may come as a surprise to the honourable member for Bligh to hear that bushfires have invariably occurred in areas where there has been new development over the past couple of decades. Not surprisingly, that is also where undergrounding has occurred. Whilst it is certainly not comprehensive or complete, a significant percentage of that urban periphery has already been undergrounded.
People need to understand that the electricity network in New South Wales is one of the most reliable in the world. The reliability of the electricity network in New South Wales is 99.5 per cent. I acknowledge that, unfortunately, there are occasions when people are without power as a result of storm damage and the like for periods of time that they find unacceptable. However, overall the reliability rate of our network is world-class and first-class, and we are proud of the reliability percentage. Sydney already has the largest underground electricity network in Australia, with almost 20,000 kilometres of undergrounding in place. Twenty-seven per cent of Sydney's network is already underground. In many instances, people have already paid for the undergrounding. It is inappropriate that those people should be slugged again for other areas to be undergrounded.
Ms Moore: They won't be.
Mr YEADON: The honourable member for Bligh says they will not be slugged again. However, the more people we take out of the equation, the higher the costs will be for those who remain within the system. The honourable member for Bligh referred to the networking activities of other States. I repeat that Sydney's network already has the greatest extent of undergrounding of any State. Western Australia, for example, has a flat and sandy topography compared to that of Sydney, and it has nowhere near the population density of Sydney. In my view, those factors lend themselves to a much more cost-effective rollout. In Perth, the cost of underground cabling per residential unit is $4,500. People are having themselves on if they think that underground cabling can be carried out more cheaply in a city like Sydney, which has a different topography and layout to Perth. I am always ready to accept practical implementation and the information and results that come from that rather than desktop analyses.
As I have demonstrated, we are already undergrounding, but we cannot afford to underground the entire network without slugging households, or without it being at the expense of other essential infrastructure such as schools and hospitals. Over the past nine months the New South Wales Government has undertaken the most extensive studies and consultation on undergrounding that the State has ever seen. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] reports that it will cost between $3.6 billion and $5.9 billion. That works out at about $3,800 per household, and the Government is not prepared to impose that on people. Importantly, if people want undergrounding we will facilitate it, we will work with them, and that will see a much greater percentage of undergrounding over time as people opt for it.
Mr HARTCHER (Gosford—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.00 p.m.]: The New South Wales Liberal and National parties recognise the benefits of undergrounding electricity cables and infrastructure. However, we also recognise that there are significant costs to the community in achieving the goal of removing overhead cables and infrastructure from major metropolitan areas. The final Independent Pricing and Regulatory 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5511
Tribunal report on undergrounding has identified a total cost over 40 years of between $1.4 and $2.4 billion in net present value terms. IPART has also identified quantifiable benefits of undergrounding at between $535 and $625 million in net present value terms over the same period. These figures translate to around $2,000 to $3,800 per customer for the actual undergrounding, with benefits of between $350 and $400 per customer as a result of the undergrounding.
When IPART's interim report was released, the shadow Minister for Energy, the Hon. Duncan Gay, publicly stated that we would wait for all the figures to be finalised before making a final decision on undergrounding on a large scale. Now that the report is out, we still have some concerns about the figures that have appeared. We have some concerns also about the costs outweighing the benefits. We also have serious concerns that when the honourable member for Bligh raised this issue as a matter of public importance in November last year, both the Minister for Energy and the Premier made all the right plaudits in promising to come up with an achievable plan for undergrounding. That promise has not been honoured. The commitment has obviously been broken. At the time the Premier was only too happy to promise an achievable plan.
What has happened to that promise? Where is that commitment? It is obvious that the Government did not want to release the final IPART report until it thought it would be politically viable to do so. The final IPART report is dated May 2002, yet it was released by the Minister for Energy only last week. From May to September it was buried by the Government in a cynical political exercise in the hope that the issue would go away. Why did it take so long? Did the Minister need to look at the report each week to see if the figures presented had somehow become achievable? The honourable member for Bligh notes in her motion that the group Sydney Cables Downunder has produced credible data to disprove the figures in the IPART report.
The Opposition has carefully examined those figures, and they present yet another lot of costings to this debate. We acknowledge the hard work and commitment that Sydney Cables Downunder and its chairman, Peter Downey, have put into this issue. That makes three separate costing estimates in as many years—one from the Federal Government, one from IPART and one from Sydney Cables Downunder. That goes to show that this debate needs to be continued. Regardless of the costings that have been produced, the bottom line is that in November last year the Government committed to producing an achievable plan. It has failed in that commitment, and that is why the Opposition will support the motion of the honourable member for Bligh, with some amendments.
The Opposition will seek to remove paragraphs (2), (4) and (5) of the motion. We will do so because the statement contained in paragraph (2) is unsustainable and adds unnecessary emotion to this debate—a debate that should focus on why the Government has failed to honour its commitment to deliver an achievable plan. The statements in paragraphs (4) and (5) are unsustainable at this time. As I mentioned previously, it is difficult to compare costings without a detailed economic examination of the basis for the costings and the methodology used to arrive at those conclusions. We would remove paragraphs (4) and (5) for the same reasons. We have not had a chance to carefully analyse IPART's recommendations, and we have not had a chance to fully examine the costings of Sydney Cables Downunder and its criticism of IPART's report. This should become a motion about why the Government has failed to deliver on its commitment of November 2001 rather than a debate about which set of figures is correct. The Opposition will accordingly support the motion of the honourable member for Bligh. I move:
That the motion be amended by leaving out paragraphs (2), (4) and (5).
I have already adduced to the House the reasons for this amendment. If ever there is a cynical Minister, it is this Minister, who jumped on the bandwagon of favourable publicity about the idea promoted by the honourable member for Bligh and by Sydney Cables Downunder and who has since done nothing about it other than bury the IPART from May to September. This cynical Minister has been caught out, as usual, in his incompetence in the administration of his portfolio. He has been caught out in robbing people of any hope or expectation that there could be an achievable plan for the undergrounding of cables, a worthy objective but nonetheless an expensive one and one that can only be achieved with proper costings. The Government deserves to be condemned.
Mr WEST (Campbelltown) [12.05 p.m.]: It is with great pleasure that I speak to this motion. The Government should be congratulated on its decision. Undergrounding is already occurring at a greater rate in New South Wales than in any other State. In fact, 27 per cent of Sydney's electrical networks are already underground. This is forecast to increase to 48 per cent in 20 years, without imposing significant additional cost on taxpayers or the community. Much of this is occurring in outer Western Sydney, where mums and dads are paying for their undergrounding as part of the developer charges when they build new homes. We need to look at what the honourable member for Bligh is saying. 5512 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002
The key question here is equity. Introducing a broad-scale program whereby everybody pays is not an equitable way to fund undergrounding of electricity cables. In other States where overhead cables have been placed underground, it was in the most affluent suburbs. Is the honourable member suggesting that the rest of New South Wales electricity customers should be paying for undergrounding in her electorate? Is she asking the people in Penrith and Campbelltown to pay to underground the streets of Woollahra and Paddington? According to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal's final report it could cost up to $5.9 billion. That is a huge amount of money. The honourable member might like to explain how that is equitable. I cannot see how it is.
The total economy of Western Sydney is $52 billion. The honourable member wants Western Sydney, together with other parts of the State, to contribute 10 per cent of its gross economic product. That money could be better spent on investment in infrastructure to create jobs for Western Sydney, not to underground cables in the inner city. The Bligh electorate already has more undergrounding than the Sydney average. Advice from EnergyAustralia shows that all high-voltage electricity cables and 36 per cent of low-voltage cables in the electorate are already underground—well above the Sydney average of 27 per cent. This does not even address the inequities between Sydney and the bush.
It is totally unacceptable for the Government to expect rural communities, which are already suffering because of the current drought, to pay for underground electricity cables in Sydney. People are applying for exceptional circumstance assistance, not electrical cabling assistance. Similarly, there are inequities for those who have already paid to have their power supplied underground. Why should the people of outer Western Sydney have to pay twice so that others can have their existing overhead electricity cables undergrounded? As the Government has already indicated, this would be the case for 27 per cent of Sydney's residents under the proposals of the honourable member for Bligh. I would like her to explain to the people in outer Western Sydney how that is equitable.
Let us look at how much money is involved—$5.9 billion. The Police budget is $1.7 billion, the Agriculture budget is $897.7 million, the Health budget is $8.3 billion, and the Education budget is $7.7 billion. It is not an insubstantial amount of money that the honourable member is asking to be spent on underground cables in the inner city. She is asking mums and dads in outer Western Sydney and in rural New South Wales to kick in so that people can have better views, when that money could be spent on improving hospitals, schools, job opportunities and investments in their communities.
Another aspect is inequity of time. Some people could be waiting up to 20 years for their cables to be undergrounded but in the meantime they have paid for other people's cables to be undergrounded. Of course, that is if they do not move in that 20-year to 40-year period. How does the honourable member for Bligh intend to address that? The estimated cost is $3,800 per household. Some households earn only $342 a week and they are expected to think that paying $3,800 in charges—charges they will end up paying for along the way—is a good thing. The charges would have to come out of their mortgage payments, schools, power and water to fund the undergrounding of cables in inner Sydney. This is an incredibly expensive undertaking. The money would be better spent on hospitals, schools and roads. However, that being said, the Government will work with people who want to put their cables underground if they are willing to pay for that.
Mr ORKOPOULOS (Swansea) [12.10 p.m.]: Who has introduced the most cynical diatribe in this debate? Would honourable members believe that it was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? He has proposed an amendment. He has not committed the Opposition to a single thing, yet he supports the honourable member for Bligh. As the Minister pointed out, Sydney already has 20,000 kilometres of its electrical cables underground. So the good people of Sydney already have more than one-quarter of their cables underground. That is the largest underground electrical network in Australia, and it is certainly something on which we should build. We are not giving up, but that should not be with the people of rural and regional New South Wales, including the Central Coast, paying for Sydney people to underground more of their cables.
Mr Yeadon: That's what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants.
Mr ORKOPOULOS: Clearly, that is what the temporary member for Gosford supports. There is a real equity issue here—an issue that the Government is not willing to ignore. We will not ask the people of Broken Hill, Gosford or Swansea to pay for a program that will see major benefits for people in this city. As honourable members know, the Government has undertaken the most extensive studies and consultation on the best way of undergrounding cables. It is clear to the Government that undergrounding the system is simply too expensive, but that does not mean that it is simply sitting back and doing nothing. We are looking for a way forward. That is much better than treading water, cynically trying to buy votes, as the honourable member for Gosford is doing. We are looking at the equity issues—something unknown to the honourable member. 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5513
Rather than impose a financial burden on households, as is proposed by the honourable member for Gosford, the Government will develop and implement a program that will encourage and, indeed, accelerate undergrounding with no impact on family budgets. The Government will work with local councils to improve the processes for burying cables in new developments and redevelopments. We will explore co-ordinating the undergrounding of electricity cables with the installation of other infrastructure such as new telecommunications systems. Further, we will investigate with electricity distributors flexible payment options for families that want their cables underground. We conservatively estimate that, with the implementation of this program, 50 per cent of Sydney's electricity network will be underground in the next 20 years. Most importantly, that is at no additional cost to households; nor is it at the expense of important government services such as schools, hospitals, roads and public transport—services that were continuously underfunded by the previous Coalition Government for years.
Ms MOORE (Bligh) [12.13 p.m.], in reply: This debate has been incredibly disappointing. I am disappointed that those members who spoke strongly in support of my matter of public importance last November have disappeared. I am incredibly disappointed that the Premier is not here. The debate indicates that the Government is embarrassed about this backdown. The Minister's response was incredibly weak. I agree— and I do not often agree with the honourable member for Gosford—that the debate will continue; it will not go away. There will be ongoing problems. There will be ongoing community support and community anger that the Government is not taking a proactive position on this matter. Clearly, we are seeing a political lack of vision. Of course, the challenges of undergrounding can be dealt with. It is just that there is a total lack of will on the part of the Government, and that is extremely disappointing. The prepared contribution of the honourable member for Campbelltown was ridiculous because he clearly had not listened at all to the debate. His contribution was ill-informed.
I return to the substance of this motion. The motion I moved today calls on the Government to honour a commitment it made last November—a commitment that is in keeping with all other Australian Labor States and with other international cities. This motion is about expressing concern about the terrible destruction that EnergyAustralia continues to impose on our communities. It is about recognising the broad support across the spectrum, in cities and towns, for this proposal. It is about acknowledging that the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] has failed to provide a plan as called for by the Premier, and it notes that Sydney Cables Downunder has in fact done the job that IPART, the Government and the Minister have failed to do. I return to the Sydney Cables Downunder proposal. It put in the work on a voluntary basis, work that the Minister has been unable to do, and its funding method has addressed the concerns raised by the Minister.
The Sydney Cables Downunder proposal shows that it will be affordable across the community and will accommodate people on low incomes. It will be a stand-alone and totally transparent proposal. It will run for the full length of the project, reducing the cost over an extended period. It will not impact on essential services such as health, education and policing. It is based on these principles and the IPART costings. We are talking about a levy of $1.13 per week over 40 years and about charging less than $15 a quarter as a separate item on electricity accounts. We are talking about excluding pensioners and people with existing underground cabling, and we are talking about a $20 charge on motor vehicle registrations, based on road safety benefits. This solution responds to the Minister's concerns about inequities and depriving schools, hospitals and roads of funds.
First, the Government should review taxpayer funds wasted on advertising, public relations and spin doctoring, instead of blocking important projects that will provide long-term benefits for the people of New South Wales. I repeat: We need a can-do, hands-on visionary approach to the future of New South Wales that identifies how to achieve cable undergrounding. Again I pose the question directly to the Premier: What if New South Wales does not develop and implement a comprehensive plan, as other States have done? Three-quarters of Sydney's network is not undergrounded. This is not icing on the cake; this is an area of significant government responsibility. It relates to volunteers who risk electrocution and selflessly endanger their lives after storms or bushfires, and to lives lost in motor accidents, to mounting insurance premiums and serious inconvenience to people in their homes and businesses.
We are talking about sophisticated twenty-first century communications systems being only as good as the next storm. We have—and the Minister endorsed this today—dinosaur technology in the twenty-first century. We are talking about communities being angered about the massacre of their trees and the degradation of their neighbourhood. I agree with those members who said that this matter will not go away. I agree with those who said that this debate will continue. Again I call on the Premier to reaffirm the commitment he made last November to an achievable plan to underground aerial cables in Sydney, and for the Minister to get advice on how it can be done. This will not go away. This is ongoing, and it is important to everyone in the State.
Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.
The House divided. 5514 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002
Ayes, 28
Mr Armstrong Mrs Hopwood Mr Slack-Smith Mrs Chikarovski Mr Humpherson Mr Souris Mr Collins Mr Kerr Mr Stoner Mr Cull Mr Merton Mr J. H. Turner Mr Debnam Mr O'Farrell Mr R. W. Turner Mr George Mr Piccoli Mr Webb Mr Glachan Mr Richardson Mr Hartcher Mr Rozzoli Tellers, Mr Hazzard Ms Seaton Mr Fraser Ms Hodgkinson Mrs Skinner Mr R. H. L. Smith
Noes, 51
Ms Allan Mr Hickey Mr E. T. Page Mr Amery Mr Hunter Mrs Perry Ms Andrews Mr Iemma Mr Price Mr Aquilina Mrs Lo Po' Dr Refshauge Mr Ashton Mr Lynch Ms Saliba Mr Barr Mr Markham Mr W. D. Smith Mr Bartlett Mr Martin Mr Stewart Ms Beamer Mr McBride Mr Torbay Mr Black Mr McGrane Mr Tripodi Miss Burton Mr McManus Mr West Mr Campbell Ms Meagher Mr Whelan Mr Collier Ms Megarrity Mr Woods Mr Crittenden Mr Mills Mr Yeadon Mr Debus Ms Moore Mr Face Mr Moss Mr Gibson Mr Newell Tellers, Mr Greene Mr Oakeshott Mr Anderson Mrs Grusovin Mr Orkopoulos Mr Thompson
Pairs
Mr Brogden Ms Harrison Mr Maguire Ms Nori Mr Tink Mr Scully
Question resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
Division called for. Standing Order 191 applied.
Ayes, 2
Ms Moore Mr Barr
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
BATHURST PROFESSIONAL GOLFERS
Mr MARTIN (Bathurst) [12.34 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(1) congratulates Bathurst professional golfers Peter O'Malley and Gavin Coles on their outstanding success on the international golf scene recently, with Peter O'Malley defeating world number one golfer Tiger Woods in the World Matchplay Championship and Gavin Coles winning the South Australian Open Championship; and
(2) recognises the benefits this national and international exposure brings to Bathurst. 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5515
The intent of this motion is to recognise both Peter O'Malley and Gavin Coles, who are making their mark in one of the most competitive sporting arenas in the world. Their success in recent times reflects not only on their ability as golfers but also on the community in which they were raised. Like many country areas, Bathurst produces an extraordinary number of great sporting champions. Although honourable members might be envious of the achievements of Peter and Gavin, I am sure they can name successful sportspeople in their electorates. Peter O'Malley has been a professional golfer since 1987 and he has played with distinction, particularly on the European circuit. He has won the Scottish Open and the New Zealand Open. Last year he went head to head with Tiger Woods, who at the time was enjoying a purple patch—although that is almost always the case. People sympathised about Peter's bad luck in drawing the world's greatest golfer in the first round of the championship. There is no hiding in the field of 180 players in a match play tournament. Peter covered himself in glory by dispatching Tiger Woods in the first round. That was a source of great joy in Bathurst. It is interesting to note what international sporting journalists think of Peter O'Malley. Charles Happell wrote:
To Peter O'Malley, the fairways of the world's best golf courses appear about as wide and inviting as the rolling paddocks outside his home town of Bathurst.
No landing area is too narrow for the William Tell of the tees, who can thread the eye of a needle from 50 paces and knock apples of boys' heads from 100.
There is some talk he can nominate the blade of grass on which his ball is going to land, but this can be dismissed as unverified speculation.
O'Malley has hit an astonishing 84 per cent of the fairways he has aimed at this season in Europe, to comfortably be the most accurate driver on either the European or United States tours.
In fact, it is the highest figure anyone can recall since statistics started being recorded properly in tournament golf.
By comparison, world No. 1 Tiger Woods has hit paydirt with only 66 per cent of his drives in the US, Phil Mickelson 69 and David Duval 66.
That colourful bit of journalism underscores Peter's enormous natural talent. He inherited that talent from his father, who was a great amateur golfer in the Cental West. He won almost every championship, some of them many times. I am not a golfer, but I can remember when I was a young fellow hearing golfers complaining about O'Malley hitting town again and knocking off the Lithgow Open. It was a source of good-hearted resentment that an interloper from Bathurst kept winning the tournament. Peter inherited his father's skill when he was born in Bathurst in 1959. He is continuing to perform with great distinction on the international scene and has decided to concentrate on the European circuit, but he will make forays into the United States circuit. The head-to-head with Tiger Woods in the World Matchplay Championship focused attention on Bathurst because many overseas reporters wanted to find out about his background.
It was a great opportunity for a regional centre to promote itself through a sporting champion. Bathurst City Council and the Bathurst Publicity Association exploited the situation very well. I issued a press release the day before the tournament predicting that Peter would beat Tiger Woods, but not many people agreed with me. I did it to give Peter and Bathurst some exposure. Of course, he delivered the goods. Gavin Coles is less well known than Peter. He is in America on the Buy.com Tour, which is the second-level tour. He is rated ninth on the player list, which means he is well on his way to the qualifying rounds and graduating to the toughest golf school in the world—the American professional school. Last year he won the $1 million Vines Classic, which underscored his great ability. The $180,000 first prize paid for his trip to the United States. Of course, Peter O'Malley has been extremely successful and has set himself up financially.
However, golfers and other sportspeople must go through the long grind and make many sacrifices before they hit the big time. I know that Peter served his apprenticeship in that way. Although we congratulate players on their great success, we should remember that that success has been built on the back of a lot of hard work. Of course, both golfers have enormous natural talent. The Bathurst community is proud of Peter and Gavinparticularly Peter, who is a legend in his home town. He does not spend much time in Bathurst, but he regularly visits members of his family who still live in the town. He will always be fondly remembered for his exploits as a golfer and for the great credit his success has reflected on the town. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr STONER (Oxley) [12.40 p.m.]: The Opposition congratulates Bathurst professional golfers Peter O'Malley and Gavin Coles on their recent outstanding successes on the international golf scene. It is great news for sportspeople and communities in Australia, New South Wales and regional New South Wales to see that sort 5516 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002 of outstanding success from home-grown champions. Quite a few Australian golfers are doing particularly well on the international scene including, of course, Peter O'Malley and Gavin Coles. Last week when I checked the golf rankings on the Internet I found that Robert Allenby was ranked 20 in the world; Craig Parry, 44; Stewart Appleby, 45; Adam Scott, 51; Peter Lonard, 52; Stephen Leaney, 61; Steve Elkington, 62; and Peter O'Malley, 78. When we consider the standard of competition from golfers right around the world it is an outstanding achievement to have so many Australians and, in particular, New South Wales golfers, in that top ranking.
Peter O'Malley, who defeated world No. 1 golfer Tiger Woods in the World Matchplay Championship, has for quite a few years enjoyed a number of successes on the international stage. He won the 1992 Scottish Open and he won the 2001 Compass Group English Open. Currently he is ranked fourteenth on the European tour order of merit and, as the honourable member for Bathurst said, he is ranked number one in driving accuracy. It is the dream of many hackers—and that includes me—to be able to not only hit the ball a long way but also to maintain accuracy and keep the ball on the fairway. Peter O'Malley is an amazing athlete for achieving No. 1 ranking in driving accuracy on that competitive European tour. Gavin Coles won the $500,000 Jacobs Creek Open at Kooyonga Golf Club with rounds of 71, 69, 67 and 72 for a two-shot win. Peter O'Malley was tied fourth in that same championship. Bathurst is not the only area in regional New South Wales that is breeding golf champions.
I have been a member of the Wauchope Country Club for many years. Whilst I cannot describe myself as a champion with my former handicap of 18, young champion golfer David Bransdon, who attended the Australian Institute of Sport, was the leading amateur in the 1994 Australian Open. He won both the Samoan Open and the Tahiti Open in 2000. So Wauchope and many other country towns throughout New South Wales are the breeding place of golfing and other sporting champions. Regional and rural New South Wales undoubtedly is a breeding ground for golfing champions. However, many golf clubs in country towns are doing it tough. A number of clubs have been in danger of folding due to increasing costs, declining patronage and increased competition from hotels. Despite the fact that golf clubs in my electorate at Kempsey, Macksville, Nambucca Heads and Urunga are magnificent facilities, they have struggled in recent years.
Recently I visited the delightful town of Young at the invitation of the honourable member for Lachlan. One of the major concerns in that town is about the future and viability of the local golf club. If golf clubs are allowed to go under due to economic hard times, those towns would lose not only the one sporting facility of that type that they have; they would lose the golf course and part of their fabric as a community. People in country towns become members of a club to socialise. When people move to country towns and they join the golf club to play in weekend competitions that is a good way to become part of the community. There is no better way to meet people and become part of the community. Golf clubs right around country New South Wales are important to our way of life. They are important as they increase sporting participation and they are breeding grounds for champions such as Peter O'Malley and Gavin Coles. I often see young people at the golf club at Wauchope taking lessons and spending many hours practising. They can hit the ball a lot better than I can. Those young people are our future champions. New South Wales would be a lot poorer without golf courses in our country towns.
Pursuant to resolution business interrupted.
GRAFTON BRIDGE
Matter of Public Importance
Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes—Deputy Leader of the National Party) [12.45 p.m.]: The Opposition raises as a matter of public importance the need for a new bridge in Grafton. In May this year I attended a public meeting near Grafton—a meeting that was attended by approximately 650 people—and, with the exception of one brave soul, the unanimous decision was that they wanted a new crossing over Clarence River. The present bridge, which was opened in 1932, was constructed as a rail bridge. The roadway on the upper level was an afterthought to cater for the increasing number of motor vehicles being purchased at that time. Those honourable members familiar with the bridge would be aware that it has two doglegs, or bends, which are a cause for concern as they pose traffic safety problems for large vehicles that are using that bridge.
Grafton bridge, an integral part of Main Road 83, links south Grafton with Casino, via Casino and Kyogle. That bridge is second only to Sydney Harbour Bridge, which is the longest water crossing in New South Wales. Official figures from the Roads and Traffic Authority show that in 1998 approximately 24,000 vehicles used the bridge every day. About 95 per cent of all traffic that uses the bridge is local traffic. A 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5517 significant number of heavy vehicles also use that bridge. I referred earlier to the doglegs, or bends, in the bridge, which result in traffic having to stop to enable trucks to cross over. Much goodwill is shown by all those involved in that activity but these problems have to be addressed for safety reasons.
As the Roads and Traffic Authority and the State Rail Authority—two government departments—will be involved in the construction of a new bridge, the Government must have both departments on side. As I said earlier, this rail bridge has been adapted to a road bridge. We must ensure that sufficient funding is allocated for the proper construction of a new bridge. The Government allocated an amount of $100,000 in the last budget to enable the completion of a feasibility study. However, that funding will be sufficient only to enable the completion of the strategic phase, a feasibility analysis, economic appraisal and network objectives. A decision will then have to be made about whether the project should proceed.
The Roads and Traffic Authority has suggested that two other significant phases have to be considered—the developmental phase and the implementation phase. As we do not want this project to stall in its strategic phase, we believe that the Government should allocate adequate funding. If more than $100,000 is required—that is the amount that the Government has allocated—it should be prepared to meet any additional costs. A new bridge in Grafton is essential as the Armidale to Grafton road is being upgraded. There will be a direct link from the New England Highway through to the coastal areas. As the Woolworths distribution outlet is operating at Warwick a link from Woodenbong down to Grafton would be an appropriate route for distribution trucks to travel to those coastal areas. At present B-doubles are not allowed on Grafton bridge; they simply would not be able to get across. We must accept and understand that future transport will have to incorporate the concept of B-doubles for the economic transport of freight.
As I said, the community strongly supports the establishment of a new bridge. No doubt there will be, as always occurs in these matters, extensive and vigorous debate about the strategic location of the bridge. However, I am sure people will display goodwill in relation to determining that location, in the interests of ensuring that the bridge will properly service local residents and the many people who use the bridge to travel from one area to another. Local councils have certainly displayed goodwill in relation to the bridge. Grafton City Council and the surrounding shires of Copmanhurst, Maclean and Pristine Waters have listed a new Grafton bridge as the number one priority in their respective plans of management. Richmond Valley and Kyogle councils and the Summerland Way Promotion Committee also consider a new Grafton bridge to be of the highest priority. The Grafton City Chamber of Commerce and Industry has listed a new Grafton bridge as a high priority in its strategic plan.
The Grafton Police Customer Council supports the construction of a new Grafton bridge to assist with better local traffic flow. Clearly, within the community there is a need and a want for the establishment of the bridge to proceed. A community focus group was formed, and the group is made up of a number of people from the community. Regrettably, the group is top-heavy with Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] representation, but I suppose that is inevitable. The group continues to meet, and through the strategic phase has set timetables with regard to various aspects. The group has also delivered presentations. Given the considerable number of RTA representatives, I hope that the RTA will not dominate the group. It is called a community focus group, and therefore it is supposed to focus on issues that will affect the community. I hope that the RTA shows goodwill in ensuring that this occurs as the group's meetings continue over the next few months.
Time frames have been provided for a feasibility study. I understand that investigations into the strategic location of the bridge were to commence in August this year, and next December-January there is to be an invitation for community feedback. Unfortunately, that rings alarm bells for me. All too often in my electorate community feedback seems to take place in the December-January period—in other words, at a time when people are on holidays or thinking about going on holidays, or certainly winding down, and the business community is extremely busy with Christmas trading. It is therefore not an appropriate time to invite community feedback. No doubt the RTA will have to comply with the time frames. I hope the focus group will move the period for community feedback to a reasonable period when the public can have an opportunity to clearly consider the issues that arise from the group's meetings.
The Opposition believes it is vitally important that a new Grafton bridge be constructed, and that the matter should be moved forward and should not be delayed because of the RTA's final decisions. As I said, we are concerned that there are three phases to the project, that the strategic phase is the only phase that is being considered and funded, and that that phase will conclude with either a "go" or "no go" decision. Before that decision can be made, it is necessary to embark upon the developmental and implementation phases, which include a detailed design. Without having a detailed design, it is impossible to work out the cost of the project. There is more to be done than simply a strategic phase, and we would like that to occur.
[Discussion interrupted.] 5518 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Committee Reports: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Motion by Mr Woods agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to postpone consideration of committee reports until tomorrow.
GRAFTON BRIDGE
Matter of Public Importance
[Discussion resumed.]
Mr WOODS (Clarence—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [12.56 p.m.]: It is interesting that this issue should be listed for debate after I have publicly announced the need for a second crossing across the Clarence River and after the Carr Labor Government has begun a process to determine the exact need and location for a new bridge. The history of the existing bridge is also interesting to note. In 1915 a Labor Premier, William Holman, with his eye to the needs of the bush—similarly, today the Carr Labor Government has its eye to the needs of the bush—passed an Act of Parliament to build a rail bridge over the Clarence River at Grafton. In 1922 a Labor Government decided to add a road crossing to the rail bridge. In 1932 the existing bridge was opened. In other words, the bridge was constructed during the period of the Lang Labor Government.
It has taken another Labor Government to again initiate the process of determining the need and location of a second crossing over the Clarence River. Members opposite are probably sick of hearing the word "Labor" in relation to this bridge. If it were left to them, people living in South Grafton would still be trying to swim across the river. A public meeting was held in Grafton on 23 May 2002. The meeting was well attended, and it was clear from that meeting that the community believed a second crossing was needed. Indeed, I indicated as much when I addressed the meeting. However, it is important to note that those who attended the meeting clearly showed that they believed the construction of any new bridge was the responsibility of both State and Federal governments.
Mr J. H. Turner: No.
Mr WOODS: That is what they indicated at the meeting, without a doubt. In fact, the motion they passed at the meeting said exactly that. To date we have only seen the colour of State Labor Government money. The Federal National Party member has shown himself to be clearly unable to interest any of his Federal counterparts in Grafton's needs. This is not surprising, since one of his early actions after being elected to office last November was to vacate his premises in Grafton and move—lock, stock and barrel—to Lismore. Obviously, the National Party cares little about the bridge or any other of Grafton's needs. It is important to understand the need for the current process. This Government has allocated $100,000 to investigate feasible locations for an additional crossing of the Clarence River to service Grafton and its surrounding communities. I understand the Leader of the National Party was recently quoted in the Grafton press as saying that the Government should provide $2 million and go straight to an environmental impact statement.
Such unmitigated arrogance ignores the wishes of local residents. Such disregard for the use of taxpayers' money would obviously be a hallmark of the man who grossly mismanaged State finances when he was Assistant Treasurer. His reputation, built on the Luna Park debacle, is evidence of that. I know it is a complex concept for members opposite to grasp, but the Government believes that where public money is being spent, planning is vital. The capacity for the Coalition to even hint at building a second bridge at Grafton has been shot to pieces by its commitment to reduce the Sydney Harbour Bridge toll. It must be borne in mind that almost 80 per cent of the moneys raised by the increase in the bridge toll will be allocated to rural roads. That money would not exist in the unhappy and unlikely event that the Coalition forms government. Just another promise thrown into the ether by a mob who are convinced that they will never have to honour a single word they utter! What is it now? It has made $4.1 billion worth of promises in five months. It is just like kids in the lolly shop.
Over the years, nine main options have been put forward, ranging from no new crossing through to eight distinctly different sites in, adjacent to and at some distance from the city of Grafton. The fact that the community has differing opinions on the site of another bridge shows that the current public consultation is 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5519 necessary. That has been proven by this feasibility study. A questionnaire was widely distributed in August to seek feedback from Clarence Valley residents. More than 1,900 questionnaires were returned. The age of people responding to the questionnaire varied, with 44 per cent of responses in the 46 to 65 years age group, 22 per cent in the over 65 group and 25 per cent in the 26 to 45 years age group. Methods of travel of the respondents were: 80 per cent used cars, 9 per cent used four-wheel drive vehicles, 2 per cent used buses, 8 per cent used light or heavy vehicles and 1 per cent used motorcycles.
On the important question of where an additional crossing should be located, the community was divided between nine sites. Six per cent said upstream of Susan Island, 17 per cent opted for Susan Island, 11 per cent said between the existing bridge and Susan Island, 16 per cent said at the existing bridge site, 32 per cent said between the existing bridge and Elizabeth Island, 9 per cent said at Elizabeth Island, 5 per cent said downstream of Elizabeth Island, 1 per cent said at Ulmarra and 1 per cent favoured Lawrence. Fifteen years ago the National Party, when it was in government, made a commitment to build a bridge at Lawrence. It is still not there.
Anyone who suggests that this feasibility study is a wasted process should tell that to the 1,900 respondents to the questionnaire who were clearly very interested. In short, the Clarence community will and should have a part to play in the choice of the location for a second crossing. The current feasibility study is a vital tool in gauging community acceptance of a site for a second bridge crossing the Clarence River. The $100,000 allocated for the feasibility study in the last budget is another example of the Government's interest in rural roads in general, and my electorate's needs in particular. It signifies the Government's desire to build the bridge at Grafton. Recently, major traffic flow improvements on the northern approach to the Grafton Bridge were completed at a cost of $600,000. The southern approach was also upgraded.
While we are on the subject of bridges I want to mention a few of the many bridges in the Clarence electorate alone that the Carr Labor Government has either upgraded or built in the past couple of years. They are the White Bridge in the Pristine Waters shire, the Briner bridge on the Upper Coldstream River, the Cangai Creek Bridge, west of Grafton, the Whiteman Creek Bridge, Nogulga Creek Bridge and the Baxters Creek Bridge. I believe even the honourable member for Coffs Harbour is getting a new bridge at Coramba, which is on the border between his electorate and mine.
Mr Fraser: Two, three.
Mr WOODS: The honourable member for Coffs Harbour says it is three. He is a very lucky fellow. No doubt he reeks of gratitude. His constituents can certainly see the value of having a Labor Government. The truly sad thing is, as the Federal National Party member for Page, the Hon. Ian Causley, has shown, the National Party does not give a tinker's cuss for the wellbeing of the country areas in this State. Few people in rural New South Wales are not now aware of the economic vandalism of Australian Silicon by the Leader of the Opposition. Members opposite are getting a name for being business assassins of country New South Wales. Where were those supposed National Party people of the bush, who claim to support business, when rural jobs and investment were at stake and the leader of the Coalition destroyed hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars in investment? Not a whimper was heard from the National Party camp. They are business assassins in thought and actions. They were neither seen nor heard from during the whole unhappy event.
I am told that people are even looking for National Party faces in those media photos of the crowd behind the Leader of the Opposition in the protest march against the charcoal plant. Those opposite should be reminded again and again that they cost rural New South Wales solid and sustainable jobs. They should be hounded back to their electorates and made accountable to each and every constituent. They should have to explain their appalling lack of activity in defending this State against the ravages of the leader of the Liberal Party in his pursuit of the green vote. I am sure each and every person who is unemployed in the bush would love to know why the Liberals now run the National Party. As always, as the history of the Grafton Bridge illustrates, it is Labor that has worked for rural New South Wales and put in the real improvements and it is Labor that will continue to do so.
Mr FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [1.05 p.m.]: In speaking to this matter of public importance I congratulate the Minister on turning up to a public meeting. It would be the first meeting he has turned up to. He did not attend any of the meetings about fishing. He did not go to the vegetation management planning meeting last week that was attended by 500 people. They had a seat at the front for him but he did not even respond to the invitation. There were fishing meetings at Wooli and Minnie Water, but he did not attend. He walked away from his electorate and sat around the Cabinet table while decisions were made on important issues affecting regional people and he did nothing. He said nothing. He should get out and speak to his people. I am. 5520 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002
Today the Minister claims that a Labor government that built bridges in 1932 is doing a wonderful job. What has it done since then? Absolutely nothing! To spend $100,000 on a feasibility study and not even look at a site as part and parcel of that study is a disgrace. It is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The Coalition has made a commitment to give the people of Grafton a bridge they can use when we are in government. As the honourable member for Myall Lakes has said, the Federal-State program to upgrade the Pacific Highway has resulted in increased traffic. The Minister is not listening to the people and industries of Grafton. He does not care about the timber industry or the people in Junction Hill who need access to the Pacific Highway with B- doubles to save their freight rates. As I said he did not turn up to the timber meeting the other day. Those people need the bigger trucks to access the Pacific Highway but they cannot do it across the existing bridge, which is a disgrace.
Suddenly, in an election year, the Minister as local member says that he will give the people $100,000 for a feasibility study into building a second bridge. The Government will not upgrade the existing bridge; it is not looking at a total package. In an election year it is trying to hide behind the $100,000 committed to the feasibility study. What about the Oyster Creek bridge? The Minister waxed lyrical about other bridges in his electorate. I got two bridges out in the Orara Valley to replace the ones that were falling down because of seven years of neglect by the Government. The bridge replacement program that the Minister has spoken about has been a disgrace. The Minister sat around the Cabinet table and said nothing. At Tyringham, which is at the bottom end of his electorate, all traffic was stopped because a bridge was unsafe and collapsed. That bridge required urgent repair to make it passable.
As a Federal and State member, the Minister's record on bridges in his electorate is disgraceful, to say the least. Steve Cansdell, the next member for Clarence, has been canvassing opinions and asking people where they want a bridge. Roads and Traffic Authority documents produced by the focus group show that the long- term plan to upgrade Summerland Way means that the existing bridge cannot be retained. Is the Minister listening to everyone on the North Coast about the need for a second crossing? There are restrictions on the natural flow of traffic into the city and people who are travelling past will not stop to do a bit of shopping in Grafton because the bridge is a drawback. The Minister knows that and I know that, and he is using smoke and mirrors to try to gain some favour in an election year. Summerland Way could be linked to the bypass at Coffs Harbour to provide an alternate route up the North Coast and, indeed, an alternate route right through to Brisbane. I congratulate Jack Hurley on the great job he has done over many years to get the route to Brisbane upgraded.
The Minister has not been listening to Jack Hurley. The Labor Government says that it listens to people in the bush about their needs. However, the Minister is not listening. Buying off the people of Grafton with $100,000 will not work. They are not any less interested in this issue but they are more interested in their ability to manage their own land. However, the Minister has said absolutely nothing about the Government's rural native vegetation management plans, and he will not provide funding. The people of Grafton are concerned about their ability to gain an income from the Clarence River. Recently I laughed when I read a media release— this is a classic—in which the Minister said that $2.7 million worth of fish are taken out of the Clarence River. The Minister should talk to the people in the Clarence. The fish are worth more than $10 million. The Minister's research about his own electorate is not correct, and the people will judge him on that on 22 March 2003. [Time expired.]
Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes—Deputy Leader of the National Party) [1.10 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members who participated in the debate. The Minister's contribution was disappointing. I thought he would be a bit more enthusiastic about such an important infrastructure development for his electorate of Clarence. The Opposition has brought this matter of public importance on today because this development is extremely important. The Minister gave us a five-minute historical tour of his electorate, then spent five minutes making negative comments. The debate highlighted the mantra we hear consistently from members opposite: "What about the Feds?" The Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Roads are the greatest arguments for the abolition of State government I have ever heard. They do not want to do anything unless the Federal Government pays for it. Why on earth do they bother turning up here if the Federal Government is responsible for all the State's problems?
The Minister referred to the Sydney Harbour Bridge toll. Most of his mates have seen through this, but obviously he has not. At best, the harbour bridge toll will raise $28 million in a budget of $2.6 billion. I say "at best" because the Government will take Newcastle and Wollongong out of the equation. The Government calls Newcastle and Wollongong country areas when it wants to, but the Opposition does not call them country areas. At best, about half of that $28 million will be made available to country New South Wales. That is, about 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5521
$14 million will be available for country roads. The M5 East, which opened recently, cost about $54 million a kilometre. So if that $14 million were applied to a project the size of the M5 East it would provide about 100 yards of roadway. Even the Bangor bypass is presently costed at $17 million, so funds collected from the toll on the harbour bridge pay the cost of constructing one kilometre of the bypass. The Minister should stop using the furphy of the harbour bridge toll, because he sounds pretty damn silly.
The honourable member for Murray-Darling has been running around saying how excited he is that his electorate will get $5 million from the harbour bridge toll. I would be ashamed to stand up in an electorate the size of Murray-Darling and claim credit for an allocation of only $5 million. This matter of public importance is about ensuring that the people of Clarence have a proper crossing of the Clarence River. They need a twenty- first century crossing that can accommodate modern changes to the motor vehicle industry and the trucking industry. They need a crossing that can cope with the growth that has occurred in the Clarence Valley and on both sides of the river, and will enable people, particularly tourists, to visit that part of the world and to see how beautiful it is. People are put off when they must drive on dangerous roads or bridges, and there can be no more dangerous bridge in New South Wales than the bridge across the Clarence River. About 24,000 vehicles a day travel across this narrow winding bridge that is long past its use-by date.
Construction of a new bridge across the Clarence River must be given priority. At least the local member, in the next six months while he is still the local member, should be enthusiastic and push the matter forward. As I said earlier, the Minister's comments about the first stage of the evaulation were misleading. The $100,000 allocated for the strategic evaluation will not enable such matters as location to be evaluated; it will only enable a decision to be made as to whether the project proceeds. That is not appropriate, and it is not what the people want. The Minister said that the resounding response to the survey was that people want a new bridge. If that is the case, the Roads and Traffic Authority should not make the decision about proceeding with the project. It is a matter of the Minister being enthusiastic and having enough drive and determination to say that it will proceed.
Discussion concluded.
[Mr Acting-Speaker (Mr Mills) left the chair at 1.14 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER TO A QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE
Mr CARR: I wish to give a supplementary answer to the question asked yesterday on the Department of Community Services by the member for Wakehurst.
Mr Hartcher: Leave is not granted. You are subject to standing orders like everybody else.
Mr CARR: They are trying to protect the member for Wakehurst. They do not want to hear the truth. Isn't that remarkable!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Premier was given the call and was on his feet when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ran into the Chamber and took a point of order. I should rule him out of order because he was not in the Chamber to refuse leave when the Premier commenced. However, it will cause difficulty for the Chair if I allow the Premier to continue. He may provide the information at the conclusion of question time. If the Leader of the Opposition, the manager of Opposition business or others want to object to the procedure being followed they should be in the House on time.
SHARK NETS
Ministerial Statement
Mr WOODS (Clarence—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Regional Development, and Minister for Rural Affairs) [2.18 p.m.]: With school holidays starting this weekend and the weather warming up families are flocking to beaches up and down the coast. The cleaner Sydney Harbour becomes the more marine life returns. In fact, for the first time in decades whales are competing for harbour space with Sydney ferries. The first recorded shark attack in Australia after European settlement took place was in 1791 near Byron Bay. In New South Wales there have been 69 fatal shark attacks, including 11 attacks over the past 50 years. The last reported fatal attack on a meshed beach was back in 1963, nearly 50 years ago, in Middle Harbour. The three 5522 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002 sharks considered most dangerous in New South Wales include the bronze whaler or bull shark, the great white or white pointer, and the tiger shark. Today the Humane Society International has proposed the axing of the beach safety shark meshing program that has protected beachgoers since 1937. The New South Wales Government will not get rid of this program. Make no mistake: the shark nets are here to stay.
In fact, this year we have allocated $600,000 to the program, which began this month and will run through to April. As I said earlier, only one person has been taken by a shark on a meshed beach since the program began 65 years ago. That compares with 27 fatal shark attacks in the 30 years before the program began. The program protects our swimmers on the State's most visited beaches, while at the same time minimising any impact on marine life. The nets, which are 150 metres long by seven metres deep, cover 51 beaches in the Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong areas. They are set in about 10 metres of water within 500 metres of the shore.
Five specialist contractors carry out beach meshing. Acoustic devices are also placed on the sea bed to deter dolphins and whales from being caught in the nets, which are checked regularly. The environmental impact of the program is also of great importance. The Carr Government will undertake an environmental impact assessment of the program under guidelines being produced by PlanningNSW. The assessment will be comprehensive, and we are inviting submissions from the community. Let me again reassure the public that the New South Wales Government will not get rid of the beach safety shark meshing program.
Mr DEBNAM (Vaucluse) [2.21 p.m.]: I am delighted to say a few words about shark nets. As someone who swims at Bondi Beach every morning I look forward to seeing someone still servicing the nets each day. But I am amazed that the Minister has used up parliamentary time to beat up this issue. It shows is that the Carr Government will use any excuse to take up the time of this Chamber. This issue is important to a number of people but I do not think that there is any doubt that the nets will stay. All the Minister is doing is using up the valuable time of the House. He could talk to the Minister for conflict, the Minister for the Environment, who has too many portfolios. He could ask him about the Nielsen Park nets and convince him to keep them in the water for a little longer, instead of taking them out for extended periods for cleaning. Generally, the net program is valuable to many of us and I am sure it will stay. The Minister should not use up the time of the House to talk about it.
SALINITY
Ministerial Statement
Mr AQUILINA (Riverstone—Minister for Land and Water Conservation, and Minister for Fair Trading) [2.21 p.m.]: The twin scourges of salinity and deteriorating water quality are not only rural problems, but everyone's problems. That is why it is important to inform the House of the release of $5.6 million from the national action plan to counter salinity and improve water quality for New South Wales. This is the first allocation of funding from the total pool of $396 million that the New South Wales and Federal governments have agreed to provide under the national action plan over the next five years. Importantly, this money has been made available to our catchment management boards so they can continue to work through the blueprint accreditation process.
The plan identifies nine inland priority regions within the State: the Murray, Lower Murray-Darling, Murrumbidgee, Lachlan, Gwydir, Namoi, Border Rivers, Central West and western catchments will receive funding to support the priority action that they put forward. A further three statewide initiatives through State Forests, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and NSW Agriculture will contribute to salinity and water quality outcomes across all regions. The activities to be funded comprise a mix of on-ground works, investigations and training. This is terrific news for our farmers and our towns. I commend these priority projects.
Mr D. L. PAGE (Ballina) [2.22 p.m.]: Salinity is arguably the biggest environmental issue in Australia. The Opposition has indicated its support for the national action plan, which is an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States under which the Commonwealth has provided $700 million and the States collectively have provided $700 million. The Minister indicated that New South Wales will spend approximately $396 million on salinity over the next five years. It is important that governments, at whatever level, develop a bipartisan approach to dealing with salinity. Why? Because it will take us a long time to solve the problems; it is like a battleship that takes 20 or 30 years to turn around.
Parliaments and all political parties should agree on developing policies to deal with salinity that will survive successive Ministers and successive governments, because governments come and go and politicians come and go. The salinity problem will take a long time to solve. The Opposition strongly supports the national 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5523 action plan. However, we want to make sure that the money is spent on the ground and not on white Toyotas. Salinity is one of the big issues that needs to be addressed. The New South Wales Government has the capacity to deal with it and I urge the Minister to make sure that the money that has been allocated for salinity management is spent on the ground.
FRAUDULENT PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS
Ministerial Statement
Mr YEADON (Granville—Minister for Information Technology, Minister for Energy, Minister for Forestry, and Minister for Western Sydney) [2.24 p.m.]: I inform the House about an alleged scam that has been uncovered by Land and Property Information NSW [LPI]. This is a serious matter and I assure the House that the Government is treating it with the seriousness it deserves. Police and the Law Society in New South Wales and Queensland are investigating allegations of fraudulent property transactions lodged at the Land and Property Information NSW titles registry. I am advised that the matters first came to the notice of LPI as a result of two property transactions involving apparent fraudulent applications for certificates of title. Those transactions were based on the alleged loss of the original titles. The matters allegedly involve certain solicitors using the titles to obtain finance. I understand that included the granting of mortgages against the fraudulently obtained certificates of title.
The scam appears to have involved as many as 25 parcels of land in New South Wales. I am advised that most of those cases involved the placing of caveats on titles rather than the transfer of titles. In most instances, the transactions have not been lodged with LPI but are supposedly protected by a caveat. In those instances the forged document is not registered, as the lender does not have the certificate of title. As all of the matters involve solicitors, they have been referred to the Law Society. The society has been given a copy of all documentation held by LPI in relation to the transactions. It appears the scam involves a person or persons taking advantage of their professional status and it is, therefore, appropriate that the Law Society be expected to act. After initial investigation by the Law Society it was apparent that criminal activity was involved and the Law Society notified NSW Police.
Whilst this is a serious matter, the overwhelming majority of landowners in this State have nothing to worry about. The dealings appear to be the work of a small group of unscrupulous persons and are being fully investigated. LPI is awaiting the outcome of the investigations by the Law Society in Queensland and New South Wales and police and is co-operating in every way possible. In the meantime, LPI has taken action to prevent the registration of any transactions likely to be involved in this scam, pending the outcome of investigations. Of course, if it is subsequently established that the signatures of the parties are in fact forgeries, the dealing will never be registered. I assure the House that the Government will do all it can to ensure that the perpetrators of these scams are brought to justice.
Mr HUMPHERSON (Davidson) [2.26 p.m.]: The Opposition supports all efforts to investigate fully and take appropriate action relating to fraudulent property transactions. Clearly, this scam has been going on for some time. The Opposition would like to know the extent of the scam, the length of time it has been going on, and how long the Government has been aware of it. The Opposition also wants firm assurances given to all property owners in this State that the scam is confined to the 25 properties mentioned. We expect the Government to keep the House and the public advised as and when more information comes to hand. We ask that assurances be given to property owners as they take out mortgages or acquire property that the scam will not affect them. The Opposition expects that the Law Society will act promptly to investigate this matter fully and that all appropriate action will be taken against all solicitors involved.
AMINA LAWAL DEATH SENTENCE
Mr SPEAKER: Yesterday the Minister for Women made a ministerial statement in relation to the plight of a woman in Nigeria. Subsequent to that the Minister has been approached by a number of members in relation to providing assistance to the campaign to prevent this woman being stoned to death. I advise the House that a letter to the President of Nigeria has been placed on the table in the Speaker's Square for those members who wish to sign it. The Minister for Women and the honourable member for Lane Cove have already signed the letter, along with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. I urge all other members to follow their example.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Mr SPEAKER: I note the presence in the gallery of the Malaysian Minister for Housing and Local Government, Minister Ong, who is accompanied by a number of officers. I note also the presence in the gallery of the Malaysian Consul, Mr Abdul Rahman Salim. I welcome them to the Parliament. 5524 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002
PETITIONS
Queanbeyan District Hospital
Petition requesting that Queanbeyan District Hospital be upgraded, received from Mr Webb.
Freedom of Religion
Petition praying that the House reject legislative proposals that would detract from the exercise of freedom of religion, and retain the existing exemptions applying to religious bodies in the Anti-Discrimination Act, received from Mr Crittenden.
National Parks and Wildlife Service Prosecutions
Petition asking that the National Parks and Wildlife Service be directed to redress the injustice suffered by the Bacic family and to ensure that future prosecutions under the National Parks and Wildlife Act are properly and responsibly based, received from Mr Rozzoli.
Cammeray Traffic Arrangements
Petition praying that pedestrian traffic signals be installed at Raleigh Plaza on Miller Street, Cammeray, and that the 1997 traffic study be implemented, received from Mr Collins.
Hunters Hill High School
Petition praying that the decision to close Hunters Hill High School be reversed, received from Mrs Chikarovski.
Richmond Regional Vegetation Management Plan
Petitions seeking extension of the exhibition period of the draft Richmond Regional Vegetation Management Plan, received from Mr Fraser and Mr George.
Ballina Returned Services League Club
Petition requesting provision of a secure waterfront public access for the Ballina Returned Services League Club, received from Mr D. L. Page.
Cronulla Police Station Upgrading
Petition praying that the House restore to Cronulla a fully functioning police patrol and upgrade the police station, received from Mr Kerr.
PUBLIC BODIES REVIEW COMMITTEE
Report
Mr Orkopoulos, as Chairman, tabled the reported entitled "The Effects on Government Agencies of the Abolition of Nonfeasance Immunity", dated September 2002.
Ordered to be printed.
REGULATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Report
Mr Martin, as Chairman, tabled the report entitled "Report on the Mining (General) Amendment Regulation 2002 and the Petroleum (Onshore) Amendment Regulation 2002", dated September 2002.
Ordered to be printed. 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5525
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______
OASIS LIVERPOOL DEVELOPMENT
Mr BROGDEN: My question without notice is to the Premier. Will he confirm that on Tuesday this week the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, Eddie Obeid, read over the phone to the Hon. Peter Breen a declaration from former Oasis chairman, Gary McIntyre, which nominates Mr Arthur Coorey as the person who sought a $1 million bribe to the Australian Labor Party [ALP] in exchange for assistance with the Oasis project?
Mr CARR: First of all, if anyone hears an allegation like that, they have a statutory obligation to take it straight to the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC].
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai to order. I call the honourable member for Lachlan to order.
Mr CARR: That is what the Leader of the Opposition should do.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lachlan to order for the second time.
Mr CARR: The position of this Government has been clear with this project.
Mr Tink: Eight Ministers involved!
Mr CARR: "Eight Ministers involved," says the honourable member for Epping. Eight Ministers involved in what?
Mr Tink: The Oasis project.
Mr CARR: The Government said, "No poker machines. No land. No licence." The club, seeking 600 to 1,000 poker machines, did not proceed because the Government said, "We won't give you what you want." The club has not proceeded. By the way, we were criticised for not allowing it to proceed and we were praised by opponents of the club, to wit, the Fairfield City Champion, which said on 28 February 2001:
The Premier is wary of the Oasis. Why?
It quotes me on 20 February 2001:
There's a warning here for us.
Mr O'Farrell: Point of order. My point of order is relevance. The quotes were from the Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries, Eddie Obeid, to the Hon. Peter Breen about potential corruption in this State.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
Mr CARR: The paper said:
There's a warning here for us. Anyone at any time can come to the Government and say we've got a brilliant new development, a great development. They can say, for example its got state of the art retail in it, its got community facilities in it, but say to the Government it can only go ahead if you give us 300, 600, 1,000 poker machines.
The Fairfield City Champion ran a quote from the Premier saying that—in other words, canning the proposition—and the opponents of the Oasis project said:
Congratulations Bob Carr on your courageous decision not to lift the freeze on poker machines.
That was the position taken by this Government. There was no-one in Government arguing to me that that position ought to be reversed. Indeed, Roger Wilkins, the Director-General of the Cabinet Office, gave me advice on how that office would have been required to overturn or reverse that decision. He wrote to me: 5526 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002
The Government introduced a freeze on additional gaming machines in registered clubs from 27 March 2000.
The freeze continued until 2 April 2002, when the Gaming Machines Act 2001 commenced.
The … Act … establishes a cap … [on] … gaming machines in NSW; and … a cap of 450 gaming machines for any new club.
He said:
The club could not install any more than 450 gaming machines at the Oasis premises unless the Parliament passed legislation to exempt the Club from the cap of 450 gaming machines.
Let me again assure the House and the public that there was never, within the Government, support for, consideration of, or preparation towards, a special Act of Parliament to do the only thing that would have allowed this development to go ahead, namely, amend the gaming machines legislation. I presume it would have been called the "Gaming Machines Special Exemption (Oasis Club) Act". That was never on. They were never going to get an exemption from that policy. I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has asked me this question. It has given me an opportunity to demonstrate yet again, but in more detail, that we are responsible for Oasis not proceeding—not because it did not have meritorious elements, but because it would have required a special exemption, that could be conferred only by special legislation, from a statewide freeze on poker machine numbers. Sir, that was never on.
COMPUTERISED TOMOGRAPHIC FULL BODY SCANS
Miss BURTON: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. What is the Government's response to the New South Wales Chief Health Officer's concerns about full body scans?
Mr KNOWLES: I am sure honourable members would have noted that over recent months advertisements have been appearing in the media for what are known as full body scans. A full body scan involves a person being given a computerised tomographic [CT] scan of their body from the neck to the pelvis to provide an image of the chest, heart and abdomen. Claims are being made that these scans will allow a doctor to pick up malignancies, artery disease, and liver, pancreas and bowel abnormalities that exist or are developing within the person's body. The scans, costing between $700 and $1,000 each, are portrayed as a preventive tool that assists in the early diagnosis of disease. The scans are available on a walk-in, walk-out basis from at least three companies at a range of outlets in Sydney.
Mrs Skinner: Point of order: The Minister's answer is actually a ministerial statement. It has nothing to do with his administration of the Department of Health.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
Mr KNOWLES: As I was saying, in most of the advertisements there is little or no indication that people who undergo the scans receive relatively high doses of radiation. Radiation is measured in millisieverts. Full body CT scans can involve exposures up to 10 millisieverts. According to the United States Food And Drug Administration [FDA], an effective dose of 10 millisieverts may be associated with an increase in the possibility of fatal cancer of around one in 2,000. The New South Wales Chief Health Officer has confirmed the FDA advice that this small increase in radiation-associated cancer risk for an individual can become a public health concern if large numbers of the population undergo increased numbers of CT scans.
CT scanners are obviously a very important diagnostic tool. However, because of the radiation doses involved, machines must be licensed and appropriate clinical caution must be used. The radiation dose involved in a conventional diagnostic scan is deemed to be justified by the health benefits that may arise from the diagnosis. As a rule, CT scanning is conducted when preliminary diagnostics by a medical practitioner warrant the need for a full CT scan. Their use as a screening tool is unproven and no studies have been completed to support their use for screening.
The New South Wales Chief Health Officer has expressed real concern about the use of CT scans for the whole body without any prerequisite advice or referral from a medical practitioner. The Chief Health Officer's concerns are based on the fact that the scans rely on the administration of doses of high-level radiation. The United States Food and Drug Administration advises that the radiation involved in a full body scan can be as much as 500 times greater than that for a standard chest x-ray. Of course, elevated exposure to radiation can have major side effects. As a general rule, exposure to radiation should be kept to a minimum. Expert advice indicates that the scans are not able to detect small cancers, and the results may be unreliable if there has been 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5527 no prior medical management of the patient. False positive results and harmless incidental findings can lead to heightened anxiety and unnecessary invasive procedures and follow-up examinations. This further suggests that a full body scan may in fact provide a false sense of security for those individuals who have them.
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists does not believe there is sufficient scientific evidence to justify recommending total body computed tomographic [CT] screening for patients with no symptoms or a family history suggesting disease. To date there is no evidence that total body CT screening is cost effective or effective in prolonging life. The American College of Radiology stated that it does not believe there is sufficient scientific evidence to justify recommending total body CT screening for patients with no symptoms.
An investigation under the Radiation Control Act 1990 will be undertaken to assess current radiation exposures in machines being used for total body CT scans. The New South Wales Environment Protection Agency, on advice from the New South Wales Radiation Advisory Council, is considering a draft suite of conditions to be attached to licences for CT machines. These may include a requirement for referral from an independent doctor before full body scans are conducted; a requirement that all patients be fully informed about the potential risks and value associated with the procedure; and a recommendation that full body scanning is inappropriate in most cases for people under the age of 50. This advice will also be provided to the Australian Health Ministers Council and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The clear message is simple: Anybody who wants a full body scan should be aware of the levels of radiation they will be exposed to and should consult a doctor.
OASIS LIVERPOOL DEVELOPMENT
Mr SOURIS: I direct my question to the Minister for Agriculture. Will the Minister detail how many meetings about the Oasis project he or his ministerial advisers had when he was Minister for Land and Water Conservation? Who was present at those meetings, including any parliamentary or Cabinet colleagues? What issues were discussed?
Mr AMERY: I have been waiting for a question about Oasis. I am one of the eight members whose photograph appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald in connection with this issue. My first plea is directed to the Sydney Morning Herald: Please replace that photograph.
Mrs Chikarovski: It makes you look a lot younger.
Mr AMERY: I will not take on the former Leader of the Opposition. Unlike her successor, she is too tough. I have seen tougher skins than his on a rice pudding. I will take a little time to answer this question because I have finally got into the limelight on this issue. Honourable members opposite can ask all the questions they like about Oasis, but they will never convince the public that their team ever exceeded the salary cap! Would anyone ever allege that the team opposite had exceeded the salary cap? I checked with Barclaycard Premiership and established that the transfer fee for the entire team would be three pounds nine and six and two potatoes! Mr Speaker, may I play the devil's advocate on the Oasis matter?
Mr Brogden: Just answer the question.
Mr AMERY: Answering the question is the easiest part. I want to build up to the answer. I am making a pre-emptive statement. The allegation is that the Government, including the Premier and the Treasurer, were planning to facilitate the transfer of a club to Liverpool. They allege that eight Ministers were involvedeven humble me; I am modestwho were all in favour of the transfer, yet it did not go ahead! Have honourable members thought about the implications of that? The Premier and the Treasurer were involved and briefed, and half of the Cabinet was involved, but the project did not go ahead. Is there any commonsense in that?
Mr Tink: Point of order: We know that the Minister was involved because his note was left lying around to implicate him. No deal was done because the price was not right.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
Mr AMERY: The honourable member has me there. Of course my note was lying around; I could not get a run on the topic. If I can get honourable members opposite to ask me questions, I will leave my whole folder lying around, with questions and answers! In relation to— 5528 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002
Mr Brogden: Oasis.
Mr AMERY: I will get to Oasis. As honourable members know, I am a bit of a technocrat, I know all about the technology in my office! When questions were first asked about Oasis, I put one and one together and came to the conclusion that, given that I was the Minister for Land and Water Conservation at the time, I should gather some information. I asked my staff to do a computer search for words such as, Oasis and football and $1 million, and so on. And, yes, in the year 2000, at the request of the Mayor of Liverpool, George Paciullo, and he is mayor of one of the biggest councils in Sydney, asked his local member, Craig Knowles, to facilitate discussion
[Interruption]
Honourable members opposite can ask me all the questions they wish to about it. George Paciullo sought a meeting about a place called Woodward Park, which is on Crown land. It stood to reason that, as the Minister responsible for Crown land, I might have some role to play. I had a meeting in Craig Knowles' office with George Paciullo and some staffers—though I can't remember whether the million dollars in the far corner was in $20 or $50 notes!
We had a discussion about Woodward Park. Long before the Oasis project was ever considered Liverpool Council wanted that park transferred to it. I remember the Minister for Health, the Hon. Craig Knowles, saying, "This is just a proposal to transfer the land to Liverpool Council." We listened to council's suggestions and, throughout the meeting, all we said was "Yes" and "No", and "Fancy, tea and sympathy". I remember putting forward to council a suggestion by the department that, if Liverpool Council wanted this land, it would have to compulsorily acquire it under the Crown Lands Act. It was a set procedure. We all said, "How are you going?" I said "Hello George", we talked about it and we left. I cannot remember anything more than that.
In all seriousness though, nothing untoward was raised at that meeting. George Paciullo—and I knew him when he was a Minister and a member—never made any improper suggestions at that meeting, or at any meeting. I do not care what his views are or what faction he is in; I never heard him make any improper suggestion to me or to anyone else, and he did not do so on that day. We just went through the normal process, the meeting lasted five or 10 minutes, and we all left. I read to him the provisions that were contained in a briefing note. I am a great supporter of the television program Yes Minister, and the words were similar to the comments that were made earlier in this House by the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, the Hon. John Aquilina.
The land in question was Crown land. At that stage the National Party was not in charge of Crown land so I could not offer it for $1 an acre, which is what the National Party did. The airconditioning in the room was nice and there was no climate conducive to corruption. It was a pretty standard sort of meeting. On behalf of Minister Knowles and George Paciullo, who requested that the meeting be held, I would like to assure honourable members that not one improper suggestion was made. The whole meeting was legal, as one would have expected it to be.
POLICE REMEMBRANCE DAY
Ms BEAMER: My question without notice is addressed to the Premier. What is the latest information about Police Remembrance Day?
Mr CARR: A month ago I went to the police academy in Goulburn to attend the attestation of the State's latest new officers—637 in all, the largest police graduation in Australia. It was also the day when awards for valour were presented to the families of Glen McEnallay and Jim Affleck. Behind the formalities lay immense affection and remembrance, honour and respect. This was the Police Force, the police family, honouring its own. I remind honourable members that, while many professions require great skill and training, there are but a few—the police, fire and military—that ask men and women to put their lives on the line every day. A police cadet knows this and knows it early. It is part of the territory; it goes with the job. When a call comes, a hold-up, a siege, or a domestic violence call at midnight, the thought must always be there that this could be it; it could turn very bad.
They know, from what they have heard, that it can happen quickly—a struggle, a knife, a minute or so of blood and shouting, and then the story is over; a life is gone and, more often than not, a young one. Since 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5529
1862, 237 New South Wales police officers have been killed in the line of duty, 55 in the past two decades. Those who have not lived like this on an hourly and nightly basis cannot know what it is like. Ordinary heroes they may be, but their heroism is no less great. We are blessed by their protection and we are graced by their goodwill. We can never thank them enough. When we wear the blue and white ribbon tomorrow, as we should, or we attend the church services being held across the State, which include a minute's silence at 11.00 a.m., we will be able to say to our police, "Thanks for the job you do."
But that is not all. On Thursday 24 October 2002 the force is holding the Glen McEnallay Memorial Golf Day and blue ribbon dinner. The guest of honour will be the Governor, Professor Marie Bashir. It was the idea of Glen's colleagues from Mascot police station. They hope that the dinner will become an annual event, an annual tribute. The money raised will go to a new centre at Prince of Wales Hospital to train intensive care staff and neurosurgeons. It will, very appropriately, be called the Glen McEnallay Learning Centre. The dinner has already been sponsored by the Daily Telegraph, Radio 2GB, Vodafone and Emirates Airlines.
I urge everyone, especially corporate Australia, to book a table. Let us celebrate Glen's life and never let his sacrifice and spirit, and those of his other fallen colleagues, be forgotten. We almost always never know what a police officer says and feels at the final tragic hour, but there is one case that we do know—that of Constable Eric Bailey, a young policeman posthumously awarded the highest civilian award for bravery, the George Cross, in 1945, for restraining a vicious criminal who had shot him three times. Constable Bailey died on the way to hospital. His last words, carefully preserved, say everything about Police Remembrance Day. He said, "I had a go. I did not squib it." May they rest in peace.
OVINE JOHNE'S DISEASE
Mr ARMSTRONG: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. Will the Minister reverse NSW Agriculture policy on supporting the Sargeant model on ovine Johne's disease [OJD]? Will he now accept the recommendation from the Ovine Johne's Disease Advisory Committee that an additional marketing assurance vaccination category be introduced for market assurance flocks and permit trade in that category in vaccinated rams and small numbers of ewes in protected and control zones?
Mr AMERY: Today's Land refers to a decision by the Ovine Johne's Disease Advisory Committee to change the procedure for the transfer of vaccinated sheep to various zones. The committee, on a vote of 8:6—it was a fairly close vote—recommended that the change, which was outlined in the honourable member's question, should be implemented. Although I place great weight on advice given to me by the Ovine Johne's Disease Advisory Committee, the Department of Agriculture will not immediately adopt that recommendation. The committee is a key advisory committee in New South Wales, assisting in managing this disease. However, I am sure that the honourable member for Lachlan would acknowledge that this is a national control and management program and that a national veterinary committee is involved.
I refer to a headline in the Land today which states, "Studs score major OJD Vaccine win." The article reports on the Ovine Johne's Advisory Committee's decision to support the proposal by the New South Wales Stud Breeders Association. I am sure that all honourable members would be aware that stud breeders would be hurt the most by such a decision. They make money from moving animals off their properties, for obvious reasons, as opposed to meat and wool producers who obtain their income from wool sales and sending stock to slaughter. The Stud Breeders Association asked for increased flexibility in the movement of sheep. The article in the Land stated:
NSW Agriculture had previously campaigned against the stud's proposal, citing concerns about some of other "underlying assumptions" of an epidemiological model to support this proposal.
The Director-General of Agriculture recently met with representatives of the Stud Breeders Association to discuss the proposal. The Carr Government is committed to this control program. However, we are not yet certain whether we have 100 per cent support for this program from the Opposition. Initially, the department did not support the proposal because the Ovine Johne's Disease Advisory Committee's technical subcommittee expressed concern about it. However, the department also indicated that if industry, represented through the committee, was willing to accept the level of risk associated with this proposal, it would take the position back to the National Veterinary Committee Technical Advisory Group.
I am pleased to advise that on Wednesday 18 September the New South Wales Advisory Committee voted to support the proposal. As such New South Wales Agriculture will present the proposal to the National Veterinary Committee Technical Advisory Group for its consideration. Also, in anticipation of the support of 5530 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002 the National Veterinary Committee Technical Advisory Group, the department has already commenced developing a future policy to provide more trading options for stud breeders. The Carr Government is committed to working with industry to develop those long-term strategies, and our action is indicative of that. On a wider note, the National Ovine Johne's Disease Program will conclude in June 2004. The Government realises the importance of having sound long-term strategies that will take stud breeders and other sectors of the sheep industry beyond 2004. And we will continue to work with our industry partners to achieve this.
The question asked by the honourable member for Lachlan obviously would have sounded very technical to some members and my answer would probably be relevant only to those who understand it. However, it must be understood that New South Wales has a major problem with OJD and we have our own control program, which we operate within a national framework, and that is supported by industry. We want to ensure that everything the department and the Government does is supported not only by industry but also by the national advisory committee groups as we work in tandem on this proposal. We also want to ensure that we do not adopt any proposal without proper consultation with industry and advisory groups at the national level. The question is a very good one. When I read the article in the Land and I was advised about the decision, I anticipated that there would be some discussion on it. I believe the program is a step in the right direction, and I am very pleased that the stud breeders have some confidence about the future of it.
WILDERNESS DECLARATIONS
Mr W. D. SMITH: My question without notice is to the Minister for the Environment. What is the latest information on the protection of wilderness in New South Wales?
Mr DEBUS: I can announce today that after an extensive three-year consultation and assessment process the Government has decided to declare an additional 270,000 hectares of wilderness, all within the national parks estate. This declaration will give the highest level of protection to some of the State's most rugged and spectacular natural landscapes.
Mr Hartcher: Point of order: The Minister is stating what he will do. He is announcing Government policy to the House. That is a ministerial statement, and it should be ruled as such so that the Opposition has the right to reply.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The Minister has the call.
Mr DEBUS: The declaration concludes an exhaustive assessment and consultation process that began in 1999 as part of the confidential regional assessments for northern and southern New South Wales forests. I emphasise that all new wilderness areas are on the existing national parks estate; no private properties have been included. Wilderness areas are defined as natural landscapes that are essentially unchanged by human activity. Australia is one of the few countries in the world in which wilderness areas continue to exist. However, wilderness is rare even in New South Wales; less than 5 per cent of the State still exists in a wilderness condition.
The new wilderness declarations have been made after a most rigorous analysis and consideration of community views, as well as environmental needs. This decision balances the needs for continued access to the State's national parks with the need to conserve wilderness. More than 60,000 public submissions were received in response to the exhibition of the northern and southern wilderness assessment reports. This decision reflects the issues and concerns raised during this process. Plans of management will now be developed for all new wilderness areas, allowing further opportunities for public comment on access and use issues. Importantly, feral animal and pest and weed control, and bushfire management continue in wilderness areas, with significant resources devoted to protecting these lands and neighbouring properties. There will be no relaxation of the management of feral animals and bushfires because of these declarations. In some areas, activities such as rafting, rock climbing and abseiling may be permitted if they are compatible with the management of wilderness areas.
Since coming to office in 1995 the Carr Government has tripled the area of declared wilderness in New South Wales, adding 1.2 million hectares. This latest decision includes significant declarations of coastal wilderness landscapes. Across New South Wales, wilderness areas include a huge variety of landscapes: rainforests, waterfalls, alpine areas, river valleys, deep gum forests and desert plains. Some honourable members opposite may have trouble grappling with the concept, but this Government understands the importance of preserving these magnificent natural environments for future generations. We remain committed to this process, and to achieving a balanced outcome for environmental protection and the needs of park users, an outcome that is reflected by this decision. 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5531
SCHOOL COMPUTER THEFT
Mr O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Training. Now that the Minister has finally confirmed that a subcontractor employed to provide school security services in south- western Sydney has been charged with stealing school computers, will the Minister inform the House how many other schools serviced by subcontractors also suffered losses?
Mr WATKINS: This allegation was fully canvassed at the public estimates committee hearing in June this year. The matter arose after the receipt of certain anonymous information about illegal activity in schools. Several joint operations were subsequently undertaken between police and the Department of Education and Training. These operations occurred from mid-2001. In November 2001 a security officer working for a contracted security service was arrested and charged with a range of offences. The security contract was terminated on the same day. On 1 May this former officer was sentenced to five months periodic detention, and his security licence and that of his company were withdrawn.
This Government is committed to reducing the incidence of computer theft in our schools. Apart from the existing security measures in place, substantial improvements have been and are being made since the subcontractor was charged. They are as follows. Certain school districts have already had their contracts overhauled in May and June this year and new, more stringent contracts are in place. Importantly, improvements include a prohibition on the use of subcontractors. The tender for a further 13 school districts has also been let. It closes on 15 October. These contracts are also tighter, and include the same prohibition on subcontractors. From 2002-03 existing security contracts are being boosted with the statewide expansion of a new, dedicated security patrol service, costing an extra $5.5 million. This follows a trial held at the end of last year.
As announced in June, all new computers are to be delivered to schools with lock-down devices. Fifty extra security fences will be installed this financial year. Task force VAR, a standing task force between the Department of Education and Training and NSW Police, has been established to facilitate a closer relationship and the sharing of security information and intelligence to try to stop the theft of computers. Further, a ban has been placed on the delivery of all new computers in the last two weeks of the school term. This is to ensure that they do not sit in a box and become an even more attractive target for thieves. An extra $3.85 million will be spent in 2002-03 to put more alarms in schools and upgrade existing alarms.
A new safety and security directorate has been established within the department to boost the focus on physical and personal security in our schools. In this financial year a total of $21 million will be spent on security. Every police local area command is being advised in advance of the delivery dates of computers to ensure appropriate security upon delivery. The loss of any computers from schools is disruptive to the school, and the damage is done. We will do all we can to lessen and prevent the theft of computers from schools. A comprehensive plan has been put in place this year. It will be interesting to see how it goes. We will put in more resources to prevent these computers from being stolen.
Mr O'FARRELL: I ask a supplementary question. In light of the Minister's answer and the loss of more than 10,000 computers from schools, I ask how many other subcontractors providing security services for schools were interviewed by police.
Mr WATKINS: I have given part of the answer regarding what we are doing with new contracts. I am not going to divulge discussions between NSW Police and the Department of Education and Training about these matters, for the very good reason that both NSW Police and the Department of Education and Training security unit have told me that divulging information like that would put at risk the security measures we are putting in place.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Davidson to order.
GOVERNMENT SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Mr STEWART: My question without notice is to the Minister for Education and Training. What is the latest information on back-to-basics improvements in New South Wales public schools?
Mr WATKINS: Yesterday I announced $23 million worth of capital works projects for the 2002-03 financial year to replace demountable classrooms, improve airconditioning and modify dangerous doors. Today I can inform the House of another $37.6 million worth of minor capital works projects in this current financial 5532 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002 year. Upgrading the physical environment of our public schools is a major priority for this Government. That is why in March 2001 we announced a $1.1 billion capital upgrade program for our public schools. Part of this is an allocation of $300 million in this financial year. That is an increase of $42.4 million, or 16.5 per cent, on last year. Today's component of this allocation covers a range of minor capital works projects—back-to-basics projects—covering 658 projects in 515 schools.
The funding covers electrical upgrades costing $1.4 million; canteen upgrades, $1.9 million; hotspot airconditioning of permanent buildings—not the demountables I announced yesterday, $1.8 million; toilet upgrades, $2.8 million; and a further $23.9 million for general refurbishment projects and upgrades. It also includes $5.8 million for projects under the Security Fencing and Grilles Program—part of our record commitment to improving school security. Builders and contractors will begin visiting schools from the beginning of next month to get these projects under way. Large or small, they will greatly enhance school life for teachers, general staff and students.
They include projects such as $75,000 for Byron Bay High School to upgrade roofing and ventilation. In the area of the honourable member for Liverpool $15,000 will be spent on electrical upgrade at Warwick Farm Public School and $80,000 for a security fence at Marsden Road Public School. In the Barwon electorate $85,000 will be provided for a new shade shelter at Goodooga Central School. In the Camden electorate $50,000 will be spent on a canteen upgrade at Bringelly Public School. Cronulla High School will get $150,000 for a performance space upgrade. In the electorate of the Minister for Health, Minto Public School will receive $277,000 for a number of projects, including an administration upgrade, and Wauchope High School will receive $260,000 for a support unit. Hundreds of other projects are on the list.
Today, like yesterday, the Government's commitment to improving our school environment is clear. These projects will make a real difference to our schools, giving our teachers and kids the environment they deserve for good teaching and learning. Before concluding, I welcome into the gallery a group of very hard- working district superintendents. I thank them for the work they do on behalf of the children of New South Wales.
PRISONERS DRUG TESTING
Mr ANDERSON: My question without notice is to the Minister for Corrective Services. What is the Minister's response to community concerns about Opposition claims of drug-test tampering in Long Bay gaol?
Mr AMERY: Honourable members will recall that on 21 March I was asked a question by the honourable member for Davidson, who was shadow spokesman for Corrective Services. The question was whether I was investigating an allegation that 27 inmates at Long Bay were tested for drugs on one day in late February, and all tested positive but the results were suppressed so that the prisoners would not lose their access to day-release programs. The question caught me completely by surprise. I did not have an answer in my folder or in my office and there was no answer in the department at that time. However, I asked honourable members to absorb the fact that the question related to a string of people in the department who tested inmates who returned positive results—27 of them—and covered up the results so they could go on day release. I said surely that sounds unbelievable. It was unbelievable.
I said I would report back. I am now able to do so. There was no evidence to support any such allegation and, as a result, I wrote a letter to the honourable member for Davidson asking him to give me some further information. He wrote back asking me to check records, and so on. On the same day I received a letter back from the honourable member for Davidson, saying that he would endeavour to obtain the names of the inmates. He did not have that information before he asked the question, but he was going to endeavour to obtain the names. To this day the honourable member for Davidson has supplied neither the names nor any other relevant information. On that day I wrote to the then Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Lane Cove, urging her to provide the names of all inmates subject to the Opposition's allegations. I did not receive a reply from the honourable member for Lane Cove, but that was understandable. She was trying to fend off a backstabbing program by the current Leader of the Opposition.
Subsequent to the change in leadership I wrote to Rocky Balboa—John Brogden—urging him to release the details about which the allegations were made. I have been an Opposition member, and I know that if I wished to ask a question I had to convince the leader of the party that I had evidence to back it up. I assume that the same applies now. I received no response at all from the present Leader of the Opposition, which is another example of his strength. 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5533
Mr Carr: Which one are you referring to?
Mr AMERY: I should say "the then" and "the now" Leader of the Opposition. When I heard the Premier I was distracted by a vision of the Leader of the Opposition sobbing and hiding under that huge desk in his office. The statements could not be substantiated because—this is the worrying part—they were a complete fabrication. Urine tests for drugs are carried out on a regular basis in all our gaols. The honourable member for Davidson's allegations centred on 27 positive drug tests being suppressed on one day late in February. This was allegedly so that their day release would not be cancelled. In Long Bay there was a grand total of only 16 day release prisoners at that time, not 27. And the Opposition's blunder gets worse.
There were not 27 positive drug tests for the day release inmates at Long Bay for the whole month of February, let alone for one day. In fact, there were only three drug tests, two of which were for prescribed drugs and the other was from an inmate who was subsequently discharged. This is the serious aspect of the matter. I suppose the idea at the time was to attack the Government and me. These tests are carried out in an independent laboratory. That laboratory, not the Department of Corrective Services, tests the urine samples. The department's records can be verified at each point in the chain, from the taking of samples to the testing and reporting back. If the allegations were true they would involve serious criminal charges. I note that the General Secretary of the Public Service Association called on the Leader of the Opposition to get the honourable member to either put up or shut up, basically speaking. Even a cursory examination of the system—
[Interruption]
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a member of the tactics committee which approved the question. Even a cursory examination of the system would show that the honourable member's question in this House had no basis in fact. When I raised the matter later I told him that if he had any information he should take it to the ICAC. The honourable member for Davidson claimed in this House that he had referred the matter to the ICAC. However, I have received a letter from Commissioner Irene Moss that clearly shows that the member for Davidson had no information to provide to the ICAC to assist the investigation. I have the correspondence.
Mr Hartcher: Point of order: The standing orders require the Minister to verify the document that he is quoting. Members opposite should not give hints to the chair. The Minister is required to table the document.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Gosford has asked the Minister to verify the document.
Mr AMERY: I will verify the document. I will table every document to which I have referred. The ICAC commissioner said:
I note your advice that you wrote to Mr Humpherson requesting any additional information regarding the allegations, however, no further information was provided. ICAC officers have also contacted Mr Humpherson in an attempt to obtain further information about the allegations, however, no further information has been forthcoming.
That is not surprising. The ICAC commissioner then said:
… the ICAC will not be pursuing the matter.
In conclusion, I make this point. This is not a case of an Opposition member misrepresenting statistics. Part of the Opposition's role is to put a twist on things. This is not a case of an Opposition member putting a different spin on a policy or a program. This was a deliberate fabrication. The circumstances did not exist; the honourable member for Davidson made them up. We all know that the question was designed to give the honourable member a cheap media grab at that time. I apologise publicly to all those people in Corrective Services, the independent laboratory and everybody concerned for the embarrassment caused to them. If the honourable member for Davidson, who is not here, had any guts at all he would at least admit that he got it wrong, explain why he made it up and, more importantly, apologise to those officers involved in this particular circumstance.
I table a letter from the Minister for Corrective Services to the Commissioner, Department of the Corrective Services, dated 22 March 2002, a letter from the Minister for Corrective Services to Mrs K. Chikarovski, Leader of the Opposition, dated 22 March 2002, a letter from Mr M. O'Sullivan, General Secretary, Public Service Association to Mr J. Brogden, Leader of the Opposition, dated 28 March 2002, a letter from the Minister for Corrective Services to Mr J. Brogden, Leader of the Opposition, dated 2 April 2002, a 5534 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002 letter from the Minister for Corrective Services to Commissioner Irene Moss, Independent Commission Against Corruption, dated 9 April 2002 and a letter from the honourable member for Davidson to the Minister for Corrective Services dated 21 March 2002.
Documents tabled.
Mr Hartcher: Point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.
Mr Hartcher: The Minister has not tabled the only document relevant to this matter.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES COUNSELLING SERVICES
Mr CARR: Yesterday the honourable member for Wakehurst raised a matter about the Department of Community Services [DOCS]. As with the matter he raised last Saturday, the full details provide a very interesting picture. The honourable member alleged—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. I place him on three calls to order.
Mr CARR: If only the honourable member for Wakehurst knew a little about the rules of the House. He alleged that a woman seeking help from the Grafton office of DOCS for a 14-year-old girl was told that the office was so underresourced that it could only deal with children under 12 months of age—a serious allegation. He also alleged that in June DOCS contacted the woman and asked her to accommodate the 14-year-old girl. I am advised by DOCS that those allegations, as in the cases raised by the honourable member on Saturday and last week, are incorrect. DOCS advises that the only thing the member opposite got right was that somewhere in New South Wales—
Mr Hazzard: Point of order: If the Premier is so sure of his facts he should allow this to be debated, and allow me to table the statutory declaration from the mother, who verifies that everything I said was absolutely accurate and everything the Premier is saying are lies.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the honourable member for Wakehurst if his present behaviour continues. The Premier has the call.
Mr CARR: According to DOCS, the only thing the member opposite got right was that somewhere in New South Wales a 14-year-old girl had run away from home. DOCS offers to fill in the missing information. Unfortunately it means that yet again, in order to set the record straight and defend the record of DOCS officers, we have been compelled to discuss the private affairs of a battling family. First, the member opposite did not have the right location. The case is being dealt with by the Coffs Harbour office of DOCS, not the Grafton office, as the member opposite was claiming—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst may disagree with the Premier about some matters. He will have an opportunity at the end of question time to make a personal explanation, as he did yesterday.
Mr Hazzard: I will take that opportunity. Can you guarantee that?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I guarantee the honourable member will be given that opportunity. Every member has that opportunity.
Mr CARR: I am advised by the department that the matter is being dealt with by the Coffs Harbour office, not the Grafton office, as the member opposite was still claiming earlier today on Howard Sattler's program on 2SM. Second, I am advised that in the Grafton office of DOCS, far from the picture being that it only deals with children under 12 months, the main focus is on adolescents and family matters. I am advised that the 14-year-old girl ran away from home after an argument with a parent. She was not placed there by DOCS, according to the department. 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5535
In any case, let me make it clear that DOCS policy is only to approve placement of children with foster carers after a full assessment of the carer. The honourable member for Wakehurst should have known that before he asked his question yesterday. He should know better. The girl ran away to the home of the woman concerned, the mother of a school friend, according to DOCS. That woman reported conflict between the girl and the parent to the DOCS Helpline on 4 June. After considering the details of the case, the Helpline suggested that the woman talk to the parent to discuss the possibility of the girl staying with her. DOCS Coffs Harbour office subsequently facilitated counselling service for both the woman and the parent. Mediation counselling sessions then took place.
I should say here that DOCS has identified no welfare, abuse or neglect issues with the girl's parents. It is DOCS policy—quite rightly, I am sure the House will agree—to promote families staying together where appropriate. DOCS believes that families should attempt to resolve their issues with appropriate counselling and other assistance. DOCS is working hard to ensure this happens in this case. I am advised that the woman has requested full financial assistance from DOCS. That request has been refused largely because, first, the girl's mother wants her to return home, and, second, there are no risk factors which DOCS believes support the girl leaving home. I am, however, advised that on 12 September DOCS asked the woman to bring receipts to its office for counselling fees and school trips for the girl and she would be reimbursed. To date, the woman has not presented those receipts to DOCS.
In summary, this is a case of a young girl running away from home after an argument. She is staying in the home of a friend. Mediation is continuing, and DOCS has agreed to cover the costs of mediation for the parents. DOCS has also agreed to cover some limited expenses incurred by the woman. The mother wants the girl to return home. DOCS believes that it is appropriate for the girl to return home. I would have thought the Opposition would want the girl to return home. The mother wants to maintain the family unit, and so does DOCS. So should the Opposition. In the meantime, I can assure the House that DOCS is working hard to resolve this difficult family matter with appropriate support and mediation. I will send a copy of this comment and of the question asked yesterday to the Public Service Association so again the union representing an excellent DOCS work force can contemplate the constant attack on it by the Opposition.
Mr Hazzard: Point of order: The Premier is trying the heavy-handed tactic of suggesting that I am attacking the union. I am not attacking the union. I am attacking him because his Government has not put the resources into DOCS.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat.
Questions without notice concluded.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Precedence of Business: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Motion by Mr Whelan agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow for the precedence of the following business at this sitting:
(1) at 4.30 p.m. a motion of condolence upon the death of the Honourable Laurie John Ferguson be moved; and
(2) at the conclusion of that motion the House adjourn as a mark of respect.
RUTHERFORD RESERVE
Supplementary Answer
Mr YEADON: On 19 June 2002 the honourable member for Cronulla asked me a question on notice regarding Rutherford Reserve. I wish to provide some further information that has now been provided to me by Sydney Water, and I seek leave to table a letter from the Managing Director, Mr Alex Walker.
Leave granted.
Document tabled. 5536 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES COUNSELLING SERVICES
Personal Explanation
Mr HAZZARD, by leave: I wish to make a personal explanation. During question time today the Premier took another opportunity to have a swipe at me, suggesting that what I put before the House by way of questions and statements in the media was incorrect. He challenged the veracity of what I said. The only way I can rebut the Premier's statements is, by way of personal explanation, reading from a statutory declaration of the woman who actually addressed the facts.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst knows that when he is making a personal explanation he must explain how he has been misrepresented or how his character has been impugned. He may not debate the substantive issue.
Mr HAZZARD: The Premier impugned me by saying that what I said is inaccurate. What I have said is entirely accurate, because what I did—and what I do on every occasion before I present any matter to the House—was go through the matter very carefully with the complainant. In this case the complainant had made every effort. She telephoned the Minister's office two weeks ago and made the same complaint. She has been to the Community Services Commission. She came to me and I took down all the pertinent—
Mr Face: Point of order: The honourable member is debating and canvassing the matter. Mr Deputy- Speaker, you quite clearly advised the honourable member that he must be explicit in stating how he has been misrepresented or impugned.
Mr O'Farrell: To the point of order: To some extent it is unfortunate that the occupancy of the chair has changed in the last few minutes, because while the Premier was delivering his supplementary answer the Speaker made statements to the honourable member for Wakehurst about his capacity to correct the record after the Premier had finished speaking. This is no reflection on you, Mr Deputy-Speaker, but clearly, if the Speaker were in the chair he would follow through with the intent of that statement. It is impossible for the honourable member for Wakehurst to demonstrate how he has been impugned and where the Premier has told lies unless the honourable member puts both the previous events and current events.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! When making a personal explanation the honourable member for Wakehurst must explain how his character has been impugned. He cannot debate the substantive issue. The honourable member may continue but he must comply with the standing orders.
Mr HAZZARD: The Premier said that the child was placed voluntarily. I say that is incorrect. I was misrepresented in that the correct situation is that the child was placed with the woman by DOCS. A phone call came from the child's school first, saying that a DOCS officer would ring. Then the DOCS officer did ring the woman and ask for the child to be placed. To that extent, the Premier has misrepresented what I put to the House. Those are the factual statements. He further misrepresented me in the House, yesterday and again today, when he said that I had—
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst cannot deal with what happened yesterday.
Mr HAZZARD: All right. The Premier further misrepresented me today when he said I had attacked DOCS officers.
Mr Whelan: Point of order: The honourable member cannot continue to flout the standing orders. He may say how he has been misrepresented, but cannot make allegations about anybody. It is for the honourable member to make his personal explanation—not put his view to the House. The honourable member must explain to the House how his reputation has been impugned. This is the third occasion upon which the honourable member has been cautioned. He is deliberately flouting the Chair's ruling. I now ask that you direct him to remain within the standing orders. If he does not, I respectfully suggest he be ordered to resume his seat.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. The honourable member for Wakehurst may continue but he must comply with the standing orders.
Mr HAZZARD: If the Premier impugns me by making suggestions—as he did—that I have, for example, vilified DOCS officers, I am entitled to protect my reputation by a personal explanation indicating that 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5537 at no stage have I ever sought to vilify or attack any DOCS officers. The majority of DOCS officers throughout the State do an amazingly wonderful job considering the limited resources that this Government gives them. The threat that the Premier issued as he walked from the Chamber—that he would start sending letters to the Public Service Association—shows the infantile way in which the Premier is conducting this matter.
Mr Mills: Point of order—
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst has concluded his personal explanation.
Mr HAZZARD: I have not.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: So far as I am concerned you have.
Mr HAZZARD: I am still making it. Mr Deputy-Speaker, if you wish to deal with me for trying to explain that the Premier has lied about what I have done, that is matter for you. However, I am entitled, as part of my personal explanation, to present information about allegations he has made regarding my character and to rebut them. I am simply doing that.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst has been warned on four occasions. I ask him to resume his seat.
Mr HAZZARD Mr Deputy-Speaker, I will resume my seat. However, as I go I note that what the Premier is doing is ridiculous. He is attacking the families and the children.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wakehurst will resume his seat. He has concluded his personal explanation.
PRISONERS DRUG TESTING
Personal Explanation
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I ask the honourable member for Davidson to bear the standing orders in mind.
Mr HUMPHERSON, by leave: The Minister for Corrective Services misrepresented and impugned me in relation to a matter I raised in Parliament earlier this year. In my role as the shadow Minister for Corrective Services for the best part of two years I have endeavoured to pursue matters on the basis of substance. I received information from a source that I intend to protect in this House and publicly. As the Minister indicated, as a result of my stand, the matters were referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The Minister and I both received responses from ICAC on 26 June 2002. I do not believe the Minister has had any further advice from ICAC in the past three months, and I have had no further contact. In response to that correspondence, my office contacted the designated officer at ICAC and indicated that a source wished to speak to the commission. We contacted our source and provided the telephone number for the commission, the name of the contact officer and the reference number.
Mr Whelan: Point of order: The honourable member for Davidson cannot deal with this issue by way of a personal explanation. He can do this by giving notice of a motion; he cannot abuse the personal explanation procedure. The procedure is limited to how his reputation has been impugned. He can simply say that, and that is the end of it. He cannot debate the issue.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. If the honourable member for Davidson wants to explain how his character has been impugned, he may do so. However, he cannot canvass the matter in the way he has been doing. If he continues to do so I will ask him to resume his seat.
Mr HUMPHERSON: I am outlining how I have been misrepresented. The Minister accused me of raising matters in Parliament that had no substance. That was the basis for a question—
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Davidson may deal with that matter by way of substantive motion. 5538 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002
Mr HUMPHERSON: I was misrepresented. I want to use this opportunity because it is the proper procedure of the House to explain how I was misrepresented. I have detailed the series of events. ICAC should have been contacted. ICAC officers indicated that they would contact me if my source did not contact them. That has not occurred.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Davidson is continuing the debate.
Mr HUMPHERSON: This is not a matter of debate; I am setting the record straight.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on the matter.
Mr HUMPHERSON: ICAC has had the opportunity to pursue this matter.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If there is nothing further to add—
Mr Anderson: Point of order: The honourable member for Davidson is flouting the rules of this House. Mr Deputy-Speaker, I ask you to be strong, to uphold the standing orders and to sit him down.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I have already asked him to sit down.
Mr Hazzard: No, you didn't.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I said that there was nothing more to add to the explanation and that the honourable member should resume his seat. Members should not tell me what I did and did not do.
Mr HUMPHERSON: ICAC did not complete the investigation.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.
Mr HUMPHERSON: Nor did it contact my office to tell me that it had not continued the investigation.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I am moving to the next order of business. The honourable member for Davidson will resume his seat.
Mr HARTCHER (Gosford—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [3.53 p.m.]: I move:
That the honourable member for Davidson be further heard.
The House divided.
Ayes, 33
Mr Armstrong Dr Kernohan Mr Slack-Smith Mr Barr Mr Kerr Mr Souris Mrs Chikarovski Mr McGrane Mr Stoner Mr Collins Mr Merton Mr Tink Mr Cull Ms Moore Mr J. H. Turner Mr George Mr O'Farrell Mr R. W. Turner Mr Glachan Mr Oakeshott Mr Webb Mr Hartcher Mr D. L. Page Mr Hazzard Mr Piccoli Ms Hodgkinson Mr Richardson Tellers, Mrs Hopwood Mr Rozzoli Mr Fraser Mr Humpherson Mrs Skinner Mr R. H. L. Smith 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5539
Noes, 45
Mr Amery Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Ms Andrews Mr Hunter Dr Refshauge Mr Aquilina Mr Iemma Ms Saliba Mr Ashton Mrs Lo Po' Mr W. D. Smith Mr Bartlett Mr Markham Mr Stewart Ms Beamer Mr Martin Mr Tripodi Mr Black Mr McBride Mr Watkins Miss Burton Mr McManus Mr West Mr Campbell Ms Meagher Mr Whelan Mr Collier Ms Megarrity Mr Woods Mr Crittenden Mr Mills Mr Yeadon Mr Debus Mr Moss Mr Face Mr Newell Mr Gibson Ms Nori Tellers, Mr Greene Mr Orkopoulos Mr Anderson Mrs Grusovin Mr E. T. Page Mr Thompson
Pairs
Mr Brogden Ms Harrison Ms Seaton Mr Scully
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
CONSIDERATION OF URGENT MOTIONS
Royal Australian Navy Sea 1444 Replacement Patrol Boat Project
Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [4.01 p.m.]: My motion is urgent because it supports the Royal Australian Navy Sea 1444 Replacement Patrol Boat project which I hope will be awarded to the Australian Defence Industries in Newcastle. This matter is of serious concern not only to me as Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development but to all honourable members—Federal and State—regardless of their political persuasion, who represent the Hunter electorate. My motion is urgent for that reason.
Goulburn Gaol Prisoner Riots
Mr RICHARDSON (The Hills) [4.02 p.m.]: My motion is urgent because it has now been more than five months since 30 prisoners rioted at Goulburn gaol, bashing seven prison officers, one of them within an inch of his life. My motion is urgent because only three weeks before the Goulburn riot the Commissioner for Corrective Services was given a report by consultant Laurence Goodstone which effectively warned that a riot would occur if the Government continued with its policy of racial segregation at Goulburn gaol. Mr Goodstone wrote in that report:
Insufficient productive activity only increases group tensions with a concomitant requirement to seek safety with fellow inmates of similar background. When tension is high inmates associate to be safe.
He continued:
Over the last decade or more, there has been an increasing propensity for correctional centre managers, particularly in maximum security facilities, to cluster inmates by ethnicity. For correctional managers, working with frequently inadequate staffing resources, inmate clustering is all too often the easy way out.
Essentially, he is saying that ethnic clustering makes managers lazy, it increases group tension and it creates a siege mentality amongst some staff. That situation has not changed. It changed at Silverwater when management did away with ethnic clustering. Mr Goodstone wrote:
Since the segregation policy was discontinued at Silverwater there has been a dramatic decrease in the incidence of assaults, fires, misconduct and inmates seeking protection. 5540 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002
It is important that this report is completed and released. There is no sign of that happening. Until that is done the measures that will be recommended in the report cannot be put in place. My motion is urgent because it is now four months since the Inspector General of Corrective Services gave his interim report to the Government. Since that time nothing has been done by this Government. My motion is urgent because one of the issues that must be addressed is the monitoring of prisoners, particularly within a maximum-security environment. Mr Deputy-Speaker, I am sure you would understand that, since it has recently been revealed that every gaol except one is understaffed and the Government is building two new gaols and adding 200 remand beds at Parklea, there will be a problem because there are insufficient and inexperienced staff.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I remind the honourable member for The Hills that he should not debate the substantive issue. He should give reasons why his motion should have priority.
Mr RICHARDSON: Mr Deputy-Speaker, I am not debating the issue. I suggest that somebody else should be taking the point of order and not you. This matter is urgent because the Council on the Cost and Quality of Government, in a confidential strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats [SWOT] analysis given to Cabinet in April this year, identified the increasing prison population as a major threat that was stretching resources and systems.
Mr Face: Point of order: The honourable member is starting to canvass various issues to expand on his motion. He must just tell the House why his motion is urgent.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order.
Mr RICHARDSON: This matter is urgent because the Government's response to these riots has serious implications for the management of the State's 26 gaols and the safety of the prison system's 3,800 operational staff. I know that many of them are concerned about what happened at Goulburn—as would be any honourable member in their position—and many of them are concerned about their safety. This matter is urgent because this Parliament needs to make it clear to the Government that this report must be expedited. This report must be completed and released. If the Government does not release a completed report it will be placing the lives of those prison officers at risk and it will be placing the security of the general public at risk.
That is a major issue that this Parliament should be debating. My motion is urgent also because gaols are becoming more violent. There has been a 57 per cent increase in the rate of assaults by inmates on inmates in the term of this Government. Last year there was a 32 per cent increase in the number of assaults by inmates on prison officers. That matter should be of serious concern to everyone in this Parliament. That is why this motion is urgent and that is why it should be debated today.
Question—That the motion for urgent consideration of the honourable member for Charlestown be proceeded with—agreed to.
ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY SEA 1444 REPLACEMENT PATROL BOAT PROJECT
Urgent Motion
Mr FACE (Charlestown—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development) [4.07 p.m.]: I move:
That this House supports the Royal Australian Navy Sea 1444 Replacement Patrol Boat Project being awarded to Australian Defence Industries, Newcastle.
This is a matter of serious concern, not only to me as Minister Assisting the Premier on Hunter Development but to all members of Parliament who represent Hunter electorates, and indeed those who represent the New South Wales Parliament and the Federal Parliament. Some time ago the Royal Australian Navy called for tenders to replace its ageing fleet of 15 Fremantle class patrol boats. These 15 new vessels will perform the role of patrol, surveillance, intelligence and protection of waters within Australia's economic exclusion zone. The tender states that the first vessel will be delivered by 2004 and the final vessel by 2008. The delivery project requires a multiple ship construction program, with up to five ships being built simultaneously—something I have not witnessed in the time I have watched shipbuilding in and around the Hunter region. Tenders closed on 23 November 2001, and out of 14 companies submitting tenders Australian Defence Industries [ADI] of Carrington in Newcastle was shortlisted as one of three tenderers.
I am sure the success of ADI being shortlisted was due in part to the support given by the Premier and also the unanimous support given by this House following my speech in this Chamber on 7 November last year. 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5541
I emphasise that this contract is unlike contracts awarded years ago when the Navy had large facilities for repair and ongoing maintenance of ships. This through-life support will have a tremendous flow-on effect on jobs in the Hunter region. The 15-year, through-life support of the vessels—which is worth approximately $400 million—will largely be undertaken in Darwin and Cairns, but because the shipyards are in Newcastle they will be able to provide spare parts during those 15 years. Australian Defence Industries and the Australian Defence Force recently signed a $32 million production contract, which will provide for six amphibious watercraft to be handed over by April 2005. This is a further indication of the region's competitiveness. ADI's success in winning this project is a reflection of the company's deep understanding of the Royal Australian Navy's operational and performance requirements, and in-service support needs.
Australian Defence Industries has proposed building Australia's new patrol boat fleet at Newcastle using the strategy that has produced the world's most advanced minehunting ships. The ADI tender is the only successful shortlisted New South Wales tenderer, which is truly a windfall for this State. However, as a consequence of the previous debate, I urge the House to impress upon the Federal Government the merits and benefits of the ADI tender. The Huon class Minehunter building program has demonstrated the considerable benefits of composite structures for naval vessels—strength, durability, low maintenance, low thermal signature, low acoustic signature, low magnetic signature and survivability in the event of a mine blast. ADI has in turn developed a world-class capability at its Carrington's site in Newcastle to construct large and complex composite structures for naval applications—a capability that can also be used for commercial work.
Despite the complexity of the Minehunter construction program and the fact that the composites had never previously been used in Australia for naval vessels of this size, the project is on time and on budget, to a build standard that is equal to, or better than, the original equipment manufacturer. The Swedish, Norwegian and the United States navies are already using these composite vessels. The United States Navy, in fact, is looking at composites as a potential hull form for its littoral combat ships program. The Australian Navy is aware of these developments, but as yet there appears to be no program other than the replacement patrol boat project in the defence capability plan that looks at the kinds of vessels Australia might need for littoral combat in our own region. It may therefore be timely to ask whether the Australian Navy is keeping pace with other Western navies, including the United States Navy, in very high-speed, well-armed, low signature vessels for the patrol and whether composite ships represent that future capability. As we all know, there have been many changes in the United States since the events of September 11.
Australia has a capability in composites for naval shipbuilding purposes that is probably ahead of its time—thanks to the Minehunter ship project at Newcastle, and the technology and craftsmanship that was earned from that project—thereby keeping alive and intact for the future Australia's only advanced composite capability for naval shipbuilding, which should be an important strategic issue for the Federal Government and the Defence Department. The economic and technological benefits to the Hunter region from the $1 billion spent on the Minehunter project over the past nine years may be summed up as follows: 68 per cent of the project value went to Australian industry; $887 million contributed to GDP; $494 million contributed to domestic consumption; nationwide, the project generated, either directly or indirectly, an average of more than 1,800 jobs per year; over the nine-year to ten-year period of the contract, more than 3,180 jobs were generated in the Newcastle region alone; of the companies supplying of the Minehunter contract, 85 per cent were located in New South Wales and, more importantly, 45 per cent were located in Newcastle.
This is a fantastic achievement for, and a huge vote of confidence in, the capacities and capabilities of regional Australia. The Hunter Economic Development Corporation is currently undertaking an expanded study to model the economic benefits of building the new patrol boat in the Hunter. The two other contenders to building the replacement patrol boat besides ADI are based in Western Australia—namely, Tenex and Austal. If New South Wales does not win the project jobs and defence capability of national significance will be put at risk. Now that the Minister for Defence has released his department's study on naval sector restructuring, it is more important than ever to look at the national significance of key facilities and infrastructure in the naval engineering sector. In addition, if Newcastle wins the patrol boat project, and in combination with the Minehunter build program and the landing craft built program currently in progress, Newcastle will be a centre of excellence for small naval ship design and construction in this country.
This is potentially good news for New South Wales, particularly the Hunter, because both ADI and Forgacs—both of which are major players in the repair and maintenance of Royal Australian Navy vessels— will conduct a significant amount of that work in the Sydney and Newcastle region. I moved this motion in Parliament today to gain State Government and Opposition support in bringing this major project to New South Wales. It would create possibly hundreds of sustainable jobs in the Hunter region. The replacement patrol boat 5542 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002 project therefore becomes critical because of the work opportunities for New South Wales. It offers to bridge the gap between now and at least 2007. One of the major concerns expressed by those who have briefed me, and also those to whom I have spoken and who have some knowledge of shipbuilding—including you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a former manager of the Newcastle State dockyard—is that there seems to be a mindset within the Navy that the only way it will accept this contract is either in steel complete, aluminium complete or a combination of both.
Together with the old Royal Navy, the Navy seems to have a mindset that composites should not be used and certainly are not equal in quality to both steel and aluminium, whereas in fact the opposite is true. As I emphasised, the United States is currently using composites. Other countries, including the Scandinavian countries, are likewise using composites. In fact, in a demonstration at the ADI workshops recently a heavy plumb-bob type of device was dropped from a height and penetrated in turn a sheet of aluminium, a sheet of steel and a sheet of composite. In the comparative demonstration, the composites fared much better than the aluminium and steel. It would be sad if the Royal Australian Navy were to go into this contract with the mindset that composites are inferior to the other two materials. As I have said, two composite ships are being used in the United States. In some of the accidents that have occurred there, considerably less damage has been caused to the structure of the ships. The United States is now leading the world, and we want to be the world leaders. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr J. H. TURNER (Myall Lakes—Deputy Leader of the National Party) [4.17 p.m.]: The Opposition will support the Government and the Minister, as we did in the November debate, in seeking to have the contract for the replacement of Royal Australian Navy Sea 1444 patrol boats awarded to Australian Defence Industries [ADI] at Newcastle. We do so without seeking to interrupt the proper tender process. I understand that three companies have been shortlisted to tender for the supply of the patrol boats. These have been signed off by the Federal Minister for Defence, Robert Hill. We are pleased that the Federal Coalition Government has again become involved because it was stated Australian Labor Party [ALP] policy that the building of these patrol boats would have been scrapped under a Federal Labor government. It is good to know that the Federal Coalition is honouring its obligation to proceed.
The shortlisted tenderers are ADI, which works out of Newcastle; Defence Maritime Services [DMS], which is partnered with Austral, and Tenex. If Tenex or DMS is successful they will build the boats in Perth and ADI, if successful, will build them in Newcastle. We would prefer ADI to get the job so that the work is done in Newcastle; it will provide significant economic and employment opportunities to the area. I am told that the competition for stage two final shortlist was intense. That highlights the fact that we have a competitive small vessel building industry in this country. Nine companies provided tenders, seven of which qualified to produce the vessels. The shortlisted tenderers were selected through a process based on merit in accordance with the criteria laid down in the request for tenders and the information offered in the company responses. The three companies selected to go to the next stage of the tender met the Australian industry involvement targets for construction of 65 per cent and for in-service support of 90 per cent.
The boats will operate primarily out of Cairns and Darwin. That does not alter the fact that they can still be built in Newcastle. Other areas will benefit as individual systems and equipment fitted to the boats may come from other parts of New South Wales. After evaluating two possible procurement options, the Federal Government has decided to directly purchase these boats, using private finance to deliver the boats and associated through-life support. However, advice provided to the Government indicated there was uncertainty about whether the prerequisite capability could be provided on a value-for-money basis while also ensuring that the transaction would be classified as an operating lease for accounting purposes. We need not concern ourselves with those matters at this stage, as we are more concerned about ensuring that this project comes to Newcastle. However, that is part of the process.
These boats will replace the current 15 Fremantle-class patrol boats that have served the Navy well but are ageing and are costly to maintain. The new vessels will provide the men and women of the Royal Australian Navy who operate them with more capable, modern and reliable vessels to help them better to protect Australia's coastline. They will also provide the Navy's patrol boat capability for the next 20 years. The Minister commented on how the boats will be made. The boat from ADI is a patrol boat based on the Danish design Stanflex 300. The ship will be built using a glass-reinforced plastic foam-core sandwich construction, similar technology to the Minehunter coastal vessels. One hopes that the fact that ADI is willing to use this new technology will not count against them in the final consideration of tenders.
The cost of the replacement patrol boats is expected to be around $375 million. That will provide a significant boost to the Hunter economy and the economy of New South Wales if ADI is successful in obtaining 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5543 the right to build these new boats. The new boats will provide 3,000 operational days per year, of which 1,800 days per year will be directed towards Coast Watch operations, which, as we know, are important. In addition, the boats will have a search capacity of 600 additional days per year to deal with short-notice contingencies. On average, the current Fremantle-class vessels have achieved about 2,700 operational days per year. The new boats will have a range of 3,000 nautical miles and will provide a 25 per cent increase over the range of the Fremantle-class boats.
They will also have the capability to conduct two concurrent boarding operations at extended ranges from the patrol boat, with two sea boats compared to the single boarding capacity of the Fremantle-class vessels. The boats will also be able to operate in a greater range of sea conditions, further improving their use at sea. They will have the capacity to carry up to 28 people in austere accommodation, whereas the Fremantle-class vessels have no dedicated additional accommodation. The state-of-the-art stabilised guns should improve control and accuracy in rougher weather to support a full range of surveillance and interdiction roles. The boats will also be capable of providing a greater level of surveillance capability by spending up to one-third more days at sea.
Obviously these are purpose-built boats. They will provide an immense service to the Australian public by being able to undertake duties guarding our coastline and carrying out border protection. Regrettably, in the uncertain world we live in at the moment, they may have a more active role to play at some time further down the track. The main thrust of this motion is to ensure the ships are built at Newcastle. Newcastle has the expertise to do it; it has a long history of shipbuilding. The honourable member for Maitland would know from his days at the State Dockyard that Carrington and the other ancillary shipbuilding activities in the region have the necessary knowledge, the manpower and the determination. All they need is the contract.
Mr BARTLETT (Port Stephens) [4.23 p.m.]: I support the urgent motion moved by the Minister for Gaming and Racing. If Australian Defence Industries [ADI] wins the right to build and maintain these 15 patrol boats for the Royal Australian Navy it could be worth, over time, up to $700 million. ADI estimates that winning the contract would result in its work force growing from about 160 to about 500 people. It is estimated that a further 2,000 indirect jobs will be generated in related local subcontract and supply companies. If ADI wins the patrol boat contract because of its composite material, which we believe is out of favour right now with the Royal Australian Navy, it will build the boats at its Carrington shipyards in Newcastle using its advanced composite instead of steel or aluminium. The use of that composite will extend the life of the boats from around 20 years to up to 40 years.
The composite is used in aircraft construction. Two or three years ago I had discussions with the purchaser of Impulse Airlines, which operated a Beech 500 aircraft. The builder of that craft was looking at using the composite for moulds for the fuselage of their future Beech aircraft. That would have saved hundreds and hundreds of man hours of riveting steel and aluminium together. The composite could have been put into a mould and made a much stronger fuselage for the aircraft. The same composite material can be used, with its strength and durability, on the patrol boats required by the Royal Australian Navy. Australian Defence Industries has completed a most successful Huon-class Minehunter project in the Newcastle area. The project was completed on time and on budget, and the vessels are performing well for the Navy. No other surface ship has been built in Australia with such advanced integrated electronic systems. They are complex vessels but they are all performing up to the required standard. Because of that project, Newcastle now has a world-class shipbuilding facility served by a highly skilled work force.
About 850 local businesses contributed to the project, which at its peak employed 580 people, most of them from the Hunter. We are now facing another problem. It has been claimed that in the 1960s and 1970s the State dockyard had poor manning practices, poor compensation provisions and a poor industrial record. Newcastle has taken stock of all that and has moved forward to the point of producing first-class ships on time and on budget. Suddenly, now that ADI is world-class and competitive, the Federal Government is considering an industry rationalisation scheme. The fear is that the Federal Government will rationalise the Hunter out of shipbuilding, because it has announced its intention to replace competitive tendering for defence shipbuilding with long-term relationships with preferred suppliers.
It now looks as if we will go down the track of "mates rates" for naval shipbuilding. Yet the Hunter has spent 10 or 15 years moving from its antiquated industrial base and practices to brand-new industrial practices with composite materials. As the Minister said, Newcastle is at the forefront of world technology, ahead of America and Sweden, where 72-foot ships are manufactured using composite materials. We are at the cutting edge of new technology for shipbuilding. Following the experience with the State dockyard, the rules of the 5544 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002 game will be changed; tendering will no longer apply for shipbuilding contracts. The system will be rationalised, and preferred suppliers will be looked after. These composite ships are excellent for the Hunter. We have the skills, the technology and the work force to put it all together. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [4.38 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Minister for Gaming and Racing. Although I had intended to speak at length on the motion, I note that the Premier has entered the Chamber to move an important condolence motion. Therefore, I shall speak briefly on behalf of the Opposition. The Opposition understands that ADI has a proud and efficient history in the Hunter in the construction of boats. As previous Opposition speakers said, we would not seek to influence the tender process in any way. However, we will join with our colleagues opposite in asking the Federal Government to give serious consideration to granting the tender, all things being equal, to ADI in the Hunter. Recently ADI has had much success in constructing Minehunters. Based on ADI's experience of developing and constructing six Minehunters, and other work it has been doing, the Opposition is of the view that it has the capacity to undertake this contract with a great degree of excellence. The Opposition supports the motion.
Pursuant to resolution business interrupted.
DEATH OF THE HONOURABLE LAURIE JOHN (JACK) FERGUSON, AO, A FORMER DEPUTY PREMIER OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Lynch): Before I call the Premier I take this opportunity to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Mary Ferguson, Deborah Ferguson, Jenny Smith, Merryn Lynch, Sarah Smith and Anita Smith.
Mr CARR (Maroubra—Premier, Minister for the Arts, and Minister for Citizenship) [4.30 p.m.]: I move:
That this House extends to Mrs Ferguson and family the deep sympathy of members of the Legislative Assembly in the loss sustained by the death on 17 September 2002 of the Honourable Laurie John (Jack) Ferguson, a former Deputy Premier and Minister of the Crown.
In his tribute to Jack Ferguson at St Patrick's, Guildford, on Monday, the Hon. Neville Wran referred to some of my words in my tribute when we heard the news of Jack's death last week. I had said that without Jack Ferguson Neville Wran would never have become leader of the Labor Party in New South Wales in 1973; as a result, all the following would not have happened—the Wranslides and the 12 years of Labor Government in the 1970s and 1980s. And, as Neville Wran said at the funeral, all that was absolutely true. But, as the former Premier said, those words hardly begin to tell the story not only of their great partnership between 1973 and 1984 but of Jack Ferguson's contribution to the Labor Party and to the people of this State. Nor does the formal recital of his parliamentary service, which I now place on the record of this House.
The Hon. Laurie John Ferguson was born in Zetland, Sydney, on 4 September 1925. He was member for Merrylands from 1959 to 1962, for Fairfield from 1962 to 1968 and again for Merrylands from 1968 until his retirement in 1984. He was Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party in the Parliament of New South Wales from 3 December 1973 to 10 February 1984. He was Deputy Premier from 14 May 1976 to 10 February 1984. Throughout that period he was Minister for Public Works and Minister for Ports. Between May 1976 and February 1977 he was also Minister for Housing. He was Acting Premier for lengthy periods in 1980 and 1983.
Within that bare outline there is a story of rich personal achievement—rich and deep in his family life, his political and personal beliefs, enhanced by a lifetime of self-education; rich and deep in his knowledge and understanding of his fellow Australians, his fellow workers in his union, in his party and in this Parliament. Jack Ferguson was in every way a big man—a big laugh, a big heart, a big mind. Everything that Jack became as a man and as a politician grew from the roots of his childhood. He grew up in the Merrylands area, Granville and Guildford, during the Depression. For the Ferguson family, as for thousands upon thousands of others, eviction and privation were real and constant threats. He saw the soul-destroying effect of long-term unemployment on proud and decent men like his father. He had to leave school at the earliest legal age of 13. His meagre earnings helped sustain the family, which his mother somehow held together.
During World War II Jack Ferguson saw active service as an army gunman in New Guinea and Borneo. The Chifley Government's post-war retraining programs enabled him to enrol in a technical college course and qualify as a bricklayer. He remained grateful for that all his life—and proud of his skills all his life. In the months before his marriage to Mary Ellen Bett in 1951 he built a house in Guildford with his own hands. They 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5545 lived in that house all their married life of 51 years. There they brought up their five children: Laurie, Martin, Deborah, Andrew and Jennifer. The door of the house was always open to his constituents. He represented them in this place faithfully for a quarter of a century. To him, as he said, his parliamentary salary was "a fortune, not a bloody wage".
In his maiden speech in 1959, Jack spoke of those burgeoning suburbs in the south and west that were developing without sewerage, decent roads or footpaths. He called for better planning and cheaper housing. Seventeen years later, as Minister for Public Works, Jack loved nothing better than to open new hospitals, schools, public housing and roads in the areas of greatest need. He never forgot the working people he was elected to represent. He was their stubborn, unyielding advocate in the party, the Parliament and the Government.
Both the speakers at the service on Monday—Neville Wran and Jack's eldest son, Laurie— made special mention of Jack's extraordinary range of depth of reading and knowledge. Both his parents and his sister Hilary instilled a respect for learning and ideas far beyond the norm for a family in their harsh circumstances. It never left him. He was the strongest advocate in this House of public libraries. And he used them. Laurie Ferguson told how he remained the most demanding customer of the Guildford Public Library, which he himself secured for the area. It was his Cabinet initiative that provided the extensions to the State Library, formerly the parliamentary tennis courts, which he had no compunction in acquiring. He devoured history, ancient and modern. He came, saw and conquered the Caesars. He worked through the whole six volumes of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. So he embodied the tradition of self-educated working people that is part of this Parliament's history and the Labor Party's history.
Rodney Cavalier, one of our former colleagues, whom Jack Ferguson inspired and guided, recalls the occasion of the great battle in caucus and at conference over the admission of Legislative Councillors to the Labor Caucus. Jack was adamantly against it—he had a lot of wisdom! The "stampeding hordes", he called them. This brought him into direct conflict with head office—not a novel or unusual position for Jack Ferguson—and, reluctantly, and unusually, with Neville Wran. I said "unusually", but I meant uniquely. That was the first and only public confrontation between them. But, as Neville Wran said on Monday, it was by no means for the first and only time in private. In taking his stand, Jack told the conference:
I know that we of the Left are crossing the Rubicon.
As Rodney Cavalier tells it, Jack said to him:
Comrade, what do people do at university? I've got all the university graduates coming up to me and asking what was the Rubicon. Don't they read history?
Needless to say, Jack gave his children the opportunities for higher education which he had been denied. Jack could echo with understanding the well-known and great words of Ben Chifley. Chifley said:
I would give a million pounds for Bob Menzies' education.
That is an echo of a time when to have been working class meant one was born to be denied access to completing secondary school, let alone going on to university. So it is a reminder of that time. I remember Rodney Cavalier saying to me on one occasion that it is a great thing when you have a manual worker, a bricklayer, as Deputy Premier of New South Wales. That is part of Jack Ferguson's significance. I remember him as being unfailingly polite. With a mate, I had cross words with him as we went into or came out of one of those June long weekend party conferences. We sort of snarled at one another. Jack came up an hour later and said, "Sorry about that, sorry." We apologised for being excited by the factional battles of the moment, with the smell of sulphur in the air.
I remember him at the policy speech at Randwick at the start of the 1973 election campaign. Jack joked that Labor's chances were so bleak that he was going to spend the campaign chasing postal votes. He was very candid. I am flattered by one thing he said about me. I have to censor his remark and delete one word. I was greatly flattered when I had this related to me, I think by Peter Crawford. Peter said, "Jack Ferguson referred to you. He said, 'Keating, Brereton, Carr—what a [expletive deleted] trio.' " I was greatly honoured that that would come into his mind.
In my misbegotten youth I worked as a journalist for the Bulletin and I wanted some background on the inside workings of the Wran Government. Jack was kind enough to give me an hour to discuss things, on a Saturday morning during the 1978 election campaign in his office. He candidly discussed with me, off the record, the character of the Government and of the bloke he served, Neville Wran. Then he went off, to use his words, "to press some flesh for Rodney" in Cavalier's electorate, called Gladesville at the time. 5546 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002
I cannot pretend I knew Jack well. He went out in the 1984 election, so I was here for only a few months while he was in this Parliament. But it is a great measure of his qualities that so many people were able to speak so fondly of him, pre-eminently Rodney Cavalier—who, of course, has already written I think 50,000 or 60,000 words of a biography of Jack—but so many others as well. My contemporaries in the other faction of the New South Wales Australia Labor Party at the time hugely esteemed him. Jack was to them an iconic figure, an inspiring figure, a source of ideas and perspective and a view of Labor history. They would quote the great flashes of commonsense that Jack was able to deliver.
There are a few parallels here, a few echoes. We think of the echo in Ben Chifley, the engine driver who became Prime Minister, and Jack Ferguson, the bricklayer who became Deputy Premier. We think of the Curtin-Chifley partnership, of the Wran-Ferguson partnership—so important—of these Labor giants who never forsook their people or their cause, despite all their achievements and successes in the service of the people of Australia and New South Wales. We must remember that the changes in our society—the new opportunities, the new standards, the new aspirations—that have overtaken their times, reflect their work, their vision for a better, fairer country. In knowing Jack Ferguson, we know a whole generation of Australian men and women. Our knowledge of him, our familiarity with him and his character give us a feel for a generation of Labor men and women now passing from our midst of which Jack Ferguson was such a splendid representative.
Mr BROGDEN (Pittwater—Leader of the Opposition) [4.45 p.m.]: I second the motion moved by the Premier offering condolences to the family of Jack Ferguson in the presence, in the gallery today, of his widow and members of his family. In particular I mention members of his family Laurie, Martin, Andrew, Deborah and Jenny and their extended families. As honourable members know, Laurie was a member of this House before going on to become a member of the Federal Opposition frontbench. Martin, who was President of the ACTU from 1992 1995, is also a frontbench member of the Australia Labor Party in Canberra. Andrew is the Secretary of the building division of his father's old union, the renamed CFMEU, which I hasten to add is my brother's trade union.
All three, might I add, attended an excellent school, St Patrick's College, Strathfield, my old school. I am told that things changed—as they obviously did—after they left, indeed to such an extent that the school could produce a Liberal leader today. Jack's daughters Deborah and Jenny are both schoolteachers. When I asked the honourable member for Liverpool whether the family would be happy for members of the Opposition to attend the funeral, I started by saying, "I do not understand the workings of the Left of the ALP. Are you a Ferguson person?" He said, "Yes. I married one of them."
Mrs Lo Po: One of the girls!
Mr BROGDEN: I did not need to say that, Faye! It is quite significant that the honourable member for Liverpool, the son-in-law of Jack Ferguson, was the Acting-Speaker occupying the chair when the motion was moved. I also note the presence in the gallery today of the Hon. Paul O'Grady, a former member of the upper House.
Jack Ferguson was born on 4 September 1925 at Zetland. He worked as a farmhand, textile worker and builders labourer, and joined the Australian Imperial Forces, serving from 1942 to 1946. He was an aldermen and Deputy Mayor of Parramatta, before coming into the Parliament as the member for Fairfield in March 1959. He worked as an organiser for the Building Workers Industrial Union before his election as the member for Merrylands. He was a member of the Legislative Assembly from March 1959 to May 1984, variously as the member for Merrylands and member for Fairfield. Most notably, he was the Deputy Premier from 1976 to 1984, and his portfolios included Public Works, Ports and Housing. He was Acting Premier on a number of occasions, including when then Premier Wran stood down for the royal commission in 1983.
As someone who never met Jack Ferguson, and who certainly did not serve in this Parliament in the period that he served, it would be somewhat inappropriate for me to make comments about Jack Ferguson. But I would like to invoke the words of others in paying tribute to him. The man who described Jack Ferguson as his only real friend in politics—Neville Wran—said that Jack had "buckets of common decency", an accolade that any member leaving this place would like to have intact. Stephen Loosley said:
He was a pivotal figure, along with John Ducker, in elevating Wran to the Labor leadership—and a major contributor to Labor's success.
Jack Ferguson was self-educated and, according to Loosley, the most well-read man he met in the Labor Party, including among his readings the classics from Shaw to Shakespeare and the history of Imperial Rome. His 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5547 respect for education was evident in the encouragement that he and his wife gave all five children to gain a university education. Mike Steketee-Milton Cockburn wrote in "Wran—an unauthorised biography", which was published in 1986, that Jack Ferguson symbolised an uncomplicated, idealistic socialism. Ferguson and Wran had a close friendship—a relationship not predicted at the beginning of their association. Cockburn went on to state that Jack Ferguson played the largest part in finding the numbers in caucus for Wran to become Premier. Wran himself picked up the votes of only a handful of right-wingers. Ferguson came to play a critical, complementary role to Wran. They were an unlikely combination.
Ferguson was gruff, romantic enough still to believe in the working class struggle, a heavy drinker and a smoker. Wran was the well-healed, well-dressed lawyer, happy to have left the working class behind him, pragmatic to a fault, cultured and much more eclectic in his choice of social companionship. Cockburn further stated that Ferguson's lack of personal ambition added stability to a Wran-led Labor Party, both in opposition and in government. Ferguson was the person called in to settle down Wran when, as one ministerial colleague put it, "Wran had thrown a turn." The quote that symbolises much of what I have heard and read about Jack Ferguson was mentioned by the Premier; that is, he said of his then $80,000 parliamentary salary that it was not a wage but a "bloody fortune".
In his Address-in-Reply maiden speech in 1959 Jack Ferguson focused on the issues of the day—the shortage of housing, the high price of land, industrial safety, the right to strike and the Cumberland County Council planning scheme. The Coalition joins with the Premier and honourable members of this House in expressing to the members of the Ferguson family here today, and those not able to be here, the condolences of our side of politics and recognise a man who served this State and his party in a great manner.
Dr REFSHAUGE (Marrickville—Deputy Premier, Minister for Planning, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and Minister for Housing) [4.52 p.m.]: I speak with great sadness at the death of Jack Ferguson, this State's Deputy Premier from 1976 to 1984. This is the passing of an era. The death of a figure in history like Jack is an immense loss. He was a fighter from the working class, he fought for the working class, and he never forgot his origins. He came from a different time and place, so the events of his life are not those one could seek to replicate. However, his life was an inspiration—an inspiration for others to emulate his commitment, his passion, his struggle and his fight for social justice.
Somehow we seem to take for granted that people who are living links with history, who are legendary and who were present at moments that shaped our national destiny will always be here. Yet, despite his importance, Jack retained his humility and perspective. The pomp and circumstances of his place in history did not distract him. It is not surprising that by request there was no State funeral for him. His funeral was held in the church in which he was married—St Patricks, Guildford. Jack was a lion of the Left. He is appropriately credited with much of the success of Neville Wran's decade as Premier. When he stepped down in 1984 he did not seek to interfere.
When I became Deputy Leader in 1988 I had to seek him out. He did not proffer advice; I had to ask him, and he gave it. Some of it I took—I have always been very grateful for it—and some of it I ignored. I regret that. However, as most of that advice was about the Australian Labor Party, and the New South Wales Right in particular, I will not reveal it now. Our moment in history is fleeting, it is brief, it is transitory. The world changes extraordinarily quickly. Jack was one of the old school. He was larger than life, a unionist, a fighter and a champion for the working class his entire life. He was born above the fire station in Zetland in 1925 and left school at the age of 13. If he had one regret, it was his lack of formal education. However, he read all his life. His appetite for reading was voracious and catholic. As we know, what we learn from lessons is no substitute for what we learn from life.
Jack worked on a poultry farm at Baulkham Hills, in a woollen mill at Parramatta and later in an asbestos factory at Homebush, mixing the asbestos with water. That job lasted less than half a year, but the result of his inhaling asbestos over even that brief time was the mesothelioma that ultimately killed him. He died on 17 September. Jack was quoted at the time he left office as saying that no-one knew anything about asbestos of asbestosis then. They were exposed to it all the time, but they did not worry that it might kill them because they could not live forever. He went on to say that it was important that something was being done about it so that what happened to him would not happen to anyone else.
It is a tragedy that asbestos killed him, but it was not a surprise that he died from a workers' disease. Jack was a fighter from the working class. He fought his entire life for the working class and he never forgot what it was to be given a chance to improve his lot in life. At the age of 18, Jack enlisted in the Army and served 5548 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002 as a gunner during the Second World War with the Ninth Division AIF in New Guinea, Borneo and New Britain. After he returned he took up a Commonwealth traineeship as a bricklayer. This measure of the Chifley Government allowed him and many other returned servicemen to change their lives. He never forgot it, and he joined the Australian Labor Party in 1946.
Ken Booth, Wran's Treasurer, got a fine brick barbecue built in his backyard in the Hunter and the bricks were laid by Jack. Ken was a man whom Jack always held in exceptionally high regard. He respected his talent and abilities as well as his personal qualities. Jack called him "Bushy Tail" because he was as cunning as a fox. They knew about people's problems. They had no electorate offices, so constituents came to their homes to talk about their problems. Mary, like other political wives, was like a local member, listening to people's stories when Jack was not in. Jack and Ken knew the value of people helping each other. There were plenty of good times. I am told that when Ken visited Jack in St Vincent's Hospital after his heart attack they immediately went to the chapel for a swig of scotch.
Jack knew his values and was unapologetic for pursuing them. He rose through the ranks as a union organiser with the Building Workers Industrial Union. He served six years on Parramatta Council, including one as Deputy Mayor. He was elected in 1959 to the seat of Merrylands and, although the name of the electorate was changed, he remained the local member until he stepped down in 1984. He was a fighter from the working class, he fought for the working class, and he rose to the rank of Deputy Premier. In that position he worked quietly behind the scenes as well. He understood what it was to be deputy—to have a good working relationship with the leader. They also had a great friendship built on mutual respect.
According to a ministerial colleague, the relationship between Jack and Neville was one of life's joys to watch. Neville has said he loved Jack more than life itself and that he could not have done it without him. That was true: Without Jack, Wran would never have been Premier. Together, the political chemistry worked. They displayed a microscopic attention to detail, like giving Tempe and Randwick new fleets of Mercedes buses because they had to look after the people who needed it most, and helped create the Wran era. Jack was absolutely trusted and did long stints as Acting Premier during the Street royal commission and when Wran had suspected throat cancer. Wran said himself that he never had to look over his own shoulder for the sharp political cutlery because Jack did that for him.
Jack lived almost his entire life in Guildford. He built a house for himself and his bride, Mary Ellen Bett, next to his mother's house. He loved his garden and spent many hours in it. He grew up in the days when it mattered what class a person came from. It mattered who one fought for. He was a fighter from the working class, he fought for the working class, and he never backed away from the hard fights. One of the hardest tasks of his public life was the closing of the Newcastle State Dockyard. Orders for shipbuilding had dried up and there was no reasonable alternative. The dockyard had to close and hundreds of workers would lose their jobs. He went there to tell them himself. He did not send a minion, he did not send a letter: he faced the men himself. For a committed unionist and champion of the working class, it was a bitter task. However, he did it in his characteristic manner. He told them straight and honestly. Although they knew they had lost their jobs, those workers at the dockyard applauded his courage and decency because he faced them. It was the hardest thing he had to do as a politician.
At another time he fronted a shed filled with striking railway workers who had been out on strike for some time. He outlined the Government's position and talked them into going back to work. He did it in person. Jack believed in preserving history. As Minister for Public Works he preserved heritage—not just of public institutions, but also the heritage of workers. There is no doubt that Macquarie Street, the Government Mint, Hyde Park Barracks, and Parliament House would not have been the same if Jack had not intervened. He insisted that an upgrade to the precinct would be sympathetic and preserve as much of the original buildings as possible. He brought out master stonemasons from Italy to teach local tradespeople, including two women, skills which were no longer commonplace here.
For the opening celebration of the refurbished Barracks and the Mint, Jack invited all the brickies and others who had worked on the site and acknowledged them in his speech. In the early eighties that was very unusual—in fact, it was extraordinary. The row of workers cottages in Philip Street near Governor Macquarie Tower and the wooden bridge across Darling Harbour would not be here today without his intervention. These are tangible examples of Wran's vision and Jack Ferguson's practicality.
Jack is survived by his wife, Mary, and children, Laurie, Martin, Deborah, Andrew and Jenny, and his grandchildren. His son-in-law, Paul Lynch, is a member of this Chamber. Jack took delight in the fact that all his 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5549 children continued the fight to help people through the union movement and the Australian Labor Party and in other ways, and respected that some chose to lead more private lives. With his passing, an era is over. But he has left a legacy for this State, for working people, and for many people who now serve in public life. He was a role model because he never forgot what, or whom, he was fighting for.
When I worked as a doctor in Wilcannia in the early 1980s there was only one tap with running water for about 100 people who lived in a place called The Mallee. The water was not filtered: It came straight from the river; it was filthy. The senior nurse at Wilcannia and I filled bottles of water from this single tap—the water supply for families, women, children and babies—and we sent one bottle to every Government Minister, pleading for help. Jack kept that bottle of turgid water on his desk where he could see it every day until he signed off on clean water for The Mallee. For that and much more I want to say, "Jack, thank you".
Mr SOURIS (Upper Hunter—Leader of the National Party) [5.01 p.m.]: I join with the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Premier and subsequent speakers in paying tribute to the late Laurie John (Jack) Ferguson, one of the great pillars of the Labor Party in the seventies and eighties. Jack Ferguson had been gone from this place for four years when I was first elected to Parliament, but his reputation as a Labor Party legend was still very much in place. His parliamentary career spanned nearly 25 years, during which time he rose to become Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works and Minister for Ports, Minister for Housing and, at times, Acting Premier in the absence of Neville Wran. Neville Wran respected Jack Ferguson as a valued deputy and a formidable force in politics, as has already been said. He was the enforcer in the duo.
As has been amply demonstrated, Jack Ferguson came from humble beginnings and was totally committed to the principles of the Labor Party and the working man. What may not be widely known is that Jack had many friends in the old Country Party and had links through his wife and his wife's family with active members of the Country Party. For this information I am indebted to a former Minister in the Wran Government, Rodney Cavalier, who appears to have done the rounds in the past week. He has a highly developed sense of history in regard to the inter-party associations, whatever the political expanse between the individuals. I had a conversation with him earlier this week.
Jack Ferguson very much valued his friendship with the Country Party's Jim Brown, the honourable member for Raleigh and then Oxley. Both were members of the class of 1959. They served together on the timber committee, as Jim always called it. I am told that their affection for each other was obvious to anyone who observed them together. In 1951 Jack married Mary Ellen Bett. Present at their wedding was, among others, Doug Dickson, MP, the Country Party member for Temora from 1938 to 1960. He was present by reason of his close personal friendship with Donald Bett, the father of the bride. Mr Bett had been the secretary of the Dirnaseer Branch of the Country Party.
Mr Bett's grandchild, Laurie—who is now the honourable member for Reid in the Federal Parliament— has as one of his most treasured possessions a dodger from 1928 for a dance and euchre party at the Dirnaseer Hall in aid of the Country Party which was issued by Donald F. Bett, Secretary. The Bett family home, Romani, was part of the soldier settlement scheme. Lieutenant Colonel the Honourable Michael Frederick Bruxner, DSO, the United Country Party member for Northern Tablelands in the 1920s, and Hughie Main, the Progressive Country Party member for Cootamundra and then Temora in the same period, had been dinner guests at the family home. Jack's wife, Mary, often stayed in Guildford because her maternal grandparents, the Barretts, had a fine mansion on the right side of the tracks.
Jack and Mary met and fell in love. When Jack's courtship of Mary had reached an advanced stage he sought the formal approval of the father of his hoped-for bride. In the 1940s formalities still applied, certainly at Dirnaseer. Jack received an invitation to stay at Romani. He arrived at the farm a few days after Mary. He took an instant liking to Mr Bett and the feeling was reciprocated. It was the year of a very late harvest. The young Jack Ferguson readily assisted the family in bringing in the wheat. It was then that Jack Ferguson of Guildford met the expectations of Mr and Mrs Donald Bett of Dirnaseer.
Jack Ferguson enjoyed travelling to country New South Wales. In the days before mobile phones Jack was unreachable for many hours at a time because he used a motor vehicle to take him almost anywhere in New South Wales. I can certainly relate to that. Jack Ferguson is properly celebrated for his pride in his background and his unashamed association with working people. For that reason, he recognised and respected anyone who put in an honest day's work, whatever their vocation. He related well to farmers and people on the land. On behalf of the National Party I extend our sympathies to the Ferguson family—the family of a bricklayer who became Deputy Premier. 5550 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002
Mr YEADON (Granville—Minister for Information Technology, Minister for Energy, Minister for Forestry, and Minister for Western Sydney) [5.05 p.m.]: I pay respect and tribute to Laurie John Ferguson— better known as Jack Ferguson—who passed away last week after a battle with mesothelioma which he contracted as a building worker early in his life. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of his wife, Mary, and members of his family. Jack was a comrade, soldier, bricklayer, building union organiser, and devoted father and husband. He was a Labor man of principle and vision who kept the Labor light burning. For the past 13 years I have had the privilege of being his local member. Jack was born in Zetland above a fire station in 1925, as has been mentioned. He was the first child of World War I Scottish emigrant and Communist Party member John Ferguson and his Irish wife, Mary Ellen. He attended Granville Convent and later the Marist Brothers school in Parramatta and left school at the age of 13.
One of Jack's greatest attributes in my eyes was his ability to educate himself. The only person who could be compared with him, but who does not even come close to reaching him, would be Jack Mundy. I had extraordinary admiration for Jack's ability to educate himself and to continue his self-education throughout his life. His dedication to education as a tool of liberation was constant. Jack's work through the Guildford Returned Soldiers School of Arts gained him an operational mandate to hold educational forums in Western Sydney. That is just one practical demonstration of his conviction that the working class should be able to access expanded educational and life opportunities throughout their lives.
Jack remained completely dedicated to the Guildford Returned Soldiers School of Arts. He was a School of Arts trustee until the day he died. On a number of occasions he spoke to me about the importance of ensuring the perpetuation of the School of Arts. I place on the public record my commitment to doing all I can to ensure that the School of Arts carries on to fulfil the function that Jack Ferguson believed it should have. I have the great privilege of being referred to as the inaugural Minister for Western Sydney in this place, but honourable members should make no mistake: The real inaugural advocate for Western Sydney was Jack Ferguson. His vision was unapologetically laid out in his maiden speech in this place over 40 years ago in which he stated:
We must ensure that all the things needed to make a happy community are provided. In the great sprawl that makes the county of Cumberland, many districts are without sewage, decent roads and footpaths ... The workers go to work with the sun in their eyes and come home with the sun in their eyes. The Government must continue with its policy of slum clearance and high-density housing.
Jack worked as an advocate for Western Sydney and for his community throughout his political life. This week we have heard many of Jack's terrific sayings. One of the most poignant memories for me was when Jack said on one occasion that the people of eastern and northern Sydney regarded the people of Western Sydney as the hewers of their wood and the carters of their water. Unfortunately, that view still persists in many quarters. Jack Ferguson was a champion, a man who went out of his way to change that view. He did much to bring about a greater recognition of, and the provision of services to, the people of Western Sydney. I knew of Jack Ferguson for many years but I only really knew him in the latter part of his life when he was ill with a debilitating sickness.
I had an opportunity to speak with Jack on a number of occasions. I had always held Jack Ferguson in awe. He was a great man and a man of extraordinary stature. Often in life when one meets the stuff of legends they do not live up to one's expectations. For me the extraordinary thing with Jack Ferguson was that he went beyond my expectations; he was greater than the legend. The thing that struck me most about Jack was his extraordinary humility. I remember speaking to him on one occasion when he indicated to me that he was able to use the title "the honourable" as a result of his service as a Minister of this State. However, he said to me that it was an absurd proposition. Why would he want the title "the honourable"? He knew he was honourable and that was all that mattered. In addition, every other honest, decent working man was honourable as well, and he did not stand above them. What extraordinary humility!
He also spoke to me about the absurdity of his name being on the Ferguson Building in Parramatta. He thought that it was most amusing that a building would be named after him. I was flabbergasted at his humility, given his contribution to this State and to public life. He wanted none of these monuments and none of that recognition. He wanted no function in his honour or anything like that in the local area. Jack Ferguson was a great man. If we sought his monument we had only to look around us at St Patrick's Church at Guildford on Monday. His monument was the gathering of the local community—ordinary men and women—who came to pay their final farewell to their champion, Jack Ferguson. They poured into that church in extraordinary numbers—a monument that Jack Ferguson would duly accept.
They came not only to say their final farewells to their champion but also to honour and console his widow, Mary, a partner in all his endeavours throughout their 51-year partnership. As Father Bridge said on 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5551
Monday, it was standard fare in the community. If anyone had a problem they would go and see Jack and Mary. Even though Jack was suffering from an illness over the last few years, Mary continued with his work. I pay honour to you, Mary, for your contribution to Jack's life and to our local community. My partner Jennifer and I held Jack in such high esteem and regard that we named our youngest son Jack. To you Mary, to Laurie, Martin, Deborah, Andrew and Jenny, and your extended families, I offer you our deepest sympathy and condolences. It gives me great pride to join with you in celebrating an extraordinary and great life.
Mr ASHTON (East Hills) [5.14 p.m.]: After joining the Panania branch of the Australian Labor Party in mid-1971 I proudly announced that fact at a tutorial in government studies at the University of Sydney. A large fellow student and I got involved in a discussion about Labor politics. I could tell that he knew much more than I did about the topic. He introduced himself as Laurie Ferguson. As we continued to talk he casually informed me, with no emphasis on the words that he spoke, that his father, Jack, was the Labor member for Merrylands in the New South Wales State Parliament. My involvement with the Ferguson family of ALP members and supporters had begun. I am proud to say that it remains today, and it is stronger than ever.
With Jack Ferguson's passing last week the ALP clan gathered on Monday to farewell him at St Patrick's Catholic Church at Guildford. In keeping with the family's and, I am sure, Jack's wishes, there was no State funeral, yet for those of us who attended the service at the church it was the most sincere non-State funeral one could imagine, with over 1,500 people attending the service in the heartland of Jack's former home suburb of Guildford. I am sure that I was not the only one to observe that it was probably the first time such a large funeral was held in the Labor and working class heartland that Jack had always represented.
Jack Ferguson had been a labourer, a factory worker, a World War II veteran and then a bricklayer. He then became an organiser with the Building Workers Industrial Union and, as many people would know, later he was a life member of that union. He served as an alderman on Parramatta Council and he was also Deputy Mayor of Parramatta Council. Jack will be remembered as a man who entered Parliament in 1959 not to help himself but to help others. I remember hearing a story once—I think the Premier referred to it earlier—that on occasions Jack was embarrassed when he realised what salary he would receive as a member of Parliament and what salary he would receive later as Deputy Premier compared to what he earned when he worked so hard as a bricklayer.
Peter Black, the honourable member for Murray-Darling, remembers that in the late 1970s Jack, as Minister for Public Works, laid the foundation stone at the new government offices to be built in Broken Hill. Jack mixed his own mud, which is what my father, who was also a bricklayer, would have called it. He mixed the cement, the water and the sand with a trowel and laid the first foundation stone. Jack would not have needed minders to tell him how to mix the cement; it is something that he would have done himself. Political history can be interpreted in many ways. But it is universally accepted that the Wran Government, which was elected in May 1976, would never have come about if the original plan of John Ducker, New South Wales boss of the ALP organisational wing at that time, had not been implemented.
He approached Jack Ferguson, as a senior member of the minor and ignored Left group of the ALP caucus, and asked him to support Neville Wran as the new ALP leader after the 1973 election. There is no doubt, as Neville Wran generously conceded on Monday, that Jack probably saw Neville as a bit of silvertail, but he knew that Labor's best chance at victory lay with Neville Wran. Jack's instincts were correct. Wran won in 1976 and Jack Ferguson became Deputy Premier. The Wran-Ferguson model no doubt has been successfully followed by the Carr-Refshauge Government since 1995. The years 1976 to 1984 were New South Wales Labor's halcyon years with many social, economic, environmental, health and, importantly, electoral changes, being introduced in New South Wales.
Jack also acted as Premier during some difficult times, for example, when Neville Wran was ill and in 1984 when a royal commission was inquiring into Neville's alleged involvement in some football incident. The Sydney Morning Herald—no friend of Labor—reported that incident every day during the time that Jack was Acting Premier. Jack did as great a job then as Acting Premier as he did as Deputy Premier. Jack's status as Deputy Premier and leader of the Left was highlighted when he chose to retire in early 1984. The internal stability of the Wran Government was undermined and there was no obvious choice to replace him. As Neville Wran admitted, even a Balmain boy can cry when his best mate dies. I could not sum up Jack Ferguson's contribution to public life in New South Wales any better than that.
I offer my sincere condolences and those of my wife, Linda, to Jack's wife, Mary, to my great mates Laurie, Martin and Andrew, to Deborah and Jennifer and their partners and children, including the honourable 5552 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002 member for Liverpool, Paul Lynch, and their extensive and extended family on the sad loss of a great Labor and true working-class man. It is sad for any member of Parliament to speak to the condolence motion when he knew the man and knows the Ferguson family so well. My final tribute to Jack's memory is that my ability to stand here as the member for East Hills and make this speech is due in no small part to the loyal support I have received from Jack Ferguson's family and supporters since 1971. Farewell Jack.
Mr ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [5.20 p.m.]: As the member for Lachlan, I join the Premier, the Deputy Premier, the Leader the Opposition, the Leader of the National Party and others in expressing my sympathy to the Ferguson family on the loss of their father, grandfather and husband, Jack Ferguson. I first came to this place in 1981. As others have chronicled, Jack Ferguson was then Deputy Premier. However, I knew him before that—not well, I must say—because I was on the New South Wales Development Corporation for some years under the Wran Government and from time to time I used to meet Jack and other Ministers at functions and so on. Indeed, I think I received a couple of briefings from Jack Ferguson as well. I have no doubt that Jack's parliamentary record and his life have been well chronicled by previous speakers, but I would like to place on record my thoughts on Jack Ferguson. Firstly, I make the point that he rose to the second highest office in this State. From memory, fewer than 35 people have done that in the history of this State. Jack is to be commended for that. It was a position he fulfilled with great dignity in his own way.
As other members have said, Jack Ferguson was a relatively humble man; he was an ordinary man, a man of the people. He sought to be nothing other than what he was. But he took that persona into the second highest position in this State. The office has been considerably enriched for his presence and the way he served his Government and the State. I suppose most of us would like to leave our profession and our life better than when we came into it. Jack Ferguson, simply because of his demeanour—which really reflects his intelligence— certainly is a memorable and important part of the history of this State. He is an example to every one of us, as ordinary people—the majority of us are ordinary people, with ordinary intelligence and ordinary education— that we can do it. That is one of the best tributes I can pay to Jack Ferguson.
As a young man coming to this place I was pretty brash, and I must say Jack did not take too many prisoners. If you tangled with him in this Chamber, you got a fairly gruff response and you were quickly put in your place. But, boy, he was a great educator for young fellows like me. I recall that late one evening in this House I engaged in a fairly torrid debate with Jack Ferguson—indeed, Kevin Stewart also became embroiled in it. After the debate, as I stepped out through the doors of the Chamber, Kevin Stewart came over to me and said, "Young fellow, you'll learn." Jack simply said, "Give him time, Kevin." I remember that occasion very favourably. Jack Ferguson's sons have succeeded him in leadership roles within government and the trade union movement, and also as leaders in their communities, and they are to be admired for that. Nothing makes a father more proud than seeing his sons, daughters and grandchildren do well. I would like to think I can appreciate the pride Jack must have felt in having such a successful family—and there is no doubt that they are successful.
I pay respect to the life of Jack Ferguson. I once again reinforce that I remember him as a major contributor, someone who expected not one cent more than he got out of life. Probably his expectations were completely fulfilled. He was a man who, to my way of thinking, always seemed very comfortable in his own environment and in the company of others. The greatest tribute I can pay to any person is that they live their life, they are happy, and they are remembered for being decent, hard-working, sincere people who contributed to the society in which they lived.
Mr MILLS (Wallsend) [5.25 p.m.]: On behalf of Jack Ferguson's many admirers and friends in Newcastle and the Hunter Valley I would like to present our condolences and sympathies to Mary, Deb and Jen, to son-in-law Paul, to Laurie, Martin and Andrew, who are not here today, and to the grand-daughters and family who are here today. Those condolences and sympathies are sincere because Jack was quite well known in Newcastle and the Hunter Valley. The Deputy Premier referred to the closure of the dockyard in Newcastle. I would put it this way. What Jack Ferguson showed there was the courage it took to be a good leader, because it takes courage to do the hard things like telling people you are going to let them down, and that is what he had to do. Nevertheless, Jack had that courage.
I was introduced to Jack by my predecessor, Ken Booth. The Deputy Premier provided the nickname "Bushy Tail". I had not heard that nickname to describe my predecessor. However, I know that Ken had a brotherly love for Jack, and I know that that love and respect was reciprocated by Jack. Ken was a greatly admired political figure in the Hunter Valley, and in my younger days he was my mentor. I therefore met Jack, and I learned of the respect we had for him. He was a leader of the clan within the Labor Party that we call the Left. I am not quite sure what he thought of the complicated, old name of "Combined Unions and Branches Steering Committee", which is what we called the Left for many years. 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5553
Mr Lynch: He probably invented it.
Mr MILLS: As the honourable member for Liverpool said, he probably invented it. That is possible; it is a euphemism. Nevertheless, that described a significant part of the Labor family, which was rooted in militant progressive trade union action that was designed to protect the health, safety and jobs of workers, and to improve the lives of workers and their families. The model of political success of Jack Ferguson, the leader and the man, was the joint leadership he had with Neville Wran, the blended right-wing, left-wing leadership that was not valued as highly as it should have been until after Jack retired from Parliament. The Left split over the succession, so the right took on the Deputy Premiership. I believe that then weakened the leadership; certainly Labor lost the next election. The model was no accident; it was carefully thought through. But after that loss in 1988, the New South Wales ALP returned to the successful model of balanced left-right leadership with Andrew Refshauge as deputy leader and Bob Carr as leader. Of course, that leadership team continues to demonstrate success.
Clearly, the model is based on something that Jack Ferguson knew well: teamwork and unity. I got a Labor Party badge fairly soon after I joined the party in 1965. The badge was an oval shape and it had on it, "Unity of Labor Is the Hope of the World". I know that is something we carry in our hearts. After the events leading up to and through 1988, some of us were saying, "Unity of Labor is the hope of Labor." Nevertheless, the longer view is that unity of Labor is the hope of the world. That is at the heart of my political beliefs, and it is at the heart of my respect for the leadership that Jack Ferguson gave to New South Wales Labor. Jack's legend will long be remembered. From me and from others in the Hunter, who had great respect for him, and on behalf of Paul O'Grady, who also had a great love of Jack and who is in the gallery and cannot speak today, I offer the family best wishes for the future. I hope you have the same happy memories of Jack that we do.
Mr ROZZOLI (Hawkesbury) [5.29 p.m.]: I join in this condolence motion to the late Jack Ferguson, for whom I had high personal regard. I spent quite a lot of time in the House with Jack and I got to know him quite well, in a way that I find we do not get to know one another so well these days. The camaraderie that existed in the House at that time often transcended much more easily the political divide than it does today. Although we fought ferociously in the House on issues, when we left the House and in the more relaxing moments we had the opportunity to get to know people in much greater depth than we do today. I was privileged to be one of those from our side of politics who got to know Jack Ferguson quite well. I developed a rapport with Jack as a result of his wonderful love of reading and literature. He had a prodigious knowledge of English literature and he loved to talk about it. It is something we shared, and many times we talked about those sorts of things—matters far removed from politics.
Jack Ferguson came to my electorate a number of times. Jack was regarded by members of the local Labor Party with a level of awe that was quite outstanding. When he came to public functions in my electorate many members of the Labor Party who were present were so in awe of Jack that they found it difficult to talk to him. As a result, my wife and I, as the local member, entertained Jack and Mary during much of the evening. That was fortuitous, because Jack and I loved talking about books. Carol was also a great reader and she loved talking with Mary. So we developed the sort of friendship that transcended whatever political differences we had. I am baring my soul a little here, but I had a rapport with Jack because—as I have said before on a condolence motion for another member of the Labor Party with whom I developed a considerable rapport—we were here for reasons that are not necessarily separated by the political divide.
If you really care about communities, if you really care about people, it does not matter that you come from one side of politics or the other—it matters that you care about people. That is what brings you together. During the years that I have been in this Chamber I have developed a number of very strong associations with members of the Labor Party, but they generally tend to come from the Left rather than the Right. It was on that basis that I forged a considerable bond and friendship with Jack. He really did fight for the people. He fought for the battlers, and I respected him for that. I could often see where he was coming from. I never really had any great differences with him in the Chamber. He was never responsible for portfolios involved in conflict. The Public Works portfolio is one of those great portfolios where, provided one manages it reasonably well, one does not get into a lot of trouble in the Chamber. It was a good portfolio for a Deputy Premier and a prominent figure in the party to work from. It gave him the capacity to devote time to building bridges within parties, which is very important.
I say in all sincerity to both sides of the House that that is something we are not getting right at the moment. There is an attitude in politics today where people are putting their personal ambitions, their personal agendas, ahead of working for the community. We are currently seeing that across nearly every political party in 5554 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002
Australia. That is why political parties come under so much criticism—they are failing the community in many respects. In Jack Ferguson's era political parties were conscious of the need to reach out to the community, to work for the community and to keep in touch with the community. Through a number of people I was associated with who were closely associated with Jack Ferguson, I knew that of all the things one could say about Jack he kept very close contact with his grassroots people. That is what keeps one's feet on the ground, keeps one's perspective in place and makes one a good, sometimes a great, parliamentarian.
As I have said in this House before, I distinguish between parliamentarians and politicians. Politicians are in every walk of life and sometimes people are much more political than we are in the calling they follow. We are obviously politicians, but if we manage to get ourselves up to the greater heights of what we do we become parliamentarians rather than politicians. The greatest thing I can say about Jack Ferguson is that he was a good, perhaps even a great, parliamentarian. That is the greatest honour I can pay him. I extend my sincere condolences to Mary. I extend my condolences to Laurie, with whom I served in this Parliament. I do not know the other members of the family personally, but in a general sense my condolences are extended to them. I have very fond memories of Jack Ferguson.
Mr WHELAN (Strathfield—Parliamentary Secretary) [5.36 p.m.]: I offer my condolences to the Ferguson family on what is a very sad day for everybody here. I was elected on 1 May 1976. It was a proud day. To see Neville and Jack and the new Cabinet sworn in was a great achievement. Honourable members have talked about Jack being a bricklayer. Everybody should acknowledge what Jack did for the ALP. He provided the foundations for Neville. Even in opposition, when he worked with Ducker, he recognised the talents Wran had and, in an audacious way, was able to get Wran out of the upper House and into the lower House. Wran's first speech in this Chamber was as Premier of New South Wales. Jack had the foresight to pick a good candidate. He must have been a miracle worker, because the Right overwhelmingly had the numbers. To this day, no-one knows how he did it.
Laurie Kelly's name is on the wall of this Chamber because he is a former Speaker. This would not happen in the Left, but in the Right they gave you a ticket when you walked in and you showed it. In the 1 May 1976 ballot I voted for Vince Durick. The Right overwhelmingly had the numbers but somehow, when counted, the result was 25 all. Michael Maher, the former member for Drummoyne, had a hat—he always wore a hat— and the ballot papers were placed in it. Laurie Kelly won. Jack laid a lot of foundations in the party. Neville is quoted as saying that he could never have been Premier, the great Premier he was, without Jack. And the truth is that he never could have been. If Neville was a great Premier, Jack was the best Premier the State never had. He provided the backup for Neville at all times.
I was a member of Cabinet in 1981 and 1984. Every time there was a problem, Neville would say, "Here, Jack, here is a problem. Solve it." And he did. For example, he solved the problem with respect to rainforests. We could not get the legislation through. Don Day and Lin Gordon were involved. There was competition between timber, forests and the environment. Jack was able to negotiate the deal and it went through. One of the finest decisions made by the Wran Government at that time related to rainforests, an everlasting decision for the benefit of the people of Australia. Jack was responsible for it. He was a very tough man. People might remember the Lotto incident. We had a little scrape about where the money from Lotto would go. I was a raw-boned recruit who came in here full of zealotry and political philosophy but no acumen. I decided that I would oppose the then Wran Government in giving the Lotto contract to Murdoch. The matter went to the State conference; there was a ballot and all sorts of horrible things happened.
Jack Renshaw was the Treasurer at the time. Following the State conference, I marshalled the numbers in the Treasurer's caucus subcommittee and rolled the Treasurer. I was full of vim and vigour. I thought, "How good is this?" I got the numbers, I rolled the Treasurer and I won. While I was walking into the old caucus room Jack sidled up to me and said, "You might have won the first round but you are not going to win any more for a long time." And he was absolutely right. Honourable members will not be surprised if I tell them that the Treasurer's subcommittee never met again. It had one meeting, and I think I still have the minutes—but they served no useful purpose. The foundation Jack created for the Labor Party should never be forgotten. To his family, deep sympathy from all the Whelans.
Mr HUNTER (Lake Macquarie) [5.41 p.m.]: I join my colleagues in offering condolences to the family of Jack Ferguson. I also offer the condolences of the Hunter family, in particular my parents, Merv and Betty Hunter. I was elected to Parliament in 1991; by that time Jack had long left the Parliament. However, I had the pleasure of meeting him on a number of occasions prior to entering Parliament and a few times after I came here. My father was elected to Parliament in 1969 and served in the Parliament as the member for Lake 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5555
Macquarie for 22 years. Much of that time was served with Jack Ferguson. Dad has given me some background notes on his relationship with Jack. Dad told me that he first met Jack when they attended Labor State conferences in the 1960s, and they became good mates. Being from the Left, they both supported the militant industrial workers. In those days Dad attended the conference as an AEU delegate, and later as a State Electorate Council delegate. Jack always ensured that he was well versed in the way to vote. Dad told me that meetings were held in the old hairdressers' union office, where Jack was a regular attendee.
Jack Ferguson came to Lake Macquarie and doorknocked and letterboxed as soon as my father was preselected, and my father certainly appreciated that. The Sydney boys, as Dad called them, stayed at Wangi Wangi during the campaign. Jack and his wife, Mary, and family also spent many holidays in the Booth family weekender at Wangi Wangi. Dad said he recalls that Jack showed his bricklaying skills by building a brick barbecue at the Booth family home. The late Ken Booth and Dad arranged a program in Newcastle and Lake Macquarie to introduce Neville Wran with a luncheon of parliamentarians. That was to give Jack the opportunity to convince those MPs to support Neville in the ballot to become leader of the New South Wales parliamentary Labor Party. Of course, he succeeded in doing so when Neville narrowly won the ballot. Dad recalls that Jack made many rousing speeches to power workers at the old Wangi Wangi power station and to coalminers in the local area. Dad told me that Jack was responsible for the construction of new police stations and schools in the Lake Macquarie electorate, and he will certainly be remembered. The local people of Lake Macquarie appreciate what Jack did for our city.
The last time I remember seeing Jack Ferguson was a few years ago at the State Labor Party conference. He was in deep conversation with my father at the time. I thought to myself, "Are they discussing the old days and old political stories, or are they just comparing the new crop of politicians with the ones of their time?" Jack and my father continued to attend State conferences because they had the Labor Party at heart and they wanted to continue to participate although they had retired from Parliament. To Mary, Laurie, Martin, Andrew, Deb and Jennifer, a close-knit family, again I offer the condolences of the Hunter family. In particular my Mum and Dad have asked me to send their love to your family. Jack Ferguson was a great man. He was held in high regard by the people of New South Wales. We will miss him. He will always be remembered.
Mrs LO PO' (Penrith) [5.44 p.m.]: People will wonder why I am speaking in this debate but I spoke to Jack Ferguson once. Back in the 1960s we were doorknocking one Sunday morning. It was amazing—I can remember Jack being there, but I cannot remember who the candidate was. As we do, Jack took one side of the street and I took the other side. At the time I was young and enthusiastic. At the end of the street I said to Jack, "This is fantastic! All the people I have doorknocked will join the Labor Party." Jack said, "Listen, kid. Wait until they turn up at the branch." And Jack was right—they never did turn up. An early lesson I learnt was: what you see is not what you get. Jack was very impressive. He was not well dressed when he went doorknocking. When people go doorknocking on Sunday morning they do not put on a tuxedo, but there was something charismatic about Jack. That is the only time I spoke to Jack Ferguson.
I remember the next time Jack had an influence. John Laws talks about the ballot for the deputy premiership in 1974. There were three candidates: Frank Walker, Terry Sheahan and Ron Mulock. Ron Mulock won the ballot and he was my boss for six years. I want Jack's family to know that Ron Mulock held Jack Ferguson, his predecessor, in the greatest esteem. We inherited his office where he had gorgeous photographs of public works. I do not know if the photographs are still there, but they are simply beautiful. Jack Ferguson was the benchmark of deputy premiers, and Ron Mulock spoke fondly of him. Some years ago I was in a group of people who were talking about the way people are seduced by the trappings of office and material things. Throughout the conversation people referred to Jack Ferguson as being the standout in the Labor Party who was never seduced by materialism. People at the table were wondering about the fact that he could have had certain things but he shunned them all to stay in his working class.
The Premier said that Jack Ferguson could be likened to Ben Chifley, and I have noted that as well. As Ben Chifley was of the working class, did not get an education and educated himself, so did Jack. Jack reminded me of the miners in the coalfields who did not get an education but spent their nights reading and playing musical instruments to better themselves. Politicians think that they live wonderful lives and that they will leave their fingerprints on everything. None of us does that. There are a couple of exceptions. Jack Ferguson has left his fingerprints on this State. My condolences to the family.
Mrs PERRY (Auburn) [5.48 p.m.]: I am privileged to be participating in a debate honouring a man whose legacy merits a special place in our hearts, minds and aspirations. I did not know Jack personally but I want to say a few words to the family. Jack Ferguson, Deputy Premier, Minister for Public Works, Minister for 5556 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002
Housing and member for Merrylands, was a great politician. He was a man of superior political acumen, tenacity and wisdom. Perhaps that is no better illustrated than by the words of his long-time friend, former Premier Neville Wran. In his eulogy Neville said:
If my premiership was worth anything it was largely due to the great political instincts of Jack Ferguson.
From all accounts, Jack had so much more than great political instincts. He possessed rare humility and a greatness of soul. He was a man of unyielding integrity in a world which erodes that of so many. He was a reluctant hero, adverse to the spotlight and a leader devoid of the trappings of the ego. Jack was grounded in a solid history of outstanding service to his country, family and fellow men. He grew up in the Depression and left school at the age of 13 to support his family. He fought in World War II and returned home to acquire a practical trade, that of a bricklayer, and to shortly after build his own home and raise a family. Jack was self-taught, he read widely, prolifically and passionately abandoning himself to pursuits centred on the interests of the common man. He became involved in the Building Workers Industrial Union and eventually local government. His foray into State politics began at a time when the Left needed a man that they could trust to run the seat of Merrylands and thus Jack found himself, almost by accident or default, installed as its member.
Jack's destiny was carrying him along. Much has been written about Jack's illustrious relationship with Neville Wran and the Left, particularly during the period 1973 to 1984 when he served as Wran's deputy. Suffice it to say that Jack was an invaluable presence, indispensable in fact, in keeping the party cohesive, focused and congenial in its relationships with the unions. As Minister for Public Works, Jack took to his portfolio with gusto, heart and an intelligence that, infused with his characteristic vision and passion for the environment, saw a flood of projects undertaken including coastal walks, upgrading of public barbecue and picnic facilities, the construction of deep water sewage outlets designed to take pollution away from city beaches, and the restoration of buildings through the revival of the art of stonemasonry, which the Deputy Premier referred to.
Examples of that stonemasonry are located close by, such as the State Library and the Hyde Park Barracks. Jack passed away, as we know, on 17 September, after having succumbed to a condition believed to have developed as a consequence of having worked with asbestos in his earlier years. Although I did not know Jack, nor necessarily fall in line with his political views, I feel it entirely appropriate and proper to pay tribute to the magnificence of his life and dedication to the Labor Party and to the people of New South Wales. From my observation his dedication has inspired his whole family who, like their father, are committed to the Labor movement and the Labor Party.
I offer my deepest and most heartfelt condolences to his wife, Mary, his daughters Deborah and Jenny, and his sons Laurie—who is present today and is the Federal Member for Reid, which takes in my electorate of Auburn—Martin and Andrew, and to my parliamentary colleague, Paul Lynch, his son-in-law. I offer my condolences to the many members of the party who grew to love him over his three decades of magnanimous service.
Mr LYNCH (Liverpool) [5.53 p.m.]: Originally I was a little diffident about participating in this debate. This debate is about the legend, Jack Ferguson, the leader of the parliamentary left, the Deputy Premier, the long-serving member of this place. I did not know him in that capacity. He had left this place well before I arrived. I knew him because more than 17 years ago I had the great good fortune, and some would say good sense, to marry his eldest daughter, Deb. I got to know Jack because he was my wife's father, my daughter Merryn's grandfather. That is a very different person, not a lesser or worse person, just a different person, and there are family and private memories that are really not for discussion in this place.
Despite that, I think there are probably some things that I can usefully say. I first met Jack when I was doing some legal work for him. That was through Laurie, who is here today. I first saw Jack, physically, at the great Australian Labor Party annual conference rules dispute in about 1979. I was there as a very young, new member of the party. The Right was up to its usual tricks and outrages, although this time it was even more outrageous than usual. In that regard I cite the comments of the Premier, earlier today, that it was through that rules debate that the upper House came into the caucus.
The really interesting thing was that Jack led the fight, from the conference floor, and adopted a public position different from that of Neville Wran. There is no doubting the very close relationship, an incredibly effective relationship, that those two had, but one would never want to suggest that Jack was anything other than a more than equal partner in the relationship. For me, the really significant thing about Jack's political career was that he was a socialist, a word that has not been used in this debate so far. He actually believed in the party's 26 September 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 5557 objective, it was not just something that was on a card that he carried around in his pocket. He was actually committed to traditional, socialist values. That says a great deal that is very positive about him. I will change that: rather it says something not so positive about a lot of other politicians.
I remember when Jack was made a life member of the Australian Labor Party, once again at the party's annual conference. A number of people were being made life members and he spoke on behalf of all of them. He made the point that he joined the Labor Party because of Chifley, because the banks were going to be nationalised. For him, being on the Left was not just a badge of convenience but something he fundamentally believed in, about the sort of society that he wanted this country to become. That is why something like the nationalisation of the banks was critical to him. He conceded that has had a lot to do with how the rest of society operated. I add that in his typical style, in accepting his life membership and commenting that nationalisation of the banks was one of the things that persuaded him to join the party, he was less than happy that Labor governments have been privatising banks and other public assets.
He made similar comments that are probably too fruity to quote here about what we have done with workers compensation. There is a plethora of stories that one could tell about Jack. Apart from a commitment to a grand vision about where society should go and what he thought the world should be, there was another side to Jack. In the late 1980s I remember travelling in a truck that he was driving down Hoxton Park Road, Liverpool. We were actually cleaning some rubbish out of a house that Deb and I had just purchased. I could not drive the truck, I did not have a licence, but Jack did. That was back in the days when people were actually prepared to get into a vehicle driven by Jack. His family knows exactly what I mean by that—that poor Honda!
I was on Liverpool council at that time and as we were driving along we were talking about some of the things I was trying to do in Liverpool. Jack made the comment that one of the greatest satisfactions he had had in his political career was not when he was a member of this place, but when he was on Parramatta Council, because he could see the concrete and the bricks and all the things done as a direct result of his actions, particularly those needed in the area that he represented. The point about that was his absolute understanding about doing the very basic things to make the life of people better. That is not to suggest that he had a myopic view and forgot the broad picture. His great strength was that he understood both; he had the broad picture, and he knew that had to be translated into things happening on the ground. He understood that without the broad picture those things could not be done on the ground.
In another time and place one would talk about that as reconciling theory and practice. It is about understanding the broad philosophy and actually going out and doing something usefully. People have talked about the great pride Jack had in being a bricklayer and there is no doubt about that. He said some very terrible things to my wife when we decided to render our house and cover-up what was to Jack perfectly serviceable brickwork. There is absolutely no doubting his commitment to the profession. There has been a lot of talk about the breadth of his reading. Laurie referred to that in the eulogy at the church, and lots of people have talked about it here. From my personal dealings with him I have no doubt about the extraordinary breadth of his reading and how incredibly perceptive he was in the judgments he formed.
One particular judgment that I cannot resist getting on the record was his absolutely correct view that Bob Carr was quite wrong when he suggested that the greatest contemporary American crime writer is James Ellroy. Jack was absolutely right when he said that it is James Lee Burke, to whose books he introduced me. There is no doubt that Jack was right and Bob Carr was wrong about that. Of course not all of Jack's judgments were absolutely perfect. I remember once he committed the egregious error of referring to Michael Collins as "just the leader of a murder gang". Even Jack, occasionally, got it wrong.
I remember the first conversation of any depth that I had with Jack—at about the time that I was marrying Deb. The conversation was not, as one might imagine, "Are you going to look after my daughter?" The conversation was a very strict injunction, from him to me, to make sure I did something useful with my life and read the greatest historian of all time, Fernand Braudel. Jack went into shock when I told him I had actually read Braudel—in fact I had read more of it than Jack had. Shock turned to outrage when I then described a series of historians I thought were more impressive than Braudell, including people like Thompson and Hobsbawm and, for good measure, suggested they were more ideologically sound than Jack's choice. It is a really interesting comment that that is the sort of conversation he wanted to have. That is the sort of thing that concerned him, and that he was so committed to.
He is, of course, renowned for some of his scathing judgments and some of his comments made around the town at various times. The descriptions he gave of Wran getting the numbers consisted largely of him telling 5558 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 26 September 2002
John Ducker to "butt out and stop mucking it up"; that it was all going along quite nicely if only John Ducker would leave it alone. I think that is probably the correct history of it. I remember his description of one of his caucus colleagues, whom he described as "having the smell about him of all the burning faggots of the Spanish Inquisition". For obvious reasons, I will not identify that member. But that gives a sense of the passion in Jack's politics. I apologise to sister Pauline if that is a problem.
There are two other things I should say. One of the other great stories about Jack that has been related to me plenty of times included his comments about the Herald, when he got up and was most concerned that the Herald had said something favourable about him. He had been told at his father's knee that the Herald was the instrument used by the ruling class to give its instructions to their political representatives. It is worth making the point that the Herald had their revenge. Jack had a whole series of illnesses. The one thing he did not suffer from, despite what the front page of the Herald said, was mesothelioma. Jenny is still scratching her head about why the Herald described her as an active ALP member. Deb denies she is an active ALP member, but she is returning officer of the local branch, which counts as an active member—and a very important member, in my view.
The only other thing I want to say is to address a little bit of the imbalance of some of the media commentary. If you just read the papers you would think there are only three children—Laurie, Martin and Andrew. I do not underestimate the importance of the contributions of Laurie, Martin and Andrew, or the importance of Jack. But there is another side to that equation. All will understand why I quite often say that the Ferguson women are better than the Ferguson men. Mary, Jenny and Deb are just as important, in my view, as any of the other family members. They are all very important people, all of the family. We cannot possibly underestimate the role and significance of Mary. I know enough about the family to know that it is Mary who has held it together, and that Mary really has been the centre of that family. Jack was a very important, a very powerful, a very impressive man. But Mary was just as important in all of it as Jack ever was. Whilst Jack is gone, we are all delighted that Mary is still here.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Before I put the question, may I add my own sincere condolences to Mary and all other members of Jack's family in the gallery today. I would briefly comment on the speech of the Deputy Premier. I was at the State Dockyard as a public servant when Jack addressed the crowd. That is the only time I have heard 800 men applaud their executioner. It was a quite spectacular speech, well delivered and extremely well received, as the Deputy Premier said. On a happier note, I remember very well my daughter being thrilled to present the flower girls to Mary when the floating dock "Mullimbimba" was named by her at that time.
May I also say a few words on behalf of the officers of the House who do not have a voice in this Chamber. They too wish to convey their condolences. I am sure that, in particular, Jack's contemporaries, former Clerks the late Ivor Vidler and Doug Wheeler, who served for many years with Jack, would wish that their names be associated with this motion.
Members and officers of the House stood in their places.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.05 p.m. ______