15952
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Thursday 18 October 2012
______
The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 9.30 a.m.
The President read the Prayers.
PORTS ASSETS (AUTHORISED TRANSACTIONS) BILL 2012
PASSENGER TRANSPORT AMENDMENT (TICKETING AND PASSENGER CONDUCT) BILL 2012
Bills received from the Legislative Assembly.
Leave granted for procedural matters to be dealt with on one motion without formality.
Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:
That the bills be read a first time and printed, standing orders be suspended on contingent notice for remaining stages and the second readings of the bills be set down as orders of the day for the next sitting day.
Bills read a first time and ordered to be printed.
Second readings set down as orders of the day for a future day.
Pursuant to sessional orders Formal Business Notices of Motions proceeded with.
MENTAL HEALTH MONTH
Motion by the Hon. Linda Voltz, on behalf of the Hon. AMANDA FAZIO, agreed to:
1. That this House notes that Mental Health Month will be held in October 2012.
2. That this House notes that:
(a) this year's theme is "Celebrate, Connect, Grow",
(b) the theme encourages everyone to act on the big and small things they can do to increase their own wellbeing as well as the wellbeing of those around them, and
(c) this year's theme is:
(i) about celebrating the positive things in your life, as well as the strengths and values that have helped you through more challenging times,
(ii) about connecting with others by paying attention to your close relationships, or by reaching out and making new friends,
(iii) about growing, expanding your horizons and trying something new that creates meaning and purpose for you.
3. That this House notes that:
(a) the Mental Health Association NSW [MHA] is a community-based organisation and registered charity that has worked since 1932 to address stigma and to promote mental health and wellbeing through education, support and advocacy in New South Wales,
(b) the Mental Health Association NSW's vision is a society that understands, values and actively supports the best possible mental health and wellbeing, and
(c) the Mental Health Association NSW conducts the following programs:
(i) mental health promotion including coordinating Mental Health Month in New South Wales,
(ii) Workplace Health Promotion Network, working to improve employee wellbeing,
18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15953
(iii) anxiety support and self help groups,
(iv) GroupsNet resourcing support group leaders across the State,
(v) Small Steps providing education to teachers and parents about anxiety in children,
(vi) a mental health information and referral service and database.
4. That this House congratulates the Mental Health Association NSW for their work.
NATIONAL CARERS WEEK
Motion by the Hon. Linda Voltz, on behalf of the Hon. AMANDA FAZIO, agreed to:
1. That this House notes that:
(a) National Carers Week will be held from 14 to 20 October 2012,
(b) Carers Day Out will be held in Martin Place Sydney on Tuesday 16 October,
(c) the focus is Be Care Aware,
(d) Carers Week is a week dedicated to raising awareness, recognition, support and appreciation of carers across the nation, and
(e) Be Care Aware encourages people to get to know more about unpaid family carers, who they are, what they do and how they can be supported.
2. That this House notes that:
(a) every day 2.6 million Australians care for somebody else, and
(b) unpaid family carers are friends, relatives, siblings, partners and neighbours who provide full or part time unpaid personal care, support and assistance to people of all ages with disabilities, medical conditions, mental illness, frailty due to age and people who have alcohol and drugs issues,
(c) Be Care Aware is a national communications initiative that aims to raise awareness, recognition, support and appreciation of the 2.6 million Australians who provide unpaid care and support to family members and friends, and
(d) the replacement cost of this care is estimated by Access Economics to be over $40 billion per year.
3. That this House acknowledges that carers make an invaluable contribution to our community and a profound difference to the lives of individuals every single day.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Formal Business Notices of Motions
Private Members' Business item No. 930 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business.
SYDNEY SWANS 2012 GRAND FINAL
Motion by the Hon. JENNIFER GARDINER agreed to:
That this House:
(a) congratulates the Sydney Swans on winning the 2012 AFL Grand Final against Hawthorn,
(b) notes that this was the sixth time in eight years that the Sydney Swans reached the finals,
(c) notes that this is the Sydney Swans' second premiership flag in that same period, and
(d) applauds the values inculcated in the Swans team and the consequent positive role models they provide for young people in New South Wales and across Australia.
DEADLY AWARDS
Motion by the Hon. MARIE FICARRA agreed to:
1. That this House notes that, on 25 September 2012, the Deadly Awards were held at the Sydney Opera House to honour Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander achievement in the fields of art, music, sport and a range of community endeavours.
15954 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
2. That this House notes that:
(a) in the Health category, the Deadly Award for Outstanding Achievement in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health went to the Boodjari Yorgas Family Care Program from Perth,
(b) the Deadly Award for Outstanding Achievement in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education went to the Napranum Parents and Learning Group [PAL],
(c) the late rugby league legend Arthur (Artie) Beetson was awarded the Ella Award for his lifetime achievement in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sport,
(d) the inaugural Marcia Langton Award for a lifetime achievement in Leadership went to Yarrabah and Palm Island Activist Percy Neal,
(e) the Lifetime Contribution Award for Healing and The Stolen Generation went to Marumali Healing founder, Aunty Lorraine Darcy Peeters,
(f) the original Sapphires, Beverly Briggs, Naomi Mayers, Lois Peeler, Laurel Robinson and Tony Brigg were honoured through the Jimmy Little Award for Lifetime Achievement in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander music,
(g) in the music category, popular singer Jessica Mauboy won Music Single of the Year for Galaxy, and Female Artist of the Year,
(h) musician and singer Gurrumul Yunupingu, was conferred Male Artist of the Year,
(i) in the Arts category, Male Actor of the Year was conferred upon Jimi Bani for his performance in the popular film, Mabo, and
(j) in the sports category, Boxer Damien Duncan Hooper was awarded the Most Promising New Talent Award.
3. That this House:
(a) commends all award recipients on their outstanding achievements, and
(b) congratulates the organisers of the Deadly Awards.
SYLLABUSES ONLINE INITIATIVE
Motion by the Hon. MARIE FICARRA agreed to:
1. That this House notes that:
(a) on 16 October 2012, the Minister for Education, the Hon. Adrian Piccoli, MP, launched the new English, Mathematics, History and Science syllabuses for students from Kindergarten to Year 10, giving teachers online access to syllabuses including Australian curriculum content, anywhere, any time, on a variety of devices in three clicks or less,
(b) the O'Farrell Government has provided an additional $25 million in funding over the next two years to specifically support New South Wales schools to introduce the new syllabuses,
(c) of that funding, the Government school sector will receive $22.8 million with most of the additional funding going to NSW Government schools to support teacher professional development, and the non-government sector will receive $2.2 million,
(d) the Board of Studies NSW coordinated the syllabus development process, which included wide consultation with teachers, parent bodies, academics, teacher unions and professional associations across all education sectors,
(e) the quality of the syllabuses will enrich the teaching and learning experience with New South Wales students being the ultimate beneficiaries, and
(f) every parent and student in the state now has a clear idea of what they can be expected to learn, and at what stage due to the "Syllabuses Online" initiative.
2. That this House commends the Hon. Adrian Piccoli, MP, Minister for Education, the Board of Studies, teachers, parent bodies, academics, teacher unions and professional associations across all education sectors for their work in collaborating and bringing "Syllabuses Online" to fruition.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Formal Business Notices of Motions
Private Members' Business item No. 951 outside the Order of Precedence objected to as being taken as formal business. 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15955
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Motion by the Hon. Michael Gallacher agreed to:
That this House at its rising today do adjourn until Tuesday 23 October 2012 at 2.30 p.m.
SESSIONAL ORDERS
Debate on Committee Reports and Budget Estimates 2012-13
Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:
That the sessional orders giving precedence to debate on committee reports and debate on the motion to take note of the budget estimates for 2012-13 on Tuesdays be suspended for the remainder of 2012.
SMALL BUSINESS COMMISSIONER AND SMALL BUSINESS PROTECTION BILL 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 13 September 2012.
The Hon. STEVE WHAN [9.39 a.m.]: I support the Small Business Commissioner and Small Business Protection Bill 2012, which has been introduced by the shadow Minister for Small Business. The bill seeks to do what the Government should have done already—that is, incorporate into legislation the powers and responsibilities of the Small Business Commissioner. I listened with great interest to the contributions of Government members, who oppose this bill. What they said can be largely summarised as follows: "How dare the Opposition introduce this legislation; we have been working on it.". The words "we have been working on it" are losing their impact after such a long period.
In a budget estimates hearing last week the Minister for Small Business said that she had been working on legislation similar to this, legislation that performed the same role, but she was unable to tell us when that legislation would be introduced or when we would see it. The Opposition's bill is a great opportunity to define the role of the Small Business Commissioner. Its provisions will be very much appreciated by small business people who are wondering what the Small Business Commissioner will be doing for them over time. With their usual arrogance, in their contributions to this debate Government members have suggested that only the Liberal Party represents small business. That is simply arrogant and totally unjustified.
The Hon. Scot MacDonald: Point of order: My point of order relates to being called arrogant. It is accurate but it is certainly not arrogant.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order as the remark was not directed at an individual member.
The Hon. STEVE WHAN: It is interesting that the Hon. Scot MacDonald acknowledged that the Coalition is arrogant.
The Hon. Scot MacDonald: It is the accuracy I was referring to.
The Hon. STEVE WHAN: It is the accuracy of the comment. I am sure the Hon. Scot MacDonald's colleagues will welcome him moving more points of order. The Government shows colossal arrogance when it comes to small business. The Liberals opposite have always assumed that small business supports them, but that assumption is not based in any way on the performance of Coalition governments when it comes to delivering for small business. The small business sector in New South Wales is vitally important. As at June 2011, of the 706,800 businesses in New South Wales 59 per cent employed no-one and 37 per cent employed between one and 19 employees. Small business is a massive sector of our economy in New South Wales and a huge driver of the economies of most communities around New South Wales, particularly in regional New South Wales.
The statistics reveal that 15 per cent of those businesses are in construction; 13 per cent in professional, scientific and technical areas; 11 per cent in rental hiring and real estate; 8 per cent in agriculture, forestry and 15956 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
fishing; and 8 per cent in insurance. The distribution of small businesses around the State is very interesting. As I said earlier, the Government shows great arrogance by assuming that its members are the only ones who can service small business. That assumption is certainly not supported by their actions. What has this Government done since it was elected to office? We have seen the establishment of the Small Business Commissioner. As a former Minister for Small Business I regard that as a good initiative. A Labor Government in Victoria was the first State government to establish the position of Small Business Commissioner and it is good to see the New South Wales Government following suit.
What else has the Government done? One of its first actions was to close offices around regional New South Wales that assisted small business. Trade and investment offices in many communities, including Goulburn, were closed down by this Government, the effect of which was to take away those who were on the ground supporting small businesses. I know from experience that the Goulburn trade and investment office had expertise in assisting small business. The lengthy experience of those who worked in that office gave them great knowledge of and familiarity with economies in the local area. When the current mayor of Cooma was appointed to his position he gave me a lead on two small businesses—one that wanted to establish in Cooma and one that wanted to expand in Cooma. I was confident that I could phone my contact in the Trade and Investment office in Goulburn and that he could follow that lead through, because he was intimately aware of the economies of that area and could take action to assist.
That local knowledge has been taken away by the Government. It has been cut and replaced with what the Government says is an extensive network but which in reality is a network that relies very much on online services. That is fine, but when in opposition the Coalition constantly said that what is needed are more on-the-ground, face-to-face services—and that is exactly what the Coalition in government has taken away. People in the trade and investment office in Goulburn worked for many years very closely with timber interests in Bombala and in many instances—apart from elected representatives, Gary Nairn and me and later Mike Kelly—they were the only people who had intimate corporate knowledge of the area which they could utilise to assist a timber project that suffered fits and starts and failures before success was finally achieved and a new mill was built.
Admittedly, the company that now owns that business is not a small business but the project is benefiting small businesses in the local community, because those small businesses supplied the materials for the construction of the new mill and they will be supplying most of the long-term contracting that is required for the operation of that mill. The trade and investment office in Goulburn was absolutely critical to that project's success. We have lost people with corporate knowledge and, most importantly, people with knowledge of local communities who were directly assisting small businesses to become established in local communities. One of the new Government's first actions was to cut that assistance. It is absolute hypocrisy for Government members to arrogantly proclaim that they are the supporters of small business. Some of the comments they made in their speeches were simply incredible and indicated complacency for small business.
What did the previous Government do for small business? It introduced Small Business September, which included a micro-business period. That too was abolished by the Coalition when it came to power. Small Business September was very much appreciated by many small businesses around New South Wales. It involved a series of events around country New South Wales and the city at which small businesses were engaged with training and a whole range of opportunities to network with other businesses. During the short time I was Minister for Small Business I attended events in one of the weeks of Small Business September. I found they were very useful and extremely well attended by small businesses. It was at one of those events that I had the pleasure of launching the online training that was put in place by the former Government and developed by the University of Western Sydney. Online training was designed to give small business operators the opportunity to undertake study and gain skills in their own time, because, as we all know, many small business operators, particularly those with only a couple of employees or with no employees, are very stretched for time and cannot attend more formal courses. Those online training resources were extremely useful for them.
I was interested to hear the current Minister for Small Business re-announce some of those resources recently. I think—although it was hard to tell from what she said—that she announced an expansion of some of the work of the University of Western Sydney. In relation to the axing of Small Business September, I did a quick search on the internet and found on a website called "The Enterprise Hub" the following comment from a member of the public:
Along with many, we were disappointed with the announcement earlier this year, that the NSW Government had cancelled Business September without any prior consultation with the small business community ... the O'Farrell government is not interested in Small Business—
18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15957
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Every week is small business week under this Government.
The Hon. STEVE WHAN: We get the interjection from a member opposite—one of those cheap, throwaway lines—that "every week is small business week". That is another motherhood statement from a government the first action of which was to cut Small Business September, which had allowed people to focus on training and opportunities for networking in small business. That is not happening every week under this Government. Small Business September was a particularly special time and it was cut simply to save money; there was no other reason. That is disappointing. In addition, the previous Government put an end to red tape production, rather than just talk about it as this Government is doing. In a recent estimates hearing the Minister for Small Business was unable to produce evidence that the Government was meeting its pre-election promise to take away two regulations for every one it introduced.
The Minister for Small Business was unable to tell us whether that had happened. It might be a reflection on the capacity of the Minister for Small Business or her preparation for estimates hearings. Regardless, the Minister did not have any figures and was unable to justify the pre-election commitment. The previous Government conducted industry-by-industry red tape reviews, for instance, in the smash repair industry. Its industry-focused reviews looked at all regulations applying to the industry under review and reduced their number. That was a very successful process because, in consultation with individual industries, focus was given to how industries went about their business and interacted with the State Government. It was a holistic approach, and I urge the current Government to continue those industry-by-industry reviews. I saw the results of a number of those reviews and they were particularly successful.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: More reviews.
The Hon. STEVE WHAN: "More reviews" is an interjection from a member of a government that defers every decision with a review. I am talking about focused reviews of red tape in particular industry areas, because that is the way to go about red tape reduction. We have seen heard in estimates hearings that the Government cannot even measure whether it has been successful in removing regulation as part of its pre-election promise, whereas we were able to show the results of our reviews and bring forward appropriate legislation.
Export assistance is another key area for small business. We know that particularly in regional New South Wales one of the most important actions we can take over the next few years is to make sure that small businesses that are able to export and are export competitive can link with growing markets, particularly in Asia and India. The previous Labor Government provided assistance in that regard, and I hope the current Government continues to do so. It is vital because, as anyone in business will tell you, it is not just a matter of businesses and small businesses being competitive in their local area; they need to be world competitive if they are going to continue to expand. I hope that such assistance continues to be provided by the current Government.
We have heard considerable rhetoric from the Government on many topics. How many times have we heard from the Minister for Finance and Services about tendering? He has two subjects that he talks about in this House—information and communications technology [ICT] and tendering—and we hear about them over and over again. Let us hope that that rhetoric flows through into some results for small businesses. So far we have heard a lot of talk but we have not seen much activity. A number of Government members talked about red tape, but it was a Federal Liberal government that introduced the Business Activity Statement [BAS]. Whenever one talks to small businesses they raise the Business Activity Statement as their key concern with regard to red tape. That is certainly an area that could be improved by Federal governments over time.
The interest that the Minister takes in small business is questionable. When I jotted down these speech notes in our last sitting week I looked at the Small Business website and noted that the last media release from the Minister for Small Business was on 2 July. There had been one or two media releases for the whole year. Of course, media releases are not what it is all about but they are an indicator of the Government's activity in this area, and judging by that website there does not seem to be a lot of activity. The Small Business website is averaging a couple of media releases a year, and that is certainly not a great indication of interest.
In summary, we have seen a failure on the Government's part to introduce legislation in this area. Despite that, Government members have said they will oppose this bill because, according to them, "We are doing this. How dare you introduce this bill when the Government has things underway?" If that is so, let us see the legislation. Before we vote on this bill let us see the Government's legislation so that we know that it will do what is proposed by the Opposition in this bill. 15958 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
Actions speak louder than words. The Government has abolished Small Business September and small business assistance has been cut as a result of the closure of trade and investment offices around regional New South Wales. This Government's record so far is not good, and it is extremely arrogant of Government members to suggest that they deserve the votes of small business. They do not. The reality is that they expect the votes of small business, but the Government takes small business for granted. That is what businesses in New South Wales need to understand. They are being taken for granted by this Government. I commend the shadow Minister for his hard work in bringing forward this legislation and I urge members to support it.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [9.55 a.m.]: It is quite ironic that a Labor Party is pretending to be the friend of small business. This is the same Labor Party whose Simon Crean declared that a small business was one that had less than 1,000 employees. Talk about delusional. This is the same party whose Kim Beazley said on 7 July 2000:
We have never pretended to be a small business party. The Labor Party has never pretended that.
Well, it appears that they are pretending now because we know that in their heart of hearts they do not give a damn about small business. They only care about their union mates; they only care about their union bosses. They do not even care about the union workers. These are the same people who want a union stranglehold on small businesses and are happy to force small businesses to pay go-away money for vexatious claims for wrongful dismissal. These are the same people who want fat guys in Eureka Stockade T-shirts with jackboots and braces to come barging in through the doors of small businesses, with baseball bats at the ready as one union leader did—
The Hon. Adam Searle: Point of order: Unwittingly the honourable Government Whip is misleading the House. There is no reference to jackboots or Eureka Stockade T-shirts anywhere in this bill.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! There is no point of order.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: They hate the truth. They know full well exactly what certain unions in Victoria did in going into workplaces with baseball bats at the ready to physically intimidate small business owners. Now they come here pretending that they care so deeply about small businesses. We on this side of the House are not fooled about exactly what type of people members opposite are trying to protect. This is a stunt by an Opposition that continues to rely on stunts. As Robert Furolo, a member of the lower House, noted quite appositely, this is an Opposition that is interested in spin over substance. So what did the Leader of the Opposition do? Did he go for spin or substance? He appointed the Hon. Walt Secord as a shadow Minister. Clearly he is going for substance, is he not?
The Hon. Steve Whan: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. Speaking of spin over substance, I ask you to bring the member back to the substance of the bill.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. I ask the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps to return to the leave of the bill.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: I did get a little carried away, I have to admit. That is unlike me. The point is that the Labor Party does not care about small business in their heart of hearts. This is the same party that is always happy to raise corporate tax rates. This is the same party that imposes a carbon tax, knowing full well the deleterious effect it will have on small businesses across Australia. Members opposite know that small businesses will see their bills rise not by $2, $3 or $5 a month but by $200, $300, $500 and in some cases thousands of dollars a month. The bills of small business will increase by thousands of dollars a month, and yet Labor members tell us that they care for small business. They do not care enough about small business to make sure it is economically viable in the long term.
What is their solution for small business? Typical of the socialist mentality that pervades the other side of the House, it is to create government institutions to tell small business what to do. They say, "We will come in and help you. We are from the government and we are here to help you." That is typical of the socialist mentality of those opposite, the expropriationist mentality. That is typical of actions of the Soviet government in the early years of the Soviet Union when it decided to expropriate businesses and land from the kulaks, whom they despised and drove into the ground, when they did not drive them into the Gulag archipelago. We see here the same Marxist influence: a trickle-down effect of Marxist ideology to the present day.
The Hon. Adam Searle: Point of order: I have never been a Marxist. It is an outrageous slur on my character. 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15959
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! There is no point of order.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: I am shocked to hear the Hon. Adam Searle say he is not a Marxist when in this very Parliament the Hon. Steve Whan declared that every member of the Labor Party was proudly socialist.
The Hon. Adam Searle: Not in this country, brother.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Not in your Labor Party? What does the Labor Party stand for these days if not for the socialist ideal? Does not every member of the Labor Party still have to sign up to the socialist ideal, which derives its ideological forebears from Marxist theory? If you are not a Marxist, why did you sign up to the socialist ideal? That is a question the Deputy Leader of the Opposition needs to ponder. The answer is one of two things: either he is not telling the truth—which I cannot believe; or, alternatively, that he and other Labor members are cynical users of those in his party who do believe in the socialist ideal. They are using those people, climbing on their backs as a way to get a nice, fat, corporate gig.
The Hon. Adam Searle: Point of order: While the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps is enormously entertaining, at no point during his contribution has he come anywhere near the leave of this bill. I ask that the member is drawn back to the matter before the House, which is a bill to protect and enhance the legal rights of small business.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps will direct his comments to the bill.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: I acknowledge the fact that I am enormously entertaining, as noted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. One must ask the question: What is the motivation behind this bill? Is it a genuine attempt to protect small business by a party whose leaders have declared, "We have never pretended to be a small business party"? Or is it something far more cynical? Is it simply a smokescreen to try to hide their true motives, to try to wheedle their way back into government? When they get back into government, will they still be caring and sharing about small business or will it be open slather for the union heavies once again? We all know the answer to that. This bill is fiction, a fabrication, a smokescreen. It is being used as a patina of respectability to be glossed onto the evil heart of socialism which drives their very core. This bill cannot be taken seriously and nor can the protestations of those opposite.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Mick Veitch and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ADVERTISING PROHIBITION BILL 2012
Second Reading
Debate called on, and adjourned on motion by the Hon. Lynda Voltz and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
ORGAN DONATION
Debate resumed from 23 August 2012.
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL [10.05 a.m.]: I am proud to support the motion moved by my colleague and the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health, the Hon. Melinda Pavey. DonateLife Week, which took place between 19 and 26 February 2012, is Australia's national awareness week to promote organ and tissue donation. This national awareness week, which is run by the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority, is an important initiative to raise awareness of the issues surrounding organ and tissue donation. DonateLife Week has a goal to encourage people to discuss donation with their friends and family and to listen to the stories of other Australians who have been fortunate enough to receive a transplant or who have made a donation. This is a particularly important goal because, as stated in paragraph (b) of the motion, Australia has one of the highest transplant success rates in the world. However, New South Wales has one of the lowest organ donation rates in the world. This is an alarming fact and everything possible should be done to raise awareness of the importance of organ donation.
I will share with the House some of the statistics that are available on the DonateLife Week website, www.donatelife.gov.au. If members have not looked at that informative website, I suggest they do so. Some of 15960 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
the facts on that site are: one organ, eye and tissue donor can save or enhance the lives of 10 people; around 1,600 people are on Australian organ transplant waiting lists; on average, people on the transplant lists can wait between six months and four years; in 2011, 337 organ donors gave 1,001 Australians a new chance at life—this was the highest rate of donation since national records began; and 79 per cent of Australians are willing to become organ donors.
In Australia, the family is always asked to confirm the donation wishes of the deceased before donations can proceed. This is a good practice in theory. However, the fact is that less than 60 per cent of families give consent for donation to proceed. It is evident that the practice of seeking family permission becomes somewhat complicated given that, unfortunately, 43 per cent of people do not know the wishes of their loved ones. Of all the facts I have just quoted, the last one is the most important, that is, 43 per cent of people do not know the wishes of their loved ones. Our attention was drawn to these statistics earlier this week when we debated the bill on human tissue and organ transplantation.
The main message from DonateLife Week is that we need to have conversations about organ donation with our loved ones and encourage others to do the same. I have spoken to my husband about it. It was a confronting but necessary discussion. Our own mortality is the only thing about which we are certain. After seeing the advertisements on television, I also spoke to my sister about the issue. It can be confronting to have this discussion and there are helpful tools on the DonateLife website to assist such a discussion. The basic message conveyed on the website is covered by the three Ds: discover, decide, and discuss.
The website also has some great personal stories about real-life situations, which can assist people to make the decision whether or not to be an organ donor. I particularly draw the attention of members to two stories from my local area. The first is the story of Lynda Ludlow from Glen Innes who, at 44 years old, was diagnosed with primary pulmonary hypertension. This is a condition whereby her pulmonary valves become constricted and cause her heart to swell to double its normal size. Lynda had become reliant on oxygen and was eventually bedridden. She was given just days to live and on Christmas Day 2007 her family was called in to say their goodbyes. Lynda was placed at the top of the organ donation list because of her critical condition and on 8 January she miraculously received a double lung transplant. Lynda acknowledges that she is alive today only because the donor's family said "yes" and consented to the donation.
Ms Barbara Chard from Glen Innes was on peritoneal dialysis for eight years and at times had up to 1,000 litres of fluid pumped through her stomach every night. In 2004 a kidney became available and although Barbara was hesitant because of the side-effects of anti-rejection drugs, she underwent surgery the very evening that the organ became available. Now, in 2012, she has no regrets about the decision and is hoping to set up a support group with Lynda for those involved in the organ donation process. These are just two stories of many about the wonderful gift that can be bestowed through organ and tissue donation. I am sure that there are many more similar stories throughout the State and Australia.
I turn now to paragraph (c) of the motion, which mentions the discussion paper released by the Minister for Health, Jillian Skinner, seeking public comment on a range of proposals designed to boost organ donation rates in New South Wales. As I said, New South Wales has the lowest organ donation rate in Australia, with about 12.4 people per million donating compared with 19.7 per million in Tasmania. The paper examined how clinicians could be assisted in talking to families about organ donation, taking into account cultural needs and the best way to provide the public with the facts about organ donation in New South Wales. More than 75 submissions had been lodged by individuals and advocacy groups when the submission process closed on 31 January this year.
The Government has received many important views regarding organ donation. One was that donors do not want their families to override their wishes when they are asked to decide about donating organs and tissues. The submissions also stated that the dual registry system with Roads and Maritime Services and the Australian Organ Donor Register was confusing and unnecessary. This is important feedback and the Government agrees that the move to the single national registry is the most appropriate step forward. As a result of the discussion paper, the Government recently announced the Increasing Organ Donation in New South Wales: Government Plan 2012, which is aimed at doubling the State's organ donation rate. The paper states as background that New South Wales is the only State in Australia with a stand-alone system for registration of consent to organ donation, which is administered through the Roads and Maritime Services driver licence application process. Residents in all other States access the Australian Organ Donor Register to indicate their consent to or refusal of organ donation after death. 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15961
Last year, New South Wales hospitals identified 215 potential organ donors who were medically suitable to donate. Of those, only 77 actually donated organs, which is a rate of just 36 per cent. Our goal is to see that rate increase to meet the national target of 70 per cent. As I said, one organ donor can help as many as 10 people. The strategy that is being implemented includes transferring existing donors from the Roads and Maritime Services organ donor register to the national Australian Organ Donor Register, which is run by Medicare. Representatives from DonateLife who recently visited the Parliament provided a very helpful brochure which provides the facts about organ and tissue donation and which contains an organ donation registration form.
Like many other members of this House and the other place, I was very pleased to sign up to be an organ donor. We are taking some great steps forward in this area, not the least of which is the passage of the Human Tissue Legislation Amendment Bill that we debated yesterday. I congratulate not only the Minister for Health but also the Hon. Melinda Pavey on the effort they have put into taking proactive steps to promote organ donation in this State and their commitment to improving the donation rate. DonateLife Week is observed only one week a year, but we can and should all be doing our bit to raise awareness every day.
The Government has implemented other initiatives to improve the organ donation rate as outlined in paragraph (d) of the motion. In December 2011, the NSW Police Force and NSW Health launched a joint response to allow a single point of contact for police officers and medical practitioners to coordinate the transport of organs and ultimately to save lives in the process. This is a common-sense initiative and I commend the Minister for Police and Emergency Services for his contribution to this positive step in streamlining the transplant process. This is a great motion and I am pleased to support it. I congratulate the Hon. Melinda Pavey on her efforts in helping to raise awareness about this vitally important issue.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [10.14 a.m.]: I registered as an organ donor many years ago, and did so because my parents had registered. We discussed the issue when I was getting my driver licence and it seemed the sensible thing to do. Their argument came down to functionality: It is a waste to have one's body rot in the ground or immolated in a crematorium when one's organs can be used by other people. I found that a fairly plausible and convincing argument. When we die, we are dead. Many people believe in an afterlife, whether it be a physical or spiritual resurrection. If it is a spiritual resurrection, we will not need our organs. If it is a physical resurrection, in the literal sense, then surely an omnipotent God who can raise someone from the dead and transfigure Jesus as he did on the road to Emmaus can replace any missing organs on Judgment Day.
However, people are scared to consider their own mortality. Death awaits us all. There is an old saying that there are only two certain things in life: death and taxes. I would like to eliminate at least one of them, and unfortunately death is not something that governments can regulate or deregulate out of existence. People worry about their mortality; they do not want to think about what will happen when they die. I look upon organ donation as a community service that we can provide even when we are no longer here. Who would not want a little bit of Phelps if they had the opportunity—a bit of pure awesomeness added to their corporeal frame? I ask members to imagine what would happen if Dr John Kaye were given my heart. Perhaps he would have a bit of heart for blue-collar workers. Imagine if the very meek and gentle the Hon. Paul Green had my bile and spleen. Think what a parliamentarian he could be.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: The member is obviously making imputations about the parliamentary performance of the member occupying the Chair. That is outrageous.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! The member is aware that bile and spleens are amoral. If they were put in a nice, kind person, I am sure they would be well used.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Indeed, they would. I ask members to contemplate the Hon. Helen Westwood receiving my brain.
The Hon. Walt Secord: Point of order: Humour is fun, but the honourable member should not be insulting.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: I thought it would be interesting for her to take on my policy positions. That would be an interesting state of affairs. People do not wish to confront their own mortality and it is slightly icky thinking about things being chopped out of one's body. That has not been helped by a famous Monty Python sketch in the Meaning of Life. However, we should think about what happens to us after we die. I have certainly done so. Even if I am an organ donor, I still believe there will be enough left of me to be farewelled on a blazing Viking longboat in Sydney Harbour—although the carbon tax imposed would probably be prohibitive. 15962 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
Perhaps there could be a pantheon in Hyde Park, but it would be an injustice to my life if taxpayers' dollars were spent to honour me. I am thinking more of a great private marble mausoleum atop Mount Palerang. Devotees could make the trek up the mountainside to touch the marble sarcophagus, study in the Phelps memorial library and buy souvenirs at the Phelps memorial cafe, bookshop and gift shop. We should think about what happens after we die. When I die, I hope that my organs are used for something greater than to be placed in pantheons and mausoleums; I want them to be used to give hope to people who have none. That is greater than any marble monument. For that reason I support this motion.
The Hon. WALT SECORD [10.20 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Melinda Pavey and congratulate her on raising the issue of organ transplant and donation. I intend to make a very brief contribution, as many of the issues in this motion were canvassed extensively earlier this week in the debate on the Human Tissue Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. Unfortunately, New South Wales has one of the lowest donation rates in Australia. In 2011, there were 77 solid organ donors from the total New South Wales population—77 from a possible 215 potential organ donors who were deemed to be medically suitable to donate. During the debate on that bill, I referred to the Summit family from western Sydney and their decision to give permission for their son to become an organ donor.
In October 2011, I was humbled and honoured to meet Oliver and Rosemarie Summit, the parents of the late Donjon Summit who was murdered in Greece in July 2008. The meeting at Parramatta was arranged by Ms Martha Jabour, who is Executive Director of the Homicide Victims' Support Group, Australia. In July 2008, 20-year-old Doujon Zammit was in Greece on his first overseas holiday. He was bashed and slipped into a coma. His life ended when he was taken off life support by his family. In a wonderful, selfless act the Zammit family allowed Doujon's organs to be donated in Greece. They saved five separate lives. This is a practical example of how one organ donor can change the lives of many. Before Doujon left Australia he had spoken to his family about being an organ donor. Even in that time of grief his parents honoured his wish.
As I said earlier this week, they are a truly wonderful couple. Yesterday I received an email from Mr Zammit, who is an official Australian Ambassador for Organ and Tissue Donation, in which he commented on my speech and the Government's legislation, which had bipartisan support. I would like to put on the record his support for the Human Tissue Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 and measures to improve donor rates in New South Wales and Australia. Mr Zammit wrote:
As you know our family had to find the strength to somehow put our grief aside long enough to remember what Doujon had told us and that was his wish to be an organ donor. Still even then it would have been easier to say no than yes, but then we would have had to deal with the guilt of not doing what Doujon had asked us to do.
Further, Mr Zammit said that one of Doujon Zammit's recipients has moved back to Australia and that man is also active in promoting organ and tissue donation. Mr Zammit said that that man and the Zammit family share a unique bond. I commend the motion.
The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES [10.22 a.m.]: I will keep my comments brief on this motion relating to organ donation, having spoken in an adjournment debate about DonateLife Week 2012 and also yesterday on the Human Tissue Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. However, I believe it is important to place on the record my appreciation of the Hon. Melinda Pavey for moving this motion and to reiterate my support for organ donation, particularly in New South Wales. We all have a responsibility to raise awareness of this sensitive issue. DonateLife Week is a national awareness campaign to promote and reflect upon the importance of organ and tissue donation in Australia. Being an organ donor is a special gift that one gives to save or heal the lives of others. It is also a personal decision that needs to be taken very seriously and shared with one's family. As I have said, many relatives do not understand what is required about their role and responsibility in the harvesting of the organs of their loved ones. For that reason, the theme for DonateLife Week this year was to discuss your loved ones' wishes. This provides an avenue for families to speak honestly about organ donation.
I draw the attention of the House to a book titled, DonateLife Book of Life, which was launched in 2010. It is a collection of extraordinary stories of life-saving and life-changing acts told by people who have been touched by organ and tissue donation. They are the stories of brave mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and ordinary Australians about their friends and also strangers who have made the most generous decision to donate their organs. This book has an insightful number of poems and stories from loved ones who are grieving and acknowledge their grief in words. Recently I read a heartfelt story relayed by a mother about her 15-month-old daughter, Taylor, who became a donor. Taylor's donation saved the lives of two baby boys who, having received 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15963
this gift of life, have a chance to grow up with their loving families. Taylor's mother and father, Lee and Peter, describe their daughter as an "independent, outgoing and loving child". She was the centre of her family's life. Taylor's mother stated:
It was a very important and logical choice for us as her parents to decide to offer her organs for donation. We know with total certainty that she would have wanted to share anything she could with others and would be very proud of what she has been able to contribute—
and what she has left behind—
Being an [organ] donor is more than the gift the donor gives—it's also about the community you join when you are a donor family, the joy you get from knowing someone else is healthy because of her, and the knowledge of how very proud she would be of the special gift she gave to these complete strangers, with not a thought of receiving anything in return. It's a great comfort to know that a little piece of our angel lives on in the precious children of other families.
Other stories, poems and letters to donors are filled with messages of gratitude and praise and thanking their donors for the gift of a second life. I was inspired by one story where the people spoke about days filled with despair but took comfort in the knowledge that their loved ones' organs and tissues had given others a better life. In addition to providing accounts and tributes to the generosity of lives tragically and abruptly ended, the 300 entries in the book provide us with an opportunity to find out the facts about organ and tissue donation so that we can make informed decisions and, most importantly, discuss those decisions with our next of kin. Being an organ and tissue donor is one of the most important discussions we can have. I have discussed it with my family. DonateLife Week this year is about knowing and understanding the wishes of your loved ones. I commend the motion to the House.
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [10.27 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Melinda Pavey and I commend her for raising this issue in the House. I concur with the contributions made by previous speakers. As the importance of organ and tissue donation has already been spoken about during this debate, my contribution will be brief. In 2004 or 2005, as mayor of Bankstown I hosted the Transplant Games. This event highlighted to me the importance of organ donation and the real difference it can make to the quality and longevity of the lives of others. As we know, regretfully, many Australians suffer from diseases that mean that without an organ donation their life will end earlier than it should. We also know that there will continue to be tragic accidents and sudden deaths and families have to make a very difficult decision in painful and sad circumstances to donate the organs of their loved ones.
We all appreciate how difficult such a decision can be. It is absolutely imperative that there be a community education campaign targeting possible donors—the general community, particularly the young and the healthy—and that the professionals in our hospitals and medical services have the capacity to support and assist families with this very difficult decision. As members have said, Australia has a very low donation rate and this needs to be addressed. It is an absolute waste to take organs to the grave or have them cremated when others could be given the gift of life—a gift that will allow families to keep their loved ones with them for many years to come. I know some transplant recipients and I know what a difference it has made to their lives. It can also be consolation to families of donors during their time of pain and sadness.
It is with much pleasure that I support this motion but I cannot conclude without saying something about Dr Phelps' contribution to the debate. Dr Phelps is right. Indeed, if he did donate his organs there would be some quite extraordinary and interesting outcomes. I would like to take him up on his offer of donating his brain. As a Labor woman, I could use a male brain right now; it might help me understand how men engage in politics in this State. It would give me an ego so large that there would be nothing I was not capable of doing, and I would impart my knowledge to everyone around me. Dr Phelps, I would love the opportunity to have your brain—even for a week. It might even enhance my chances in this place.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Helen, we could go camping together for a week.
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: I am not sure that camping with Dr Phelps is something I would be willing to risk. I am risk averse and that is a risk I am not willing to take—in fact, the thought is frightening. I encourage all members to discuss organ donation seriously with their loved ones. It is important that our closest family—our partners, children and parents—know our wishes. It is imperative that we make our wishes about donation clear to them so it eases their burden should a tragedy befall any of us. I again commend the Hon. Melinda Pavey for moving this motion.
Dr JOHN KAYE [10.34 a.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I support the motion moved by the Hon. Melinda Pavey. I do so briefly not because the motion does not address an extremely important matter but 15964 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
because during debate on legislation yesterday I raised a number of issues that I would have covered in speaking to this motion. I reiterate three issues. First, I note the significant gains to the community from having a large pool of organ and tissue donors and the lives that can be saved as a result. Secondly, donors benefit from knowing that they are giving a substantial gift of greater quality of life. Thirdly, we must explore how we achieve higher rates of donation—we had a long discussion about that yesterday. On behalf of The Greens I pay my respects to the organisers of DonateLife for the way in which they promote this extremely important issue across New South Wales. DonateLife Week was in February and it is now October. We are now looking forward to DonateLife Week 2013, which will take place from Sunday 24 February to Sunday 3 March.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: The member is absolutely right.
Dr JOHN KAYE: It is good that members are putting on the record their support for the motion and for efforts to increase organ donations. I thank the Hon. Melinda Pavey for putting this matter on the Notice Paper, and I commend the motion to the House.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [10.36 a.m.]: I join other members in congratulating the Hon. Melinda Pavey on moving this motion. I also acknowledge the generosity of the Government Whip in offering to share himself around. As I listened to the debate in my office I found myself wondering what part of Dr Phelps I would like to have if he died—there would not be much left after he had shared himself with so many others. The Hon. Helen Westwood's comments about the benefits of having a man's brain reminded me of a New Year's Eve resolution I once made. I told my husband, "My New Year's Eve resolution this year is that I am going to try and change things by thinking more like a man." My husband was incredibly excited—one can guess what is coming—because he basically interpreted it as a great improvement in our love life. While I empathise with the sentiments expressed by the Hon. Helen Westwood, I inform the House that I abandoned the idea very quickly.
I also acknowledge and congratulate the Government on the measures it is taking on the issue of consent—legislation dealt with that yesterday. However, the puzzle as to why the donation rates in New South Wales are the lowest in Australia is not as easily solved as improving consent measures. I put it to the Government that the issue organ collection is very problematic in this State, as is the use of the organs once collected. Given that improvements have been made in relation to consent, I urge the Minister for Health to move on to organ collection and utilisation issues. Organs were originally collected following declarations on a person's driver licence because road accidents were a major cause of death, particularly among young people. Those organs would then give life to other young people—children in particular—and in many cases organ donation was viewed as a way of finding meaning in tragedy for the loved ones of the donors. I remind members that in 1978 the New South Wales road toll stood at 1,384 deaths. To highlight how dramatically it has fallen, last year the road toll was 376 deaths. So in 1978 we had 30 road accident deaths per 100,000 people; we now have just five deaths per 100,000 people.
While the road toll has been declining, medical advances have increased the opportunity for transplants to save lives or transform quality of life. At the same time as the prime source of donations has been declining, the ability to use donated organs and the demand for organs has been increasing, especially for small children, who have the most to gain in terms of lifespan if they can access life-saving donated organs. I suggest that the potential pool of donors has been diminishing as more people die of natural causes, from illnesses such as cancer, which renders a potential donor unsuitable. In recent years there has been an increase in the prevalence of diseases such as hepatitis B. Indeed, 165,000 Australians have been infected with hepatitis B. Chronic diseases have increased the pool of potential recipients—especially for livers in the case of hepatitis B—while at the same time the pool of potential donors has decreased. The problem is that many people are happy to donate organs but certain issues prevent the Government and members of the public from making the most of that.
As for the number of recipients per donor, New South Wales has the lowest number in Australia. I understand that for every donor we are able to retrieve and use an average of about 2.8 organs, whereas in South Australia or the Northern Territory it is about 3.5. That is a big difference. I believe the average is three organs per donor, but that number is pulled down by the low utilisation rate in New South Wales. That jumps out at me as a question that the Government should investigate: Are we able to maximise the use of available organs? Why is our use of organs so low compared with other States? As the Hon. Melinda Pavey knows, I have been talking about the issue of collection for about a decade.
Under the current system, the hospital that retrieves the organ is the hospital that gets to use that organ. In New South Wales we have a large number of cross-border issues. For example, in my region of the far North 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15965
Coast, where we have a large population, if a child drowns or is killed in a car accident—or an adult for that matter—the rescue helicopter will come in and take the patient to Brisbane hospital. If the patient passes away or lapses into a coma from which they cannot recover Brisbane hospital will then have the opportunity of retrieving their organs. All organ retrievals for the population of the far North Coast occur in Queensland. Similarly, organ retrieval for the Riverina is undertaken in Melbourne. The organs are then owned by those States.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Paul Green): Order! Members who wish to engage in private conversations should do so outside the Chamber. I am having difficulty hearing the member with the call. I am sure that Hansard is also experiencing difficulties.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: So the organs retrieved are then available for patients on the waiting lists in those other States. It was not such a problem until a few years ago because northern New South Wales residents who needed a transplant would go on the Queensland waiting list. So not only were they donors to the Queensland system; they were also recipients from the Queensland system. What happened under this collection method is that every time a New South Wales patient had an organ transplant in Queensland, under the agreement between the governments, New South Wales would have to release one of its organs to Queensland to replace the organ that the New South Wales resident used. In a sense, it was a bit of a double whammy for Queensland.
I believe our donation rates appear to be so low because of the way the interstate system militates against New South Wales residents. Our residents are donating and giving the gift life at the same rate as every other Australian, but the statistics make it look like we are not donating at the same rate. I believe this idiosyncrasy in the system is what is causing our donor rates to look artificially low. A number of years ago, when the system was introduced that New South Wales had to submit an organ to Melbourne hospital, Brisbane hospital or wherever the transplant occurred, the New South Wales Government decided that the people receiving organs had to be on the New South Wales waiting list and governed by its time frame, because the waiting lists for organs in Queensland and Victoria were much shorter than the waiting list in New South Wales.
My husband, who is the head of the North Coast Area Health Service, had the awful job of telling New South Wales residents who had been on the waiting list for years and who believed they were maybe a year away from getting a lifesaving kidney or liver that because of the bureaucratic change in the agreement they would now have to wait another three or four years. The situation was outrageous for those people and their families. My husband was able to negotiate with the then Labor Government to give an exemption to those people whose hopes for life were being dashed by that system. Nevertheless, everyone who has gone on the list subsequently, although the transplants occur in Queensland or Melbourne, has had to wait longer than do Queensland and Victorian residents.
I believe the problem is with collection and the fact that New South Wales organs being collected by interstate hospitals are not being counted towards New South Wales patients. I cannot have any faith in the credibility of our organ collection system or the waiting times being endured by New South Wales residents until the issue relating to how collected organs are being counted is resolved. It might sound like a complicated matter—it is a complex formula—but for many New South Wales residents who remain on long waiting lists under this policy, it is literally a matter of life and death. For that reason alone, we must ensure that the collection system treats New South Wales residents fairly; we must not be bamboozled by inadequacies in our cross-border arrangements.
In conclusion, I thank the Hon. Melinda Pavey for giving us the opportunity to raise these concerns. I congratulate all members, including the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps, who have put themselves on the organ donation register. Amanda Vanstone once said to me, "The reason you help people as a Liberal, the reason we do it, is because we can." In a sense, once you no longer need your body the easiest thing to do is contribute and give life. I think it is a joyous opportunity to end one's innings in such a spectacular way. I congratulate members who participate and others in the community. It is not just about consent; we also need to look at utilisation and collection. I hope the Government will consider that issue.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [10.48 a.m.]: I support the motion on DonateLife Week moved by the Hon. Melinda Pavey. In general, we all have a responsibility to talk to people we know—whether or not they are family members—about being an organ donor. It is no good knowing what you want to do if you do not tell people who will be in a position to comply with your wishes. It is not always possible for people to donate their organs when they pass away, so in order to meet the demand for organs in New South Wales and Australia we 15966 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
need as many people as possible speaking to their families and friends about why they want to be organ donors. Events such as DonateLife Week are important in raising the profile of this important issue. Many people do not consider organ donation until a crisis occurs and at that time they are not emotionally capable of making an informed decision on behalf of a family member.
The gift of life means a great deal to people. We see the impact that organ donation has on a recipient and their family when we consider the recent high-profile case of the young man who was killed in Kings Cross. His family made the difficult decision to donate his organs. Organ donation saves people from death. Those who know somebody who is on the waiting list, or who has been on the waiting list, will be aware that they do not want to leave their house, be out of telephone range or venture too far away from a major hospital because they can get that important call at any time. Many people assume that you get the call, go to hospital and everything is okay. However, sometimes the call comes because you are the second person on the list. The hospital will call in two people to ensure the organ is used; the second person is called in just in case the first person on the list is not able to make it. There is then the disappointment and heartbreak of going home again hoping—a horrible hope—that someone else's loved one passes away so you can get a second chance at life.
For those reasons we have to try to increase organ donation rates in New South Wales and in Australia. Our hospitals are excellent. The success rate of organ transplantation is high in Australia. We have some of the most skilled surgeons in the world performing transplant operations and the only thing holding us back from saving more lives every year is the lack of donors. I have had the difficult conversation about organ donation with my children. They are young adults now and they understand the difference it could make to somebody else. They know people who have had organ transplants and they have told me that they are happy to be organ donors. They do not want to waste something that could give a person a second chance at life by being buried or cremated with their organs intact.
That is a discussion we should all be having with our children because the younger the donor, the healthier the organ and the more likelihood there is of a successful transplant. However, if older people have lived a relatively healthy life, they can donate an organ. If the organ is given to a young person it might not last their whole life but the practice of people having second organ donations is relatively common in Australia. Sometimes a second transplant is required because the first transplant did not work or the organ might last only two or three years. We are all aware of the famous case of Fiona Coote, who needed a second heart and who must be doing well because we do not hear about her in the media. Fiona has stated publicly that she would not have a third transplant because she believes she has had her chances.
Because donation rates are so low, parents may donate a kidney to their child and there are donations between siblings. I had a first cousin who required a kidney transplant. He was only in his early twenties and his parents were ecstatic that he had the opportunity for a kidney transplant and would not have to rely on dialysis week in week out, year in year out. Unfortunately, the transplant did not last and he had to go back on dialysis. Ultimately complications from his original condition and the transplant caused him to die at a young age. However, the euphoria the family felt when they thought he had been given a second chance at life was amazing. Everybody—not just the immediate family—felt that way because we had seen him and his family struggle with his condition from the time he was a young child. Everybody in the family thought it was wonderful that somebody had allowed their family member's organs to be donated. It made a huge impact.
One has a sense of personal responsibility but when one has been personally touched in such circumstances one feels a responsibility to do whatever one can to encourage other people to donate organs. Families suffer terrible stress and strain when a loved one—particularly a child—is in need of a transplant. It is a dreadful waste for the community to have the potential of these young people snuffed out if they do not receive a transplant. As public figures and parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to try to change this. A while ago the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party took an active role in encouraging party members to become organ donors. The party's website contained information as to how to change a life by registering to be an organ donor.
The Hon. Melinda Pavey: That would have been the most useful thing on that website.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: I note the sarcastic comment of the Hon. Melinda Pavey. Organisations such as Rotary and Lions actively encourage their members to register as organ donors. Political parties that have many members should be doing it too. Most people get involved in politics because they care about people and want to help the community. Political parties have a great responsibility and need to be proactive in encouraging organ donation. The Minister for Health, the Hon. Jillian Skinner, released a discussion paper in 2011. I am prone to be a bit extreme on issues at times. 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15967
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: No! I've always considered you as a moderate, Amanda.
The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: That is a terrible insult, coming from the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps. Some European countries have an opt-out system and I believe New South Wales should also have an opt-out system. Under that system everybody is automatically considered to be an organ donor unless they have opted out. If one has strong religious or philosophical views against organ donation, then it is fine to opt out. Often families are not capable of making a decision based on sound and clear-cut parameters when they are facing such a terrible decision. They are asked to leave their loved one on life support for an extra six to 12 hours until organ donation can be organised. People are devastated at such a time, particularly if it is a young person. It is the old cliché that parents do not expect their children to die before them. They may not have strong views against it, but they are the sorts of issues that hit people when looking at the issue of organ donation.
As I said, I am a bit of an extremist—I would go for an opt-out system. I know it does not have general support in the community but perhaps one day we will be able to move towards that system. In the meantime, I think we should all promote people becoming organ donors and celebrating events such as DonateLife Week. We should also remember that when we are driving and see an ambulance or police car with lights on, it is our responsibility to give way to them. Nothing we are doing is worth delaying an emergency vehicle. It may be that somebody needs to get to hospital for their life to be saved or the vehicle may be transporting an organ for donation to save a life. The NSW Police Force and NSW Health have initiated time-saving procedures when transferring organs for transplant. As motorists, we must take responsibility to assist in that process. That should be part of the public message as well.
We should be telling people not to dilly-dally if they see an ambulance or a police car with its siren going but to pull over and let it pass because the odds are they are trying to save a life or give someone a life. Nothing we do as motorists should hold that up. I commend the motion to the House and thank the Hon. Melinda Pavey for moving it. This is one issue that we as parliamentarians should be able to support across the board. On issues such as this we can join together in taking public responsibility to promote organ donation and support events such as DonateLife Week.
The Hon. MELINDA PAVEY (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.00 a.m.], in reply: I very much appreciate the contributions of all speakers during this debate, which has take place over almost 12 months. I note Dr John Kaye highlighted the fact that we are actually closer to DonateLife Week next year, which will be held from Sunday 24 February to 3 March. It has been an extraordinary week in this Chamber in respect of the debate on this motion and the Human Tissue Amendment Bill, and the public comment that has been aroused. There is extreme goodwill towards increasing donation rates in this country, particularly in this State. I take on board some of the comments just made by the Hon. Amanda Fazio. Next week I intend to take up with the State Director of the New South Wales Nationals, Ben Franklin, the idea of putting on our website the links to donation organisations so that we can increase the donation rate, which is desperately required.
I note the contribution made by the Hon. Catherine Cusack, who related her experience and information about cross-border issues. I am sure those issues will be considered as well. We need to increase donation rates, and public discussion is probably the most important thing we can do as parliamentarians to achieve that end. We have all given a commitment to that. When we launched the transfer of the New South Wales organ donor register in favour of the Australian Organ Donor Register in Parliament House on 6 September many members of Parliament signed up, including members representing the electorates of Cronulla, Swansea, Wyong, Camden, Londonderry, Port Stephens, Myall Lakes, Willoughby, East Hills, Mulgoa, Heathcote, Coffs Harbour, Lismore, Menai, Dubbo, South Coast, Burrinjuck, Gosford, Parramatta, Wagga Wagga, Macquarie Fields, Coogee, Ballina, Maitland, Blue Mountains, Marrickville and Port Macquarie. The Hon. Sarah Mitchell and I signed up, as did the Hon. Niall Blair, the Hon. Jenny Gardiner and the Hon. Marie Ficarra. That was a great initiative to get conversations happening. I am now officially on the Australian Organ Donor Register because of that process. I had a call from the organisation last week to check my Medicare details.
The legislation we passed this week is an important part of the process of ensuring that the wishes of the deceased are respected by the family and that health professionals know they have more security in relation to that process. One of the most extraordinary things we are doing in NSW Health on a daily basis is improving communication in intensive care units with families. Spain had one of the lowest donation rates in the world. Spain introduced legislation in 1979 but did not see improved rates of donation until it adopted a national system of organ donation coordination in hospitals. Coordination is important but most important are health professionals playing a pivotal role in dealing with families during the most difficult point in their lives. Assisting families that are considering donor consent appears to have one of the biggest impacts on donation 15968 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
rates internationally. In Spain organ donation blossomed after the Government set up a network of transplant coordinators in 139 intensive care units across the country. We are doing similar work in New South Wales and extending that to the major regional hospitals so that there are people who are able to speak professionally and compassionately in dealing with families during a most difficult time.
There is not just one solution to increasing organ donation rates; there is a suite of possibilities that involve people working together. There is a genuine desire to see people live as full a life as they can. I mentioned my friend Danielle McMillan, whose life was going to be shortened if she did not have a kidney donation. She received one in the last 18 months or so. I was in Coffs Harbour recently and saw her pushing her granddaughter in a pram and it was a very happy moment. She is a very special woman from a very special family and seeing her brought home to me that this is what this debate is all about. I thank members on all sides of the Chamber for their contributions to a very worthwhile debate.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
COMMUNITY BUILDING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE [11.05 a.m.]: I seek leave to amend Private Members' Business item No. 7 in the Order of Precedence as follows:
1. Omit paragraph (a) and insert instead:
(a) condemns the O'Farrell Government for their cuts to the Community Building Partnership program.
2. Omit paragraph (c) and insert instead:
(c) notes that groups and organisations that rely on this funding for upgrades and improvements to local community facilities will suffer as a result of these cuts.
3. Omit paragraph 2 and insert instead:
2. That this House calls on the O'Farrell Government to restore Community Building Partnership grant funding to the levels prior to the 2012-2013 State Budget.
Leave granted.
I move Private Members' Business item No. 7 in the Order of Precedence as amended by leave:
1. That this House:
(a) condemns the O'Farrell Government for its cuts to the Community Building Partnership program.
(b) notes that the Rockdale electorate has benefited from more than $1.1 million being directed to many diverse local community organisations since 2009, such as:
(i) The Girl Guide Association of New South Wales,
(ii) The Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney,
(iii) Arncliffe Scots Baseball Club,
(iv) Kyeemagh Infants Public School Parents and Citizens Association,
(v) Ramsgate Lifesaving Club,
(vi) Rockdale City Council,
(vii) Scouts Australia (New South Wales Branch),
(viii) St George Community Services,
(ix) St George PCYC,
(x) Sunnyhaven Ltd,
(xi) YMCA of Sydney,
18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15969
(xii) St George District Netball Association,
(xiii) St George-Randwick Hockey Club,
(xiv) Sans Souci Football Club,
(xv) St George United Soccer Club, and
(xvi) St Mark's Preschool.
(c) notes that groups and organisations that rely on this funding for upgrades and improvements to local community facilities will suffer as a result of these cuts.
2. That this House calls on the O'Farrell Government to restore Community Building Partnership grant funding to the levels prior to the 2012-2013 State Budget
Community Building Partnership grants were initiated by the former Labor Government in 2009 and have provided vital assistance to community groups who spent the money where it was needed most. The program provides funds to many councils and community organisations to build local infrastructure and inject desperately needed funds into the local economy. The Community Building Partnership program is all about providing local councils and community organisations with a little assistance to attend to local needs and build local infrastructure. Examples of local projects eligible for funding include upgrades to community halls, playground centres and senior citizens centres, charity facilities, arts space and playgrounds, local environment initiatives such as community gardens, cycleways and walkways, boat ramps, skate parks, community barbecue facilities and dog parks, and improvements to sporting fields such as lighting, drainage and fencing.
The Community Building Partnership empowers community organisations and local councils to deliver projects that would have been financially out of reach. Community groups can apply for full funding for their projects whereas a local council must provide funds matching the New South Wales Government's contribution. The types of projects targeted by the Community Building Partnership grants are of significance to local communities and sporting communities. Take, for instance, the improvements to sporting fields in the Rockdale City Council area. There are many in the city that are used by the wider St George community. The Arncliffe Aurora Soccer Club and Banksia Tigers Soccer Club, for example, needed money for lighting in parks. They received that desperately needed money through the Community Building Partnership grants and they now have lighting that enables many hundreds of children to train and play in safety.
It is also worth noting that Community Building Partnership grants provide another benefit to the local economy. When it started in 2009 the program's objective was to be an economic stimulus measure. In 2009 the Labor Government provided a total of $39 million to fund 1,180 projects across the State. Under Labor, each State electorate received $300,000 and the 48 State electorates with higher social disadvantages received an additional $100,000. As a result of its effectiveness, the local government built on the Community Building Partnership in 2010 and increased the available funding.
In response to the strong demand by community groups and local councils for social infrastructure funding, the Labor Government increased the funding further. In October 2010 the Government received a large number of applications and former Premier Kristina Keneally responded by increasing the total available to $58.4 million. The result was that 45 electorates that had been allocated $300,000 had their funding increased to $500,000, and 48 electorates with higher levels of social disadvantage and unemployment had their funding allocation increased from $400,000 to $700,000. The 93 State electorates, 153 councils and hundreds of community organisations across the State that received these grants work hard to ensure that every cent received goes to a worthy community initiative.
Rockdale electorate, which is the subject of this motion—along with every electorate in New South Wales—has benefitted significantly from millions of dollars being directed to many diverse local community organisations since 2009. In Rockdale community groups will be adversely affected by the O'Farrell Government's slashing of funds. These organisations include but are not limited to the Girl Guides Association of New South Wales; the Australian Church Diocese of Sydney; the Arncliffe Scots Baseball Club; Kyeemagh Infants Public School Parents and Citizens Association; Ramsgate Life Saving Club; Rockdale City Council; Scouts Australia, New South Wales branch; St George Community Service; St George PCYC; Sunnyhaven Ltd; YMCA Sydney; St George District Netball Association of Sydney; St George Randwick Hockey Club; Sans Souci Football Club; St George United Soccer Club; and St Marks Preschool—there are many others.
To put matters into perspective, I will speak briefly about a few of the groups I have mentioned to illustrate to my colleagues how important these organisations are and the invaluable services they provide. The St 15970 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
George Community Services Centre is a not-for-profit organisation which offers a wide range of services to the frail aged, people with disabilities and their carers who reside in the St George and Sutherland shire area. Their many services also assist people who live independently at home. Other services include home maintenance and modifications, multicultural domestic assistance, meal delivery services, bus shopping and social outings, home shopping, a stroke support group, dementia day care and social support. They also offer a volunteer recruitment and referral service and training. The O'Farrell Government has slashed the funding this centre relies on.
By cutting the Community Building Partnership grants the O'Farrell Government will also be cutting the desperately needed funding that local schools benefit from when accessing the Community Building Partnership program. Kyeemagh Infants School is a great public school with strong community links. It is recognised and valued for the services it provides to the Kyeemagh community. Cuts in the Community Building Partnership grants will hurt them when the funds needed are no longer available or are insufficient for them to address the needs of the local community and their children. In 2010 the Kyeemagh Infants School received $36,000 to returf its sportsground. Every cent was put to good use and the sportsground was given a new lease on life.
The cuts will hurt other local organisations such as the Ramsgate Life Saving Club, which is one of the many volunteer organisations across Rockdale city and this State. This club has been in operation for the past 77 years. It provides a venue to educate young people in water safety and is a facility for members who not only come from the Rockdale local government area but also Kogarah, Hurstville, Botany, Marrickville and other areas. In the 2010-11 season its junior membership totalled just under 300, a record for the club. Its membership is expected to increase beyond 300 in future seasons. This club and its member volunteers give so much to our community and everything should be done to help them, not to slash their funding, as the O'Farrell Government has done.
In 2010 the Ramsgate Life Saving Club received $80,000 to provide for an upgrade of internal male and female bathrooms. One of its presidents, Mr William Edward Batley, received the medal of the Order of Australia for his services to the community through the Ramsgate Life Saving Club. The people Mr Batley has served will be terribly affected and so will the organisation that seeks nothing but to serve the community. A few weeks ago I tabled a petition signed by members and supporters of the Pole Depot Community Centre with regards to the Community Building Partnership program. I am grateful to them for responding and for making their views known. This centre is affected and I call on this Government to review its decision to cut the Community Building Partnership grants.
This centre is a not-for-profit registered organisation situated in the heart of the St George area and aims to meet the needs of the local community in my duty electorates of Rockdale and Oatley. Many of their vital early intervention programs would not be possible without direct financial assistance from our community and the support of our volunteers. Their mission is to create a healthy and resilient local community by providing help to people through their life journey and vital support in times of need. Their programs are aimed at early intervention and the building of resilience in the members of our community. The focus is on support for carers of people with dementia, the disabled, the ill and the frail. They have a day care program for the aged and disabled, for disadvantaged people and for youth programs that are aimed at providing vital support in times of need. They also have an out-of-school hours care program, a parenting playground, leisure and fitness program, English classes, men's groups, a community café, a youth drop-in centre, and events provided to help people through their life journey.
The name of the Pole Depot originated from its use as a storage area for electricity poles. The Pole Depot Community Centre has operated since 1975, when a grant from the Federal Government enabled Hurstville Council to purchase the building and surrounding reserves. The Pole Depot Community Centre is run by an independent board, consisting of local residents who are elected annually. They rely on ongoing funding to ensure the provision of their services from a number of g departments. They rely heavily on the support of their local councils for provision of their facilities in order to provide their services. This year was no exception.
It is these local organisations that will be hit as a result of the cuts to the Community Building Partnership program. That is why they were prepared to sign the petition that I have previously tabled. People are in need and this Government is starving them rather than assisting them. Imagine the number of people who will be adversely affected by this Government's insensitivity when it comes to the needy. That is the reason we must always be alert and watch this Government and prevent it from ripping off the people who are in most need of assistance. It is these types of community groups that will be affected by these cuts and it is clear that this Government simply does not care enough about the people that their decisions will affect. They did not 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15971
consider the very people who will be affected because this Government simply does not care about the battler— those who are struggling to make ends meet. It does not care what impact its decision will have on the needy and those people who are finding it difficult to survive.
The Hon. Marie Ficarra: You are better than them.
The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: Thank you. The Government's decision makes it harder for the community groups and the councils in the State to assist with their communities' needs and the infrastructure needs of the local groups and local areas. As a former mayor and former councillor of Rockdale City Council for the past 16 years, I know that these community groups value every cent they receive and I know the amount of time and consideration they put into their projects to ensure every cent that is spent goes a long way to assisting its locals in need. The O'Farrell Government's decision to cut the funding from $300,000 to $200,000 per electorate will be devastating to groups and organisations in the electorate of Rockdale and in other communities across the State that rely on that funding for upgrades and to make improvements to local community facilities. It may mean that much smaller groups will have to share a smaller amount, some will miss out, some will have to settle for less and some will have to try to raise funds elsewhere to make up the difference.
I call on the O'Farrell Government to ensure that Community Building Partnership grants are reinstated in full, or even increased. No government in its right mind would want to cut modest yet vital community grants that are designed to fund councils and small community organisations and to assist them with their small local community and infrastructure projects. No sensible government would do such a mean thing. However, that is exactly what the O'Farrell Government has done since it was elected in March 2011. All this Government has done since then is axe, slash and burn. It has attacked public sector workers by restricting salary increases to no more than 2.5 per cent, which is much less than the consumer price index. It then proceeded to slash services and commenced sacking 15,000 public sector workers.
As if that were not enough, it then proceeded to cut the Community Building Partnership Grants program. Initially it was feared that the Government would abolish the program in its entirety. However, after pressure was applied it shied away and decided to cut the amount allocated by the Labor Government. The Coalition Government has cut community group funding by one-third. As we all know, it has now taken the axe to the health and education sectors. It has made a number of unacceptable decisions designed to kneecap the weak and vulnerable in our society. This Government is clearly a serial offender. It has no sympathy for or understanding of the needs of communities that are struggling.
My duty electorate of Rockdale received $321,000 from this Government in 2011, in contrast with the $498,200 that it received in 2010 from the Labor Government. I understand that it will now receive no more than $200,000 from the O'Farrell Government. That is very disappointing. That money will be distributed amongst a number of applicants who want to improve the wellbeing of their local community. I received a letter from the Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney signed by Ian Cox, the Archdeacon of Liverpool, Georges River Region. The letter states:
Dear Shaoquett
Thank you for advising me of the proposed cuts to the Community Building Partnership Grants by the State Government of New South Wales. As a diocese we have been very fortunate in receiving grants for our buildings over the past years. As we serve the communities where we have halls and churches for community use these grants have been very helpful. Many of our buildings are old and require significant amounts of money for their restoration in such a way that preserves their uniqueness. We regret the State Government's decision in reducing the grants particularly in the Arncliffe, Rockdale and Kogarah areas where many of our buildings were constructed in the last century or earlier.
There are significant needs in our community and there is a lack of community buildings that can be used for community groups. Probably there will be fewer community buildings in the future as community groups lose membership and cannot afford to maintain or construct these facilities.
I hope you will convey our concerns in the Parliament to the Government and that you are successful. I encourage you by reminding you that we regularly, as a denomination, pray for our Parliamentary leaders.
I also received a letter from Rockdale City Council signed by Meredith Wallace, the new general manager. The letter states:
Dear Shaoquett,
It is with real conviction that I support your efforts to restore funding to the Community Building Partnership Grants Program. Council, along with many other local organisations, has been the recipient of funding under this program and with those grants we have been able to improve a diverse range of community facilities, ranging from upgrades to sports fields, playgrounds, regional parks and community buildings. These projects have made a real difference to local families, enabling Council to create more accessible and safer community and recreational spaces.
15972 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
To small community based organisations such as the PCYC, Scouts Association and Surf Life Saving, a modest grant can have a substantial and beneficial impact. Rockdale's projects have included repair and maintenance works at a number of Churches, Life Saving Clubs, Scouts Halls, the PCYC, the YMCA and local Hockey and Baseball Clubs. Without this money for painting, re-roofing and sewer repairs small organisations and the volunteers who support them can become overwhelmed by the demands of asset management.
The increase in civic pride and commitment to local community and recreational programs that flows from these relatively small community projects should be applauded. I therefore ask that the State Government review their recent decision to cut funding to local communities through the Community Building Partnership Program.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.25 a.m.]: I speak in opposition to this motion. When I use the words "this motion", it must be remembered that the motion placed on the Notice Paper on 24 May 2012 is not the motion that we are now debating because the member who gave notice of it has amended it. I will deal with the original motion and the honourable member's amendment to it later because it is important to deal with the motion originally put on the Notice Paper and what is now being debated.
I welcome this motion on infrastructure delivery because it gives me an opportunity to congratulate the O'Farrell Government on its approach to community grants. The New South Wales Liberal-Nationals support infrastructure and for that reason it has made a commitment to the Community Building Partnership grants program; in fact, the O'Farrell Government has committed $90 million to the program over a four-year period. The relevance of that four-year commitment is that the Labor Government's concept of a community building partnership involved funding being allocated for only one year.
It gave no consideration to future grants. In other words, the message it sent to the community was that the Government would provide a grant for one year but there would be no guarantee or obligation about its continuation. That is the difference between the Labor Government and the O'Farrell Government. We believe that for all of these communities to survive and to take the best route available they must know what funding will be available over a four-year period. Let us consider the last days of the Keneally Government.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Oh, please no. That would be torture.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: This is a very serious issue. Money was thrown at communities with no consideration whatsoever of the long-term effect in an attempt to buy votes. That was the reality; it was as simple as that. The Labor Government wanted to buy votes in its dying days; it was desperate. Instead of planning for a four-year program and providing sufficient funding each year that organisations could rely upon, the Labor Government said that it would throw in a huge amount in the first year. Of course, that would run out, but it would worry about that when it happened. The Coalition Government has had to clean up that mess, and it has done that by providing $90 million over four years.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: You don't know what you are talking about. You are an idiot.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: Would you like to put that on the record?
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: You're a dope.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: No, you called me an idiot, and I take exception to that. I am surprised and disappointed that a former President would say that. Obviously I have hit a nerve; members of the Opposition cannot accept the truth. In that regard, one has only to look at the results in the electorate of Rockdale at the last election. The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane talked about the seat of Rockdale.
The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: I did not talk about the seat of Rockdale.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: The member talked about the community of Rockdale. At the last election there was a 14 per cent swing away from the Labor Party to the Liberal Party in Rockdale and Mr John Flowers of the Liberal Party was elected the member for Rockdale. Had the former member for Rockdale, Frank Sartor, the Carr Government, the Iemma Government, the Rees Government and the Keneally Government looked after the community of Rockdale, there would not have been a 14 per cent swing to John Flowers. Today the people of Rockdale will benefit from the leadership of John Flowers.
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Point of order: I cannot hear the Hon. John Ajaka because of the noise from the other side of the Chamber. I ask that the Opposition members be told to be quiet. 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15973
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: To the point of order: If the Parliamentary Secretary did not so blatantly mislead the House about these matters, Opposition members would not be provoked to respond.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones): Order! I remind all members that interjections are disorderly at all times. The Hon. John Ajaka should be heard in silence.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: What has been the Opposition's response? As usual, nothing but negative rhetoric and fear campaigns, and that is the purpose of this motion. I will refer to the original motion and the amended motion that is being debated today. Unlike those opposite, the Liberal-Nationals Government believes in local communities. There was a 14 per cent swing from Labor to the Liberal Party at the last State election because of the failure of the previous Labor Government to deliver on its commitments. In September's local government elections there was a major swing to the Liberal Party in Rockdale with, for the first time in history, six elected Liberal councillors.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. I concede that the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane highlighted the damaging impact of this policy on the electorate of Rockdale. He did not mention the local government elections. Therefore, I ask that the Hon. John Ajaka be directed to confine his remarks to the motion before the House and not rave on about anything that comes to mind so long as he throws in "Rockdale".
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: To the point of order: It is an extraordinary argument that my comments are not relevant to the motion. The unamended motion of the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane refers to Rockdale. In the vast majority of his contribution to the motion he talked about Rockdale. At the very least I am being generally relevant, if not specifically relevant.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Natasha Maclaren-Jones): Order! I have listened carefully to the contribution of the Hon. John Ajaka and I believe he is being generally relevant. If the Hon. Amanda Fazio and the Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox would like to have a conversation they should do so outside the Chamber.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: Infrastructure in local communities has a major and positive impact on the day-to-day lives of individuals. Whether it is assisting community groups or, in some cases, providing jobs to deliver the infrastructure, it all makes a difference. In 2011 the New South Wales Liberal-Nationals Community Building Partnership program had requests for grants exceeding $152 million—a significant increase over the $118 million sought from the previous program under the Labor Government. This is a sign that New South Wales is open to business, especially in areas such as Rockdale. With this high level of community interest, it is a positive sign that the Liberal-Nationals in New South Wales are continuing to fund this important infrastructure program.
I am pleased to see the successful community organisations in Rockdale that have received grants since John Flowers was elected the member for Rockdale. They are $17,400 for Sans Souci Girl Guide Hall; $105,000 for Cahill Park Sportsground floodlighting; $12,800 for a shade structure over an existing playground at Heslehurst Reserve; $50,000 for a playground and park furniture upgrade in Pemberton Reserve; $40,000 for a shelter refurbishment and new path in Peter Depena Reserve; $8,000 for the erection of safety perimeter fencing at a local sporting field; $221,000 for the Banksia Scout Group to replace a roof; $19,735 for improving disability access and outdoor functionality at the Arncliffe Community Centre; $10,000 for the St George PCYC meeting room floor restoration; $11,920 for the installation of security fencing at Sunnyhaven Ltd; and $4,145 for Arncliffe YMCA for visually representing a welcoming community place.
The Liberal-Nationals O'Farrell Government encourages community organisations to apply for grants when they soon reopen, remembering that we will provide grants totalling $90 million for four years. This is a wonderful opportunity to give something back to the community. I commend the member for Rockdale for his excellent and continuing work and his strong support of the Community Building Partnership program. I want to compare the original motion with the amended motion. Paragraph 1 (a) of the original motion stated:
1. That this House:
(a) condemns the O'Farrell Government for its planned abolition of the Community Building Partnership Grants.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Wrong, just wrong. 15974 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I acknowledge the interjection of the Government Whip; it was wrong. The fear tactics of the Labor Party are to tell everyone that the grants will be abolished. This motion has been on the Notice Paper since May. Paragraph 2 of the original motion stated:
2. That this House calls on the O'Farrell Government to ensure that the Community Building Partnership Grants are maintained in the upcoming budget.
We did better than that; we provided grants of $90 million. The amended motion reads:
1. That this House:
(a) condemns the O'Farrell Government for its cuts to the Community Building Partnership Program.
The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane's motion does not state that the Government has set in concrete in its budget four years of community grants worth $90 million. The Government did not allocate grants funding for just one year and then think about it for the next few years, as the former Government did to buy votes near an election. That approach did not work in Rockdale: a 14 per cent swing to the Liberals showed that the people of Rockdale were not gullible to fall for such a stunt. The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane, in his speech, read two letters, the dates of which I do not know, one from the Anglican Church and one from Rockdale City Council. I assume the letter from the council was at a time when it had a Labor mayor. The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane read the letters he received but he omitted to read the letters he had written to them. I do not know what he wrote.
The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane: Point of order: The Hon. John Ajaka is making incorrect assumptions and consequently misleading the House.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: To the point of order: The Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane said, "I am reading a letter in response to my correspondence." The letters in response say, "Thank you for writing to us." It cannot be more self-evident. I am not misleading the House.
DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! There is no point of order.
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: We do not know from the responses what the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane said in his letters. If the member's letters simply said, "Your grants are going to be cut", one would expect the responses would be of that nature. [Time expired.]
The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD [11.40 a.m.]: I oppose the motion moved by the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane. It is a blatant political motion that is meant to scare the horses. This lightweight motion highlights one of the main differences between the previous Government and my Government—a point that is uppermost in my mind. The O'Farrell Government is determined to live within its means and not spray money around as a bribe, as many of the pre-election grants were used by the previous Government. Embarrassingly, over the last few weeks of the Keneally Government money was thrown around and apparently found in hollow logs. The money was given under the guise of community grants, but it was nothing of the sort. It was meant to appease people who were heartily sick of the previous Government. Our grants funding may not be huge but it is indicative of my Government's approach to finances. We do not have a bottomless pit of taxpayer money. If the Government settles on community grants funding of $90 million over four years, then everyone will understand the situation. Grants will not be made at the whim of a perceived political win. It is not the job of Government members to speculate as to what may or may not be contained in next June's budget.
For a few years now I have been worrying about the Community Building Partnership program at both the State and Federal levels. I have observed governments of different persuasions take different attitudes to these grant programs. Once, these grants were allocated on a needs basis, but they seem to have evolved over the past few decades to be part of community expectation. The State or Federal governments of the day are expected to dole out chunks of money. This is usually done through a local member, and we all understand the reason for that. Is this a sign of the erosion of our social or community fabric? These grants, which were once exceptional and usually given to those in dire need, are now included in Federal and State budgets. Sometimes the funding is increased, sometimes it is decreased.
I have been a member of Guyra Rotary for more than 20 years. When I first joined these grants were unusual. I fear that there has been an erosion of the capacity of the community organisations listed in this motion. All those organisations are worthy recipients. Every one of them does a great job and, in the main, every one of them is manned by volunteers. I regularly attend meetings of my local Rotary club, Lions club, Apex 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15975
club and so on. At these meetings when a project is discussed the first comment is, "Have we applied to the government?" That is understandable because the projects are important. But 15, 20, 25 years ago the default reaction was, "This is a good and worthy project. Let's put a team together to raise money and reach out to other members of the community." The Rotary club and the Country Women's Association, for example, would then get together to raise money. But now the most important person in the community is the grants application officer. In fact, councils now employ a grants application officer.
Instead of holding a raffle, woodchop or other initiative, organisations believe the Government is there to prop them up. I am not denigrating any of these very worthy organisations in Rockdale or their comparable organisations across the State; they are all very important community bodies. But it is in the DNA of the Opposition to think that if you write a cheque the people will be grateful and that is how you build a community. The Liberal Party and The Nationals do not believe in the cargo cult mentality, that is, that the Government should build everything. The community can undertake projects, but I fear this will not happen—this may put me offside with some in my Government—with a blowout in grants funding. In some way, the grants funding, with the accompanying photo opportunities, helps to erode community organisations. Community organisations such as local football clubs and the Lions and Rotary clubs, which generally have an ageing membership, are struggling for new members. People lead very busy lives and their time is stretched thin. Why should we belong to a community organisation when, as we often read in the newspaper, the Government will come to the aid of a football club or a scouts club?
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: You will be really embarrassed when you read this speech in Hansard.
The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD: I will not be embarrassed. I have been a member of a community organisation for more than 20 years and I have seen a shift in the mentality. It started at the Federal level when the local Federal member of the day doled out a cheque, and it is now happening at the State level. I hope it does not become the main modus operandi of support for community organisations. The most important thing for a State government to do is to live within its means and support the community through a vibrant economy. People should be provided with employment opportunities and the Government should assist in building business. With such measures, communities will have the capacity to support their organisations. The community should not rely on the Government to do everything.
For example, Guyra Rotary used to seek support from the poor old small businesses around town. They would seek support from the local produce store, the bakery and the bank. Those small businesses are now very constrained in the assistance they can give to the local community. For the past 16 years under the previous Government this drip-feed mentality has developed. That attitude is in contrast, both philosophically and economically, to that of the O'Farrell Government. We live within our means. We value community organisations. If the members opposite think that the social fabric is built by grants, they are sadly mistaken. The Labor Party's philosophical problem is that it believes that every problem can be solved by a drip-feed of money from the Government. I condemn the motion wholeheartedly.
The Hon. JAN BARHAM [11.50 a.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane. However, I want to raise some important issues about funding for local government and community groups under the Community Building Partnership program and comment on the Hon. Shaoquett Moselmane's concern about funding cuts to the program. I listened to the contribution of the Hon. Scot MacDonald. It is all very well to talk about the historical role of community groups in terms of seeing a need in the community and getting support either from businesses or by fundraising to meet that need. Life would be much simpler if things had not changed. These days community groups and local government are heavily constrained in relation to undertaking such works. The concept of everyone having a work day and making things happen is no longer how the world operates. If a group of people want to do something they have to get approval, ensure that occupational health and safety laws are complied with, install road barriers and put an advertisement in the local paper.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Red tape.
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Green tape.
The Hon. JAN BARHAM: It is red tape but it is there to protect not only the workers but also the interests of the organisation that has the responsibility, which is often local government. Local government is frustrated that it must impose requirements on community groups which simply want to do good work, but it is obliged to do so for safety reasons. Everyone ums and ahs and carries on about red tape—I have heard it time 15976 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
and again. That is all very well, until something happens. Then what does everyone do? If someone is injured or hurt while fixing up a public hall, they look to see who is to blame. If a person is incapacitated and unable to work after falling off a ladder, they want to know who is responsible. Someone will say, "The council should not have let them do it." These are the complexities involved when work is performed by community groups.
It is disturbing that it is rarely recognised in this House that some things happen for a reason. Rather we indulge in a mudslinging match where someone blames another or uses the notion of red tape or green tape. It is too easy and it denigrates what goes on in regional and local communities when people try to do good work. Years ago I lobbied to have the library in Byron Bay repainted because it was looking a bit shabby. I lobbied the council at the time—it was about 20 years ago—but I could not get it done. The council did not have a budget to do the job. So I, together with a group of friends, lobbied a business to donate paint and we repainted the library on a weekend. However, we were admonished for doing so because it was considered a guerrilla action. I think it is now called guerrilla gardening when people get out and do work without approval. Consequently, it was explained to me that what we did was dangerous.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Were you the mayor at the time?
The Hon. JAN BARHAM: I was not on council at the time. I was a concerned resident and a member of several community groups, and I was frustrated by the process involved in doing work in the community. In one case a person nearly got hurt, which taught me a good life lesson about the importance of caring for people and ensuring their safety. It is joyful to think that a job can be done, but at the same time the risks must be considered. Some members make comments in this place, I think perhaps for political reasons, that may sound well and good in the context of political debate. But they overlook the importance of the work done in the community by community groups when those groups want government support. The Community Building Partnership program website announced that the deadline for applications is 30 October. The website states:
The Government has announced that the Community Building Partnership program will be conducted in 2012/13.
The Community Building Partnership (CBP) program provides funds for community groups and local councils to invest in community infrastructure throughout the State.
Incorporated not-for-profit community organisations and local councils are invited to apply for funding to build and improve community facilities in their local area. Grant funding of $200,000 will be made available for every electoral district with an additional $100,000 for electorates identified with higher unemployment rates.
I support the allocation of money for this program. An analysis of the program would show that the program provides good value, rather than, as we have seen over time, a diminution of support for public infrastructure in local communities. Under the program, community groups and local government rally together and make good use of the grants funding. An analysis of the program would look at whether it provides value and whether the funds should be increased to provide better outcomes. Any cut to the program would be short-sighted, particularly without an analysis. It is all very well for members to sling quotes about the misuse of funds— I heard the words "bribe" and "pork-barrelling". Such comments do not do members justice in terms of acknowledging that the Government can support local communities. The motion is important. I congratulate the Government on continuing with the Community Building Partnership program and acknowledging its importance on the website. I support the motion and I support what the Government is doing. I can be supportive of both situations.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Jan Barham and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Postponement of Business
Private Members' Business item No. 8 in the Order of Precedence postponed on motion by the Hon. Amanda Fazio, on behalf of Mr David Shoebridge.
Private Members' Business item No. 9 in the Order of Precedence postponed on motion by the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps, on behalf of the Hon. Catherine Cusack.
Private Members' Business item No. 10 in the Order of Precedence postponed on motion by the Hon. Amanda Fazio, on behalf of the Hon. Walt Secord. 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15977
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business.
Motion by Mr David Shoebridge agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 205 outside the Order of Precedence relating to the Firearms Amendment (Gun Safety) Bill 2012 be called on forthwith.
Order of Business
Motion by Mr David Shoebridge agreed to:
That Private Members' Business item No. 205 outside the Order of Precedence relating to the Firearms Amendment (Gun Safety) Bill 2012 be called on forthwith.
FIREARMS AMENDMENT (GUN SAFETY) BILL 2012
Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by Mr David Shoebridge.
Second Reading
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [12.03 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This amendment to the firearms laws in New South Wales has a very simple purpose. As the explanatory note makes clear, the object of the Firearms Amendment (Gun Safety) Bill 2012 is to amend the Firearms Act 1996 to remove the exemption that allows unlicensed persons to possess and use firearms on approved shooting ranges. The bill also amends the Firearms Regulation 2006 to reinstate and limit the exemption under the Act that allows unlicensed persons to possess and use firearms while participating in a firearms safety training course. The law in relation to the unlicensed access to firearms was changed in 2008 and the new section 6B was put in place. The amendment was contained in a private member's bill, introduced by the then member of the Shooters and Fishers Party the late Hon. Roy Smith. It passed through Parliament in June 2008. Section 6B provided exemptions for unlicensed persons shooting on approved ranges and for persons undertaking firearms safety training courses, allowing such persons not to have a firearms licence. The Act, as amended, provides:
(1) A person is exempt from any requirement under this Act to be authorised by a licence or permit to possess or use a firearm ... if the person possesses or uses the firearm only:
(a) at a shooting range approved by the Commissioner in accordance with the regulations and while under the direct supervision of a person who is authorised by a licence to possess or use a firearm of that kind, or
(b) while participating in a firearms safety training course.
The effect of this amending bill will be to limit that exemption to only those persons who are participating in a firearms safety training course. The reason for that limitation is the necessity to have firearms laws in New South Wales that promote and protect public safety. Section 6B is a gaping hole in firearms regulation in New South Wales. When the amending bill—the Firearms Amendment Bill 2008—was introduced in this House, the Hon. Roy Smith said this about the changes:
Proposed section 6B will enable unlicensed persons to shoot on approved ranges whilst under supervision and subject to the requirements set out in the regulations. The proposed section also exempts supervised persons who are handling firearms as part of an approved firearms safety course.
He continued:
This proposed amendment streamlines the current procedures by which unlicensed persons can experience target shooting by extending the system that currently applies to open day participants.
That is, people who walk in off the street. He went on:
Under the proposed amendment, unlicensed persons wishing to experience target shooting may do so on approved ranges whilst under supervision, but only after having received appropriate instructions and after having completed and signed a declaration to the effect that they are a person who would be eligible for the issue of a licence or permit under the Act.
15978 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
In conclusion, the Hon. Roy Smith noted:
All the proposed amendments have been carefully drafted so as to ensure that they do not compromise the principles and objects of the Firearms Act 1996 or negatively impact on public safety.
Those words were echoed by Mr Peter Draper in the other place when he made the second reading speech on the bill. He said:
At present people wishing to try shooting as a sport may only do so if they join a club and then obtain a temporary exemption through the Firearms Registry. Such exemptions apply for a maximum of three months. The amendments will enable unlicensed persons to shoot under supervision at approved ranges without these restrictions. Such persons will have to make a written declaration that they have committed no offences that would make them ineligible for the issue of a licence under the Act. They will be able to shoot only under supervision of a licensed adult, and they cannot purchase or take a firearm or ammunition home.
Mr Draper also echoed the words of the Hon. Roy Smith when he said:
The amendments do not reduce public safety; however, they will remove anomalies and bring New South Wales more into line with procedures in other States ...
He concluded by saying:
The amendments do not seek to dilute laws designed to protect the general community but are designed to encourage sport and competition ...
Unfortunately, that is not what has occurred in relation to section 6B. The declaration that is now contained in the regulations and has been formalised in what is called a P650 form, which can be found at almost any gun club across New South Wales, is a self-assessment by people that they are a fit and proper person to have access to a firearm. It is a self-assessment that they do not suffer any mental incapacity or have a criminal record such as would disqualify them from having access to a firearm. But nobody checks. Obviously the gun clubs are not in a position to check that self-certification, and they do not. There is no requirement on gun clubs to check whether a person has a criminal record, to check with the local police, or to check whether the person has a troubling mental history such that they should not be allowed to have access to a firearm.
The law does not require it, the regulations do not require it and so what we have in New South Wales is the capacity for people to walk into a gun club off the street and fill in their P650 form, which includes a confirmation from the person that they do not have any mental illness or other disorders that may prevent them from using a firearm safely. They self-assess that they do not have a criminal record and they effectively self-assess that they are a fit and proper person. No-one checks and they are handed a firearm under very loose supervision in many gun clubs. They can access and purchase ammunition once they are in the club and their P650 form has been accepted by the club. That might seem like a reasonably modest change to the law, but these changes to our firearms laws have real impacts in the community. Only a little more than two years after the section 6B change was introduced it had a real-life impact in New South Wales—a tragic impact.
A little more than two years and two months after this Parliament amended the Firearms Act apparently to protect public safety and streamline things, a young woman used section 6B, filled in her P650 form and went to a number of gun clubs and received training in how to use a semiautomatic handgun. Not only did she learn how to use a semiautomatic handgun, she also learned how to fix the gun it if became jammed and make sure it was working properly. She got all that training and access with no-one checking the police records or this young lady's mental health records. That was because she self-certified under P650. Tragically, this young lady had a very troubled mental health history. She had been in and out of institutions. She should never have been given access to a firearm. She harboured paranoid delusions about her father and was a clear risk to him and to her family. Yet as a result of section 6B she was given access to a semiautomatic weapon and trained in its use and how to stop it jamming.
She used that access and training when on 22 August 2010, after having been given the gun at the Sydney Pistol Club and been told by the club that the only safe way of carrying a gun around was to put it in her bag—effectively concealing it as she walked around the club—she got access to 100 bullets. It appears she fired about 70 of them at the range and then walked out of the gun club with a semiautomatic handgun and 30 rounds of ammunition. She contacted her father and invited him to come to her place and fix her computer. Her father was of course very pleased to have contact from his daughter and he went around to her place. When he was at her computer she walked behind him and tried to shoot him with the semiautomatic handgun. It jammed, but because she had been trained by the gun club she went back into her bedroom and fixed the jam. She got the gun in good order and then went and killed her father. Her father had no idea what was happening. This woman only 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15979
had access to a semiautomatic handgun and the capacity to fix it when it jammed because of section 6B of the New South Wales Firearms Act. It was a result of that change in 2008, which did not streamline our firearms laws but directly impacted upon public safety and had tragic outcomes in the community.
This is a matter that the young woman's family has raised persistently with this Government, with the broader community and with me. They have every right to see that their personal tragedy at least has a positive impact and makes this Government and this Parliament realise that our Firearms Act needs to be amended and that section 6B needs to be repealed. We need to get rid of this gaping hole in public safety relating to firearms that allows deeply troubled people to walk into any gun club in New South Wales and self-certify, regardless of their mental history and their criminal history, that they are a fit and proper person to have a gun. They can self-certify that they do not have a mental illness and then get access to and training in the use of semiautomatic handguns and ammunition. Private gun clubs are private gun clubs, not Long Bay jail, and they have ad hoc security arrangements. It is clear from the cases that followed this tragedy—I invite members to read the review of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, which looked very critically at the safety arrangements in place at that gun club and the woefully inadequate systems to protect the community and ensure that firearms are properly stored and checked—that this does not apply only to one gun club; it applies across New South Wales.
Section 6B means that public safety is now dependent on this ad hoc system in gun clubs. There are no police checks and no mental health checks; anyone can walk in off the street and get access to semiautomatic weapons once they fill in the P650 form. It is not good enough and this Government should have acted before now to amend section 6B. I understand that section 6B has been referred to the Firearms Consultative Committee by the Minister for Police. Should that give us any comfort? The short answer is, no. Who is on the Firearms Consultative Committee?
There is only one voice on that committee, recently established by this Government after pressure from the Shooters and Fishers Party to stand up for gun safety and proper gun laws, and that is the NSW Police Force. The balance of the committee is stacked with the pro-gun lobby. It includes the Sporting Shooters Association, the Game Council, the NSW Farmers Association—they are probably neutral on the issue—the Firearms Dealers Association, the Shooters and Fishers Party and the Amateur Pistol Association. It is absolutely stacked with the gun lobby. That is the committee that is going to consider whether we get rid of section 6B? That is the committee that is going to conduct a reasonable review of firearms safety? That is a committee where any proposal to get rid of section 6B will inevitably die.
This week the Firearms Consultative Committee rejected a new set of firearms regulations that were proposed and supported by the NSW Police Force to protect public safety. The regulations were rejected by the Firearms Consultative Committee and sent back to first base. Firearms regulation and policy in New South Wales is no longer in the hands of the O'Farrell Government; it has been handed over to the pro-shooting lobbyists in the form of the Firearms Consultative Committee. No firearms legislation is passed through Parliament until it is passed by the pro-gun, pro-hunting lobby group, which is the key decision-maker on firearms safety and firearms regulations in New South Wales. Is it any wonder the Shooters and Fishers Party is happy with this Government? No measure will tighten our firearms laws when it has to go first through the Firearms Consultative Committee.
The only piece of legislation in the past 10 years that has tightened firearms control was the Firearms Amendment (Ammunition Control) Bill 2012. It passed by this House after an extremely inflated debate about its likely impact. Opposition members effectively spoke against the Firearms Amendment (Ammunition Control) Bill 2012 but then voted for it. Government members spoke against the bill but then reluctantly voted for it. I give Shooters and Fishers Party members credit for speaking against the bill and then voting against it. The bill was assented to in June yet it still has not come into force. The legislation has not come into force because it has not yet been proclaimed. The reason is that the Government cannot get the regulations through the pro-gun, pro-shooting, pro-hunting Firearms Consultative Committee so the Act can come into force.
There was a great brouhaha that the Firearms Amendment (Ammunition Control) Bill 2012 was going to change the law in terms of firearms regulations in New South Wales. Barry O'Farrell and the Minister for Police and Emergency Services said they were cracking down on bikie gang crime by putting controls on ammunition. But the watered-down, weak firearms controls have not come into force because of the Firearms Consultative Committee. This is the same committee that is reviewing section 6B. The Firearms Consultative Committee will never recommend the removal of section 6B. That is the reason I have introduced this private member's bill. It is a matter of public importance and public safety. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Amanda Fazio and set down as an order of the day for a future day. 15980 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Report
The Deputy-President tabled, pursuant to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the annual report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption for the year ended 30 June 2012, received and authorised to be made public this day.
Report ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.
GRAFFITI CONTROL AMENDMENT (RACIST GRAFFITI) BILL 2012
Bill introduced, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Walt Secord.
Second Reading
The Hon. WALT SECORD [12.23 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am proud to introduce the Graffiti Control Amendment (Racist Graffiti) Bill 2012. The Graffiti Control Act 2008 regulates graffiti and the supply of graffiti material and outlines sentences. This bill will amend existing graffiti control legislation to create the specific offence of racist graffiti. In doing so, it will be an Australian first—although hopefully not for long. I sincerely hope that other jurisdictions will look at this proposal. The activity that these amendments seek to eradicate is particularly vilification and intimidation on the basis of race, culture or on ethno-specific grounds. This State, and indeed this nation, has substantial legislative frameworks that balance the right to express opinion against the right to live free in our society from unjust vilification and persecution. However, I believe freedom of speech should not extend to racial hatred.
Racial vilification laws exist in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. Currently, a citizen of this State is prevented from verbally harassing another person or inciting hatred or violence on the basis of race or culture under the racial vilification laws. Fortunately, an overwhelming section of our community agrees with and supports these laws. Those few who wish to fill our communities or our publications already find that their intentions transgress our anti-racial vilification laws. That is the reason our attention should be on those who foment hatred through racist graffiti. They do so anonymously and, therefore, with additional cowardice. Their offence is aggravated by the physical destruction that accompanies it, yet it is currently against the law in New South Wales to engage in racist graffiti.
There are two ways for authorities to respond: either a charge for graffiti and/or vandalism offences, or under the racial vilification laws. Under the racial vilification laws, it is against the law to do anything publicly that could encourage racial hatred, serious racial contempt or severe racial ridicule against a racial or ethno-specific group. This type of behaviour is called "racial vilification". The Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales states that the following types of behaviour could be racial vilification and against the law: racist speeches; racist statements in public; racist graffiti; racist statements or remarks in a newspaper or other publications as well as radio and television; people wearing racist symbols, such as badges or clothing with racist slogans in public; and racist posters in a public place.
There has never been a conviction for serious racial vilification in New South Wales or in Australia. However, there have been convictions for graffiti. This bill puts racist graffiti where it belongs: with the police rather than with the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales. This legislature can change the situation, and that is the purpose of the bill before us. Such acts of racist graffiti go well beyond the inconvenience and damage that is inflicted by ordinary vandalism. They are acts of intimidation. They broadcast vilification and hate. It is also public intimidation. They are incitements to real violence against persons and property. Racist graffiti is distinguished by its cruel intent and egregious impact. It deserves to be distinguished by our law accordingly. A perpetrator's criminal record should permanently record that they have committed an act of racist graffiti rather than simple vandalism. This kind of vandalism goes well beyond "misspent youth" or even mindless destruction. It is different from the graffiti that we see on trains or in alleyways. Much of this racist graffiti is in fact clearly planned and calculated for maximum offence and psychological violence.
A swastika is a contentious and offensive symbol in any context, but painted on a house of worship such as a temple or synagogue it takes on a new and more offensive context. Further, when painted on a 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15981
synagogue or a temple where large numbers of Holocaust survivors and their descendants come to worship it transcends mere "offensiveness" to be an outright attack on a section of our community. This is graffiti of an entirely different intent and impact than a simple tag by a skateboarder. Daubing a racist slogan on a temple, church, synagogue or mosque is not an expression; it is outright incitement to hatred and violence, and has no place in our society. The offence of racist graffiti sends a clear message that such acts offend not only the property owner but also our community and the people of New South Wales who embrace tolerance and diversity.
The object of the Graffiti Control Amendment (Racist Graffiti) Bill 2012 is to amend the Graffiti Control Act 2008 to create a specific offence for the placing of racist graffiti on premises that can be seen from a public place. Under the bill, it will carry a maximum penalty of $2,200, or imprisonment for 12 months. Further, the bill notes that community service orders may also be made under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 or the Children (Community Service Orders) Act 1987, directing a person to perform community service work instead of imposing a fine or sentencing the person for an offence under this section.
I now turn to specific aspects of the bill. The main change is an amendment to section 6A of the Graffiti Control Act 2008. Racist graffiti is defined as "any drawing, writing, symbol or other visible representation that could reasonably be assumed to be intended to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the race of the person or members of the group … and placing racist graffiti on premises means affixing a placard or paper containing the racist graffiti on the premises or marking, by means of chalk, paint or other material, the premises with racist graffiti".
As part of my discussions with community groups over almost eight months, I have taken a number of suggestions on board. For example, I am grateful for the contribution made by the World Conference of Religions for Peace New South Wales Branch, which is convened by Mrs Josie Lacey, OAM. For the record, Mrs Lacey has told me that she wholeheartedly supports the initiative. Further, she and her husband, Mr Ian Lacey, were instrumental in securing support for the original racial vilification laws in New South Wales. On 26 August the Laceys were made life members of the Ethnic Communities' Council of New South Wales for their lifelong work in anti-racism, anti-racial vilification and inter-faith dialogue, as well as supporting multiculturalism and diversity. It was the highest constitutional honour that the Ethnic Communities' Council can bestow on its members.
On Tuesday night, 16 October, I had the honour of addressing the monthly plenum of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies along with the member for Vaucluse, Gabrielle Upton. We were there in our capacities as deputy chair and chair of the New South Wales Parliamentary Friends of Israel respectively. At that meeting, we were asked our positions on current racial vilification laws and what we thought about the Federal Liberal leader Tony Abbott's claim that he wanted to wind back the laws at the national level. I said that Labor supported the anti-racial vilification laws and that they will be retained. The matter was raised by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry's Mr Peter Wertheim.
As part of the consultation process on the bill, the World Conference of Religions for Peace New South Wales Branch members suggested a very important improvement to the bill. It is important because the New South Wales chapter comprises spiritual leaders and adherents of the Buddhist, Bahai, Uniting Church in Australia, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh and Hindu faiths. The World Conference of Religions for Peace New South Wales Branch wanted an amendment to proposed section 6A, which states:
if, on a prosecution of a person for an offence under this section, the court is not satisfied that the person is guilty of an offence under this section, but the court is satisfied that the person is guilty of an offence under Section 6, the court may convict the person of the offence under Section 6.
That has now been included in the bill, ensuring that even if the test under proposed section 6A is not met, an offender may nonetheless be found guilty under the existing section 6. That is an important improvement and I welcome that contribution. On 10 September I also spoke to Ms Heather Richards, President of the University of Newcastle Students Association, who released a report on racist activity on the campus. Ms Richards expressed her support for the legislation to create a specific offence of racist graffiti. I point out that she stressed the need for the NSW Police Force and the Government to be vigilant in combating racist violence against international students. She wants a reference group with local authorities, the university, students and local police to tackle the problem. Disturbingly, she said that there had been 162 reports of verbal and physical assault against international students on the main campus. There are about 3,500 international students on that campus. Even more troubling was that 15 per cent of students did not report physical assaults against them. Most of those students were from Asia and the Middle East. 15982 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
A specific offence of racist graffiti will send a clear message to perpetrators of hate that such attacks will be distinctly prosecuted and punished. This offence will tell our communities that New South Wales remains committed to leadership against racial vilification in our society. The bill defines race as colour, nationality, descent and ethnic, national origin or ethno-religious groups. For clarity, ethno-religious groups are specified to cover groups such as Jews, Muslims and Sikhs. This is the same definition used by the Greiner Government when it introduced Australia's first racial vilification laws to cover the Jewish, Muslim and Sikh communities. In 1989 the Greiner Government, with the bipartisan support of the Bob Carr-led Labor Opposition, created Australia's first historic and groundbreaking racial vilification laws. At the time, it was deemed that in most cases racist graffiti could be addressed and came under the responsibility of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board.
As I have said previously and in a previous speech in this Parliament, I stress that my bill is no reflection on the hard work of the Anti-Discrimination Board and its president, Mr Stepan Kerkyasharian, AO. Mr Kerkyasharian, whom I have known since 1988, has done an outstanding job in the area of combating intolerance and prejudice. Rather, the Graffiti Control Amendment (Racist Graffiti) Bill 2012 will complement existing anti-racial vilification laws and the Anti-Discrimination Board's work in countering discrimination and racism in our community. More importantly, it will shift responsibility for prosecuting such acts to the NSW Police Force, which is where criminal prosecutions belong.
As background, members will recall that on 10 August 2011, during debate on the Graffiti Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, I suggested the creation of a specific offence of racist graffiti. Before the March 2011 election, the then Attorney General and Minister for Citizenship, Mr John Hatzistergos, proposed the creation of a special offence of racist graffiti. On 30 May 2012 I provided further details to this Chamber in an adjournment speech about how I was intending to proceed and said that I would be consulting with various community groups. Since then, I have personally advanced the proposal. I put my proposal to previous shadow cabinet and the New South Wales Labor caucus, where it received unanimous support. As I said, I have also consulted many community groups on this bill.
To illustrate the need for this bill, I draw members' attention to a disgusting attack on an Aboriginal burial site and memorial at Fingal Head on 6 March. Vandals desecrated Aboriginal tombstones and attacked a memorial with graffiti. They drew Nazi swastikas and wrote the letters "KKK". It is the only Indigenous graveyard in the Tweed shire and is the resting place for about 100 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. In doing so, the perpetrators ensured that this was not an ordinary graffiti attack. These are clear and internationally known symbols of racial oppression, violence and genocide. This was an attack with the calculated purpose of causing maximum offence and pain to and intimidation of the Aboriginal community. Since then I have spoken to members of the Aboriginal community who have relatives and family connections to those buried in that cemetery.
Members will also recall that on 8 March I raised this matter in Parliament, asking a question without notice about the police investigation into the Fingal Head attack. At the time the New South Wales Government and the Opposition rightly condemned the actions of the perpetrators. I thank the Hon. Duncan Gay, representing the O'Farrell Government for his comments. He said that he was sickened by the incident and described it as an "absolute disgrace". He also said:
Indigenous people across the State are no doubt profoundly dismayed by this event and the Premier has asked me to assure them that we share their hurt and outrage.
I know that the Hon Duncan Gay's comments were appreciated by the community. Since that incident, I have sent a copy of this bill to the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council for its consideration. On 3 August the council wrote to me to express its support for the bill. On 15 June Shane Phillips, who has a family connection to the site where the Fingal Head attack occurred, wrote to say that he also supported the bill. He is the chief executive officer of the Tribal Warrior Association Incorporated, which is a Redfern organisation promoting Aboriginal culture and training. Describing himself as "an everyday Australian", Mr Phillips said he thought it was an important measure.
Yet, unfortunately, racist graffiti is not an issue limited only to this attack or to the Aboriginal and Jewish communities. Earlier this year, the Armenian community's official roof body organisation wrote to express its support for the bill. Armenian National Committee of Australia executive director, Mr Vache Kahramanian, wrote on 11 June saying that the Sydney Armenian community had been subjected to several attacks and supported the creation of a specific offence of racist graffiti. Mr Kahramanian said:
We concur with this proposed bill in light of the numerous racially motivated graffiti attacks the Armenian community has faced, most notably during the last decade.
18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15983
He pointed to many specific incidents. In April 2005 Ryde City Council unveiled a memorial plaque in the suburb of Meadowbank in recognition of the Armenian genocide. A month later the new monument was vandalised and desecrated by an unknown individual or persons. Mr Kahramanian said that it caused great offence within the local and wider community. He went on to state:
Incidents of racial vilification through the use of graffiti have been an issue many community groups continue to face.
The monument's plaque and headstone was once again vandalised in August 2011. Unfortunately, Mr Kahramanian said such events are not isolated to the Armenian, Jewish and Aboriginal communities. In 2010 Fairfield City Council unveiled a monument to the victims of the Assyrian genocide and it was also attacked with offensive slogans. The community joined forces to repair the monument; however, two years later it was again defaced with racist slogans. And, of course, our Jewish community is well aware of the impact of racist graffiti both currently and, tragically, historically. The Jewish community reports that there are between 15 and 20 serious anti-Semitic graffiti incidents a year on Jewish places of worship nationally.
During the consultation period before I introduced this bill I sought comment from Mr Jeremy Jones, AM, who is well known for his work in combating racism and promoting inter-faith dialogue. Mr Jones is Director, International and Community Affairs, Australia-Israel and Jewish Affairs Council. He is also former President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the national elected peak body of the Jewish community. In his comment on the proposed amendments, Mr Jones has provided me with words that, I think, go to the very heart of this issue. These are words that I think members should hear, as they really encapsulate why these amendments matter. Mr Jones wrote:
Graffiti is vandalism of property, and racism is vandalism of the moral fabric of our society. When the former is used to propagate the latter, it becomes something much greater than public mischief, it becomes a challenge to basic decency and the dignity of the Australian people.
At a time when sporting, social, religious and other civic organisations around Australia are joining the new national anti-racism campaigns the New South Wales Parliament can show real leadership in society's standards and a commitment to letting racists know they face consequences for their action.
If we want to erase hatred, surely a good start is to erase the public manifestations of hatred.
I could not have expressed the importance of this bill more clearly. I thank Mr Jones for those words. The Graffiti Control Amendment (Racist Graffiti) Bill 2012 will commence from its assent. Therefore, I conclude on those sentiments, and thank members for their consideration. I commend the Graffiti Control Amendment (Racist Graffiti) Bill 2012 to the House.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Amanda Fazio and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
HOMELESSNESS
The Hon. JAN BARHAM [12.42 p.m.]: I move:
1. That, while taking into account the inherent difficulties in accurately measuring the rates of homelessness, this House notes that:
(a) according to the 2006 National Census, at least 27,374 people were considered homeless in New South Wales,
(b) according to a 2009 report from the Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing [AIHW] entitled "Counting the Homeless", this figure can be broken down into the following categories:
(i) primary homelessness: at least 3,715 people, or 13 per cent of respondents, were sleeping rough in improvised dwellings,
(ii) secondary homelessness: at least 16,033 people, or 59% of respondents, were staying with friends or relatives, or in short term accommodation provided through formal assistance,
(iii) tertiary homelessness: at least 7,626 people, or 28 per cent of respondents, were sleeping in facilities providing longer term accommodation such as boarding houses,
(c) according to the same Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing report, there is a significant incidence of homelessness among children and young people in New South Wales, with 10,587 of those counted aged under 24 (39 per cent),
15984 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
(d) according to the same Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing report, the number of older homeless people is growing, with 30 per cent of the homeless in New South Wales aged 45 or older, up from 25 per cent in 2001,
(e) it is widely estimated that over 7 per cent of the entire homeless population of New South Wales are Aboriginal, which is well above the 2.2 per cent of the total New South Wales Aboriginal population, and
(f) documented rates of the prevalence of mental health issues in homeless people vary markedly but an extensive research paper published in 1998 by Hodder, Teeson and Burich entitled "Down and Out in Sydney" found that 75 per cent of participants in the study had at least one mental illness, compared to 20 per cent in the general population.
2. That this House further notes:
(a) the report of the NSW Auditor General entitled "Responding to Homelessness", dated May 2007,
(b) the report of New South Wales Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues entitled "Homelessness and low-cost rental accommodation", dated September 2009,
(c) the Government's subsequent response to the report of the Committee on Social Issues inquiry, dated 2010, and
(d) the revised National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness signed on 13 April 2012.
3. That this House strongly supports:
(a) the continuation of the Premier's Advisory Council on Homelessness, and
(b) the implementation of the revised Homeless Persons Protocol as soon as possible.
4. That this House calls for:
(a) the Premier's Advisory Council on Homelessness to be retained and to meet on a regular basis,
(b) all local councils to have a nominated staff member tasked with the responsibility of ensuring their council adheres to the Homeless Persons Protocol,
(c) all local councils to be required to report on local initiatives for addressing homelessness in their local government area in their annual report,
(d) a review of the 10 Regional Homeless Action Plans that were developed in July 2010, together with a progress report, and
(e) the balance of funds allocated to New South Wales under the 2009-10 National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness to be identified for a funding program to support local government to meet the needs of homeless people.
It is appropriate during Anti-Poverty Week to speak to this motion, which refers to homelessness. One of the most relevant considerations is that homelessness arises out of poverty. The recent Australian Council of Social Services paper identified that one in eight persons live below the poverty line. There are frightening and real concerns about children and poverty, and therefore children and homelessness. It is important to note that members return from Parliament to their homes, to their communities and to the physical and emotional comforts after a long day or week in this place. It is important to spare a thought for the tens of thousands of people in New South Wales who have no home to return to. Whether members are from regional areas, from the city or from wealthy or struggling communities, we have all confronted homelessness in our daily lives. For example, we are confronted by homelessness every day in Macquarie Street; we see men and women huddled in corners in Martin Place or curled up on the steps of the State Library.
When we look at the number of persons who experience homelessness it is easy for some to forget that the figures represent people who are sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbours. We often see shuffling prematurely aged people with their woollen beanies and layers of clothing. We occasionally see a person with a bulging shopping trolley and their hand outstretched for a gold coin. However, we do not see many of the homeless, such as teenagers who are refused bail on the grounds that they have nowhere else to sleep. We do not see the women and children who have used up their six weeks in an overcrowded refuge and are sleeping in a car. We do not see the older single women who cannot afford the latest rent rise and are camped out in their children's lounge room, an area that frighteningly is becoming an increasing area of concern. Older women are really struggling under the current financial situation. It has been revealed in some of the recent reports that older women are in increasing numbers homeless, with very little opportunities provided to them. 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15985
For various different reasons many people find themselves homeless. We are reminded in reports from the Australia Council of Social Services, the Ombudsman, the Benevolent Society and the Standing Committee on Social Issues that people find themselves homeless very quickly—our lives can be turned upside down at any time and any one of us could find ourselves without a home. The responsibility falls to us to ensure that these people are provided for; that their needs are addressed; that they are empowered to live healthy, fulfilling and safe lives; and that they are offered the opportunity to transition back into a safe and meaningful life if they have found themselves on hard times and homeless. Today I am seeking support for this motion to ensure that the needs of these vulnerable people are catered for. My motion begins by acknowledging the difficulties in measuring the rates of homelessness. In paragraph 1 my motion notes:
(a) according to the 2006 National Census, at least 27,374 people were considered homeless in New South Wales,
We are currently awaiting the 2011 Census report to find out how much that number has increased. However, whatever the increase is, we know it is still not properly identifying the real numbers. The figures do not reveal all the homeless people or the different categories of homelessness. It does not capture people who are hidden away and not able to be found on Census night to be recorded in our national figures. The figures do not include people who are couch surfing or sleeping in cars, two increasing areas of homelessness that are not seen or regarded as being homeless but most definitely are. Paragraph 1 further states:
(b) according to a 2009 report from the Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing [AIHW] entitled "Counting the Homeless", this figure can be broken down into the following categories:
(i) primary homelessness: at least 3,715 people, or 13 per cent of respondents, were sleeping rough in improvised dwellings,
(ii) secondary homelessness: at least 16,033 people, or 59% of respondents, were staying with friends or relatives, or in short term accommodation provided through formal assistance,
(iii) tertiary homelessness: at least 7,626 people, or 28 per cent of respondents, were sleeping in facilities providing longer term accommodation such as boarding houses,
Within the next week the Legislative Council will receive legislation that was introduced in the Legislative Assembly yesterday with a reform, on which the Government is to be congratulated, in relation to boarding houses. We know from various reports from the Ombudsmen that there has been a lack of proper regulation in this important area of accommodation. I commend the Government, especially Minister Constance and Minister Roberts, for pursuing this important reform that will address some of the areas of homelessness and the need of housing. Unfortunately, a lot more needs to be done. I hope that the Government can take on those other areas with the same responsibility and respect that it has shown to those areas identified in the current bill.
A real concern is the significant incidence of homelessness amongst children and young people in New South Wales, with 10,000—nearly 40 per cent of those counted—aged under 24. This is an alarming issue. We often hear about young people being out of control. Some find themselves in trouble and end up in jail. Indeed, they end up in a constant cycle of being perceived as problems to society. For instance, we just heard about graffiti. This is Anti-Poverty Week. Yesterday a number of members met with Anglicare and discussed these sorts of issues. Many of these young people are on the streets because situations at home put them at risk and in danger.
Such young people need to be provided with safe accommodation. To build a confident sense of self they need to undertake training or gain employment. Only then will they engage more broadly in society and be more highly regarded. In my electorate I know of some young people who left home because of dangerous and difficult situations. They then found themselves living in a youth refuge. They were able to continue their schooling and complete their Higher School Certificate. This gave them support for the future. Others in my electorate have not had those opportunities and, sadly, some of them have ended up in jail, with drug and alcohol problems. We then see lost opportunity and, often, loss of life.
I turn now to another area of homelessness that is rarely talked about: marginal homelessness. People in housing situations close to the minimum standard—for instance, caravan parks. It is hard to capture these figures but the Government has stepped up to the mark and caravan parks will now be registered. We have been through the extensive process of looking at residential parks and I look forward to the results of that consultation. The use of Crown caravan parks for affordable low-cost housing is very important, particularly for those who like to live in close proximity to others in similar circumstances. This gives them a sense of community and for older people often moving to a caravan park gives them a new lease on life. 15986 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
I urge the Government to consider just how important Crown caravan parks are as affordable low-cost housing, rather than taking the economic advantage of tourism accommodation. Caravan parks should no longer be left to commercial operators. Our Crown caravan parks should provide the services our communities need. Many caravan parks are located in coastal areas. Back in the 1970s, when assessments were done as to coastal risk, it was determined that these tracts of land along the coast were not to be used for permanent structures but for light, movable structures. That was because these areas were known as being at risk of cyclone, storm or coastal erosion. We need to look at the overarching whole-of-government approach to some of these issues.
The most accurate figures we have on homelessness are taken from Census data. According to the 2006 national census at least 27,374 people were considered homeless in New South Wales. That means nearly 30,000 people in this State at that time did not have the certainty or safety of their own home and were wondering where they would sleep in a month's time—one in every 230 people was homeless that we know about. The population of New South Wales is now estimated to be seven million, so that figure will now be higher. The 2009 Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing report showed that the majority of homeless people in New South Wales were in the younger age groups—or 55 per cent. Of that number, 18 per cent were teenagers aged 12 to 18 years who were mainly living on their own. We do not have information as to why they were homeless or living on their own.
Thus, much broader issues than housing need to be considered—for instance, family safety, child protection issues, mental illness, and drug and substance abuse. Hopefully, this motion will place a more detailed focus on this captured information to enable us to understand the whole-of-government approach to these issues. Paragraph (1) (d) concerns older homeless people. I recently attended a homelessness conference at Newcastle where a paper was issued that identified the issues for older homeless people, especially women. Paragraph (1) (e) concerns homeless Aboriginal people. I quote:
(e) it is widely estimated that over 7 per cent of the entire homeless population of New South Wales are Aboriginal, which is well above the 2.2 per cent of the total New South Wales Aboriginal population... That does not take into account the deplorable state of many of the houses, the overcrowding and the need to increase services to the Aboriginal population in this State. The Two Ways Together: New South Wales Aboriginal Affairs Plan (2003-2012) report contains a litany of unfulfilled best intentions. The annual report for 2009 stated, "the estimated level of homelessness for Aboriginal people in New South Wales appears to have changed little in the period between 2001 and 2006". Reports later than 2009 are not yet available. Answers to questions on notice in 2009 indicate that at that time there were significant concrete gains in delivery of houses, but it is still not enough.
The key homelessness strategy in New South Wales is "A Way Home: Reducing Homelessness in New South Wales". That strategy sets a target for a one-third reduction in the number of homeless Aboriginal people in this State by 2013 but we need to do a lot better than 173 new houses every few years to reach that target. I am still unsure whether that target was reached in the last financial year. I await questions on notice to see if it has been. I turn now to mental health issues. Paragraph (1) (f) states:
(f) documented rates of the prevalence of mental health issues in homeless people vary markedly but an extensive research paper published in 1998 by Hodder, Teeson and Burich entitled "Down and Out in Sydney" found that 75 per cent of participants in the study had at least one mental illness, compared to 20 per cent in the general population.
In 2011 Mission Australia reported that frontline staff who worked specifically with homeless people spent more time on mental health problems than on solving homelessness, reinforcing the notion that finding a home is often not the solution to homelessness. It is about providing a range of services that enable some of our most vulnerable people to have a life, rather than just surviving day to day. Many of us recognise that providing a roof over the heads of the increasing number of homeless people is nearly impossible and that to do so in a short time is impossible. The delivery of housing in a reasonable way would take 20 years. What do we do in the interim to address the needs of these people?
I have reflected on this question and, at the local government level, the Local Government and Shires Association produced a template policy. I congratulate the association on taking that important initiative and providing local government across the State with a format to develop a homelessness policy in their area. That sat alongside an important initiative of the Ombudsman, who provided police and government agencies involved in homelessness with a protocol so that they knew what they were doing when a situation or incident arose. Government agencies have a predetermined protocol and they meet regularly and report on issues. Several departments and agencies are involved in this activity: local government, police, Family and Community 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15987
Services, the Department of Health. Many people deal with the incidence of homelessness and individual situations. Having a protocol in place means that, when an agency is called to a situation, it knows who to connect with in another service, if required.
Byron Shire Council has created a service centre for homeless people in the centre of town. The council has used a building it owned, which used to be rented or leased for profit. The council has worked with the community centre, St Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army, to provide a framework for a service centre for homeless people, which has been beneficial. I call on the Government to recognise the model of working with local government, and recognise that some of the funding available under the National Homeless Partnership Program could provide local government with an opportunity to deliver these outcomes. My motion relates to the idea that the Government will deliver a grants program.
Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Marie Ficarra and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Natasha McLaren-Jones) left the chair at 1.02 p.m. The House resumed at 2.30 p.m.]
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted at 2.30 p.m. for questions.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ______
GOVERNMENT BOARD APPOINTMENTS
The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Is the formal board director appointment process for State-owned corporation boards that was announced by the Treasurer in 2011 being implemented by the Government?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, that is a matter for the Treasurer. I am happy to get the Treasurer to give us more detail about the processes for appointment of board directors. However, given that I am the second shareholding Minister I thought that I would have been asked about some of our recent appointments earlier because the Opposition was attempting to make a fuss about it. I am quite happy to work my way through some of the appointments, and some of those whom we did not appoint. However, on reflection, I prefer to congratulate a couple of appointees on the other side. I will have to start with the Hon. Walt Secord.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The question was specifically about the director appointment process for State-owned corporation boards.
The PRESIDENT: Order! It was a little too early to form a view as to whether the Minister was going to be directly, or even generally, relevant to the question. The Minister should take careful note of the terms of the question that was asked.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I appreciate that members usually give us a little latitude when there have been changes in jobs, and allow us to congratulate those who were successful and to note those who might have missed out. The Leader of the Opposition was stripped of his Water portfolio and stripped of his Energy portfolio—but we will not go there. The Leader of the Opposition in the other place has a great deal of experience with government corporations, having been a director of one of the energy corporations, a director of WorkCover and a director of several other organisations. But the Leader of the Opposition in this House has not had that sort of experience—in fact, he has never had any experience at all, other than being paid by the poor workers of this State to be a union official. Let us work our way through.
The Hon. Steve Whan: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The Minister has now had some time to get to the point of the question he was asked and has come nowhere near it. I ask you to bring the member back to the question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister is now well and truly stretching the bounds of what is generally relevant. I am concerned that he may be about to make an imputation about a member of the House, which he should not do. 15988 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I conclude by noting that, other than his union jobs, the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Luke Foley, had one important job: He worked as a telemarketer for the guide dog association but only lasted three weeks.
STATE EMERGENCY SERVICE
The Hon. MARIE FICARRA: My question is addressed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister advise the House on recent advances in equipment for the NSW State Emergency Service?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I thank the honourable member for her question and I thank those opposite for their encouragement. In the past month or so the NSW State Emergency Service has acquired new and vital equipment that will help its units across the State to deliver improved services in a wide range of circumstances. Last year the New South Wales Government committed to providing the NSW State Emergency Service with personal locator beacons and personal flotation devices for use in flood operations across the State. The service has purchased more than 1,800 of these beacons and 1,200 flotation devices. These have been issued to all units.
These devices can be of great help during the October to March storm season, providing additional safety for members who are required to enter water during flood rescue situations. Each of the service's flood rescue vessels will have both personal flotation devices and personal locator beacons allocated. Once activated, these portable distress beacons will send an alert to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, providing global positioning system [GPS] coordinates to easily identify the location of emergency personnel. The service also provided each unit with an additional personal locator beacon for use in support activities, including land search and rescue.
Early last month I was fortunate to visit Perisher Valley to present the NSW State Emergency Service with seven new Arctic Cat snowmobiles—Bearcat 570s, to be precise—along with three double snowmobile trailers. I was joined at the handover ceremony by our hardworking colleague, the member for Monaro, Mr John Barilaro, together with the NSW State Emergency Service deputy commissioner and assistant commissioner. Many volunteer alpine operators from local NSW State Emergency Service units also attended the event and demonstrated their skills on the snowmobiles. These modern vehicles have been acquired to enhance the capabilities of the volunteers who assist the NSW Police Force in alpine search operations.
The Hon. Steve Whan: Did you demonstrate your skill on the snowmobiles? Or one of the resort vehicles perhaps?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: This is a reminder of the versatility of the NSW State Emergency Service personnel. I was very interested to see their capabilities through all types of terrain. They performed well. These are very good devices on which people can feel safe. Not only must NSW State Emergency Service personnel have the ability to handle search operations in trying conditions, they need the latest and best vehicles such as these new snowmobiles to get around in the challenging alpine environment.
The snowmobiles are fantastic but there is more new equipment for the NSW State Emergency Service. I also had the pleasure in September of visiting the Newcastle State Emergency Service to hand over a new flood rescue boat to the City of Newcastle unit. I had the pleasure of seeing this boat manufactured at Britton Marine in the Sutherland shire and I indicated to those at Britton Marine that I would follow the vessel's progress through to its presentation to the Newcastle City unit. Newcastle City has a big problem with flash floods and this boat will boost the unit's capacity to respond. The New South Wales Government has supported the Newcastle unit by providing $44,800 to help purchase the flood boat. Previously old rubber duckies were used, invariably handed over by surf clubs to the State Emergency Service. The vessels today are fantastic. The unit now has its own purpose-built vessels, steel hulled and with a central configuration to enable the operator to sit high in the boat in order to see what is ahead. These are outstanding vessels that have been built by the people who need them—not by those who only think they know what is needed. [Time expired.]
NETWORKS NSW CHAIRMAN APPOINTMENT
The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra. In relation to the appointment of Mr Roger Massy-Greene, why were the provisions of the board director appointment process for State owned corporation boards not followed? 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15989
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: It is about time those opposite got on to these questions. I am very pleased, as the second shareholding Minister, to have been able to endorse the appointment of Mr Roger Massy-Greene to the three companies that comprise Networks NSW. The appointment was, of course, endorsed by Cabinet. Mr Massy-Greene is someone I have known for more than two decades in my capacity as somebody who is active in the Sydney, New South Wales and Australian business community—unlike those opposite.
Mr Massy-Greene is a very experienced and highly regarded member of the business community and the general community in New South Wales. He was chairman of the Australian Securities Exchange listed company Excel Coal Ltd and managing director of Resource Finance Corporation. He was a mining engineer for Rio Tinto. He actually worked for a living, unlike those opposite. He also worked for Bank of America in corporate finance. Indeed, Mr Massy-Greene is an exceptional candidate for any board. Whilst I am talking about those companies, I indicate that amongst the appointments we made was one Ms Barbara Ward. Barbara Ward has a wonderful Labor pedigree. She was an adviser way back to Paul Keating when he was Prime Minister.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Why did we do that?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: We went through the same process with each of the directors because we were looking for a merit-based appointment. Ms Ward had been appointed by the Labor Party to chair one of the electricity companies. We took the view on the basis of her experience that she was a good appointment. That is the way we go about it: We look for merit and we make appointments based on merit. In relation to those appointments, Mr Massy-Greene was a fantastic appointment and Ms Ward also is a fantastic appointment. Before I leave this point, I must congratulate the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who I note is ranked number 13 in the Opposition's order of merit. I was not interested in that sort of thing but members opposite are so interested in it they ask questions about these things all the time. Another interesting thing I just discovered is that he was the shadow Minister for Housing. I had not known that before. In fact, my staff and I were discussing housing the other day and we all asked who the shadow Minister for Housing was and no-one could name Mr Searle.
The Hon. Steve Whan: Point of order: It is relevance. The Minister might like to display his ignorance but it is not relevant to the question that was asked of him.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I cannot possibly rule on the member's point of order because there was so much noise coming from the Opposition benches I could not hear it.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I reiterate that the process for the appointment of each of the directors of the network companies was exactly the same. In addition to an excellent chairman in Mr Massy-Greene, we were able to secure the services of Ms Ward, and the other directors were all selected on merit. Members opposite should get away from defamation and character assassination, which is their normal modus operandi.
FIREARMS LAWS
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Has a proposed Firearms Regulation 2012 been provided to the Firearms Consultative Committee and, if so, what was its fate?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I will seek advice for the honourable member's edification and get that answer for him as soon as I can.
MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS WEEK
The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister advise the House about Motorcycle Awareness Week?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Today I had the pleasure of attending the motor show first thing this morning, which was pretty good, and congratulations are in order. It was in Sydney, which is fantastic.
The Hon. Steve Whan: The Sydney Motor Show is generally in Sydney.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I almost wanted to give my pay back. Today I also launched Motorcycle Awareness Week with the Motorcycle Council of NSW in Martin Place. More and more people every year are 15990 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
deciding to use motorcycles to travel, as does our colleague Charlie Lynn who asked the question. In the past five years motorcycle registrations have increased by 40 per cent. By comparison, over the same five-year period the number of passenger vehicle registrations has gone up by only 3 per cent. In this day and age of expensive petrol prices and congestion, getting around on a motorbike is not only cheaper but easier and makes a hell of a lot of sense given our fabulous climate. With more motorcyclists on the road, it is important to ensure that all vehicles can share the road safely. This is why Motorcycle Awareness Week is such an important initiative.
The Hon. Steve Whan: I can see you and your driver on one.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I have a motorcycle licence. It is also why I announced that the New South Wales Government will allow motorcyclists to filter through stationary vehicles at central business district intersections to test whether the practice improves traffic flow. My understanding is that this will be the first trial of its kind in Australia. I hear that the Labor Party are against this. Lane filtering is currently against the law; however, there will be an exception for motorcyclists in part of the central business district that will allow them to filter through traffic when vehicles are stopped at traffic lights. The lane filtering will be confined to an area bounded by Sussex Street, Market Street, St James Road, Macquarie Street, Alfred Street and Hickson Road. The project will include using video to monitor lane-filtering behaviour at intersections and also detect whether traffic movement improves in the northern central business district area. The new NSW Police Force Sydney Central Business District Motorcycle Response Team also will be policing the intersections to ensure that road rules are being adhered to.
This trial is not about favouring one road user group over another; it is a system that could benefit all motorists in the central business district. However, I note that this initiative needs testing to ensure it improves traffic flow while not jeopardising road safety. The trial will start on 1 February 2013 and involve three months of data gathering by the Centre for Road Safety. The Motorcycle Council of NSW and the NSW Motorcycle Alliance have campaigned for some time for changes to laws around lane filtering. The practice exists in other countries such as the United Kingdom, however we need to make sure there is strong evidence it works before we will make any changes to road rules. As usual, other motorists will need to check for motorcycle riders when they are turning and changing lanes. Specific conditions will include taking extra care when filtering near buses and there will be no filtering on the left in the kerbside left lane or dedicated turning lanes. Like all vehicles, motorcycles still will need to stop at the stop line and not block pedestrian crossings. The safety of all motorists and pedestrians remains the New South Wales Government's number one priority. We still maintain there should not be passing while vehicles are moving.
ROGER MASSY-GREENE POLITICAL DONATIONS
The Hon. WALT SECORD: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. When did the Minister first learn that Roger Massy-Greene had made a political donation directly to the election campaign of the member for Manly?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I welcome the Parliament's greatest leak to the Water portfolio and congratulate—
The Hon. Adam Searle: Point of order: The Minister is debating the question and should be called to account.
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no point of order.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: To the extent that that is meant to be a serious question, I can say, as I have said before, that the Government approaches appointments very seriously. We make appointments on the basis of the greatest suitability for the job. We do not discriminate—
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order: It is relevance. The Hon. Walt Secord asked a question about the Minister's knowledge, or lack of knowledge, about political donations made by Mr Roger Massy-Greene to the Treasurer. It was not about the selection process for board appointments. I ask you to direct the Minister to answer the question he was asked.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Ministers are required to be generally relevant in their answers. I am not convinced that the Minister was not going to be generally relevant. However, I remind the Minister that while a degree of generality is permitted in the answer that he gives, he must be generally relevant. 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15991
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Thank you. The dirty water insinuation was that there was some influence other than merit in relation to appointments. I welcome the greatest leak in Parliament to his new career, and I can answer his question very directly—
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Point of order—
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: If I was not interrupted by the Hon. Amanda Fazio, who is very unhappy; she has not been able to get a drink since lunch.
The PRESIDENT: Order!
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: My point of order relates to imputations. First, the Minister is clearly making an imputation about the Hon. Walt Secord. Secondly, no member in this place, let alone the Hon. Greg Pearce, should be carrying on about people drinking. We know what you are like.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Both members know that it is inappropriate for them to make remarks about other members and their alleged consumption of alcohol. I ask both members to withdraw their remarks.
The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Mr President, I withdraw my remark.
The PRESIDENT: Minister?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I withdraw my remark, Mr President. In answer to the question, I first learnt about the suggestion—
The PRESIDENT: Order!
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Sorry, you have not ruled.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind all members that the standing orders require them not to make imputations about other members while they are in the Chamber.
PUBLIC HOUSING
The Hon. JAN BARHAM: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Community Services. Will the Minister provide an update on the state of public housing tenants in relation to the announcement in June that more than 11,000 tenants who live alone in family-size homes will be asked to relocate to smaller dwellings? Has the program and consultation been completed and is there a report or process for the implementation of the relocation?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: That is a very good question. The honourable member is to be applauded for her continued interest in our social housing estate and the issue—
The Hon. Sophie Cotsis: You don't even have a housing Minister.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Hon. Sophie Cotsis has just been stripped of the Industrial Relations portfolio to give it to the Hon. Adam Searle, who has been stripped of the Housing portfolio—
Mr David Shoebridge: Point of order: My point of order is on two grounds: the first is relevance and the second is that it is disorderly to respond to interjections.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I apologise to the House. I was briefly conversing with the Opposition Whip, so I did not hear the Minister's remarks. I remind the Minister of the need to be generally relevant. He will not respond to interjections.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I was congratulating the honourable member for her interest in this area. As she and other honourable members know, we inherited a public housing waiting list from the previous Government of more than 50,000 people. Whilst this Government has attempted to make improvements, we have come up against a number of problems that evolved in the 16 years of neglect by the Labor Government. Notwithstanding the fact that we have more than 140,000 units of public housing in New South Wales, under 15992 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
Labor, they were deteriorating; under Labor, the waiting list was growing. Labor's disastrous estates strategy produced 109 estates, many of which are places of massive and growing disadvantage. In order to address some of the problems with public housing, we need to change completely the way that public housing is financed, and we need to look very hard at the housing stock that we have.
I will give two examples. The previous Government was pursuing a program of converting bed-sitters into one-bedroom apartments. That sounds laudable—if you do not think about it for very long. The previous Government spent, on average, $80,000 of money that was hard to acquire to convert a bed-sitter to a one-bedroom apartment in order to house the same person. That might have been wonderful in an ideal world but it meant that the housing shortage could not be addressed because money was wasted instead of being diverted to build extra, more affordable housing. A major issue is that demographics and living conditions have changed over the past couple of decades. While in the 1950s most public housing went to young families to give them a leg up, we have now reached the situation where most people in public housing have multiple issues, such as mental health issues and Department of Community Services problems. They are often single people and/or single parents—
The Hon. Penny Sharpe: Is there a report or not?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Do you want an answer? I am happy to give more detail but I wanted to say thank you for the question. [Time expired.]
The Hon. JAN BARHAM: I ask a supplementary question. I am seeking clarification from the Minister. Will I get an answer to the question that has been submitted?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Yes.
SYDNEY WATER METERS
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister give the House any information on recent claims about expenditure on water meters by Sydney Water?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the honourable member for the question. The people of New South Wales, and indeed many of our good journalists, have been very embarrassed that they cannot trust the information and assertions from the former shadow Minister for water, the Hon. Luke Foley, who has been stripped of the Water portfolio—and no wonder. Mr Foley was peddling a story alleging that hundreds of thousands of Sydney families and businesses were being ripped off by what he called "dodgy water billing" because of what he claimed were the O'Farrell Government's cuts to the program that replaces faulty water meters.
The Hon. Walt Secord: Rapid response.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I expected a question from you. Mr Foley cited funding cuts in the Sydney Water Meter Replacement Program, from $11.6 million to $9.5 million this year, as proof of his Chicken Little claims. He is right: The capital budget program was cut. I will explain that in a moment. The reason is that in 2007—I believe Labor was in government—the criterion for replacing water meters was changed. Labor decided that the asset life of 20 millimetre water meters, which is the standard meter for most domestic customers, would be extended from 10 years to 15 years and that had the significant effect of reducing the replacement program.
In 2007 Labor changed the replacement criteria. Nathan Rees was Minister at the time. Mr Foley quoted a report to support his Chicken Little assertions, which probably sounded authentic to our good citizens and journalists. But the report by the consultants Atkins-Cardno confirms that the expected asset life of the 20 millimetre domestic water meters was changed to 15 years. That brings me to the Atkins-Cardno report. Mr Foley has form on selective quoting, misrepresentations, trickery and scare campaigns based on half-truths and falsehoods, but usually he is a bit more careful.
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: Clearly the last part of the Minister's comment reflected seriously on a member on this side of the House.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. The Minister should desist from making such reflections. 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15993
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Some members were at the estimates committee hearings last week when the Hon. Luke Foley produced the report. Arcing up in his best bombastic, bullyboy voice, he asserted—
The Hon. Steve Whan: Point of order: Mr President, you have just ruled on reflections on members of the Opposition. I suggest that using terms such as that constitutes a reflection, and it is certainly not becoming of a Minister.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I thank the member for taking that point of order. The Minister has the call.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Leader of the Opposition insinuated that it was a Government or a Sydney Water report. The truth is much less exciting. The Atkins-Cardno report is not a Government report or a Sydney Water report; it is a consultants' report obtained by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal as part of its Sydney Water pricing determination process, and it clearly says so. [Time expired.]
The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: The Hon. Luke Foley insinuated that it was a Government report. He then yelled, "Read your own audit, Minister." The Mark Latham of New South Wales politics, Mr Hothead, lost it and misled the committee, me, the public and our favourite journalist.
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Point of order: The imputation about misleading the committee is crude. It is also a reflection on a member on this side of the House, which the Minister knows is disorderly.
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: To the point of order. The Minister said only that the Hon. Luke Foley had misled the committee. It would have been disorderly if he had said that the honourable member had deliberately misled the committee.
The PRESIDENT: Order! "Misled" is a traditional parliamentary term; it is common parlance in Parliament. Perhaps harsher critiques of comments do not constitute disorder in the Chamber. Therefore, I will not ask the Minister to withdraw.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: As I said, the Hon. Luke Foley has form. Members will recall his Chicken Little hysterics about the Hunters Hill remediation a couple of weeks ago. He was reported on radio as saying that the Government had diluted the findings so that it could send the material where it always intended to send it, that is, to Kemps Creek. He again breathlessly produced a Parsons Brinckerhoff report, which was commissioned by the Keneally Government and completed in February 2011. [Time expired.]
TREE PLANTING
The Hon. ROBERT BORSAK: I direct my question to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for the Environment. Is it a fact that Professor David Lindenmayer of the Australian National University recently warned that the rush to plant trees to offset carbon emissions could have a harmful impact on Australia's native environment if it is not carefully managed and that a poorly planned plantation boom could cause needless land clearing, add to invasive species and damage natural ecological processes? What is the Government doing to ensure that there is no such impact in New South Wales?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: That is an excellent question and I thank the honourable member for asking it. I will take it on notice and provide a very detailed response.
NETWORKS NSW CHAIRMAN APPOINTMENT
The Hon. STEVE WHAN: I direct my question to the Minister for Finance and Services. Did the Minister hold any discussions with the Treasurer about the appointment of Mr Roger Massy-Greene prior to Cabinet appointing him?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Of course I did. I thought that the Hon. Steve Whan had been a Minister. How weird can members opposite get? Do they think that two shareholding Ministers would not discuss an appointment before they put it to Cabinet? This is unbelievable; they are profoundly remote from reality. We now understand why their 16 years in office was such a disaster. Of course I spoke to the Treasurer about the appointment—which I think is fantastic. I also discussed the other appointments and agreed on them, naturally. 15994 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
The Hon. STEVE WHAN: Will the Minister elucidate his answer and let the House know whether the Treasurer informed him that he had received a political donation from the person in question?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: It is only the Labor Party that applies criteria about the donations made to appointments.
NSW POLICE FORCE ABORIGINAL PROGRAM
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: I direct my question to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Will the Minister update the House on the work of the NSW Police Force's Aboriginal program?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Aboriginal units or Aboriginal policy officers have been part of the NSW Police Force since the 1970s. The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which ran between late 1987 and early 1991, found that additional efforts were required by State and Territory police forces to improve their relationships with Aboriginal communities. The royal commission's terms of reference enabled it to take account of social, cultural and legal factors that may have had a bearing on each of the deaths under investigation. The final report, which was signed on 15 April 1991, made 339 recommendations that dealt with, among other things, liaison with Aboriginal groups, police education and improved accessibility to information.
Since that time, the NSW Police Force has worked hard to improve its relationships with Aboriginal communities across New South Wales. For example, Aboriginal community liaison officers are now attached to local area commands and assist in developing, implementing and reviewing programs to bring about positive outcomes between police and Aboriginal people in line with the force's policies. Aboriginal program officers work with Aboriginal community liaison officers across the State on a range of initiatives, including programs aimed at building crime prevention partnerships within local communities.
I draw to the attention of the House one outstanding Aboriginal program officer in particular. Until recently, Ms Cleonie Quayle was a valued member of the NSW Police Force, working as an Aboriginal program officer within the Operational Programs Directorate. A criminologist with a 15-year background in family and domestic violence, Ms Quayle has recently left the employ of the Police Force to complete a masters degree in criminology and to conduct other research projects. That is a loss to the public sector, but we wish Ms Quayle every success in her future endeavours. She has demonstrated a remarkable commitment to improving outcomes for Aboriginal people in New South Wales.
As members know, establishing and maintaining effective partnerships with local communities and working at the grassroots level to tailor crime prevention initiatives to fit local issues are key to addressing crime in Indigenous communities, which is something that the NSW Police Force works hard to achieve every day. In addition, through the Indigenous Police Recruitment Our Way Delivery Program, known as IPROWD, the New South Wales Government is working in partnership with the Commonwealth Government to increase the number of Aboriginal police recruits. It is hoped that this will also help to enhance the relationship between the police and Indigenous communities across New South Wales.
I note that Ms Cleonie Quayle is a member of Australia's stolen generation. She was removed from her biological parents at four years of age and was moved between various foster care placements and institutions. Rather than beating her down, Ms Quayle said that the experience of her childhood led her to a career where she could have a positive impact. She has clearly achieved that in a professional sense and is a very impressive role model. I am pleased to hear that Ms Quayle is extremely positive about the direction the NSW Police Force is taking in terms of diversity and inclusion, and I know all members of the House will join with me in thanking Cleonie Quayle for her service to the people of New South Wales. I wish her well in her future endeavours.
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
The Hon. ROBERT BROWN: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Resources and Energy. Is the Minister aware that last month a citizen's jury recommended that the Government start a discussion about nuclear power stations in New South Wales as an issue that should not be dismissed? Will the Government accept the recommendation? Will the Government facilitate the use of nuclear power in New South Wales?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: What a fabulous question. I acknowledge that The Greens are supportive. At least one prominent member of The Greens has shareholdings in that area. 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15995
The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Because of renewables.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Here he is: Corncob Joe, sprouting off; Ritchie Rich, a great supporter in that area. I am sure that there would be some support on the new Opposition frontbench. All five of the Opposition frontbench members look fabulous—plus there are two others. Seven members are on the Opposition frontbench in our Chamber—pushing the place a bit. We could fix it. One might aspire to higher office. I remember when our illustrious Premier was asked whether he had his sights on becoming leader he said, "Not until I lose the beard or lose weight." I am reliably informed that a clean-shaven Walt Secord was sighted in the gym this week. I will provide the member with an answer on notice.
GOVERNMENT BOARD APPOINTMENTS
The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Has the selection panel for appointing board members to State owned corporation boards been established? If so, when was it established?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I was asked this question earlier today. As I said at the time, the management and responsibility for that particular process is with the Treasurer. I was asked a couple of times about my knowledge of donations by people appointed. The first time I was asked the question the Opposition did not give me time to answer as my time was taken up by points of order. I am troubled that they are trying, by way of insinuation or some other method, to get up a story that I did not answer the question.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order—
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Here they go again.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: The question specifically asked when the appointments board was established. The Minister is a long way away from that.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The Minister should not answer another question when he has been asked a specific question.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: My interpretation of the question was that it was about appointments to boards. In the case of the Opposition, donation is the key criteria, not a process. We have a proper process in place, which I am talking about.
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: The Minister is debating the question. He is referring to his interpretation of the question, which is clearly debating the question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! If the Minister wants to answer a question that he did not have time to finish earlier in question time, he may give a supplementary answer at the end of question time. If the Minister has nothing further that is relevant to this question he should resume his seat.
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I will take some time at the end of question time.
GOVERNMENT BOARD APPOINTMENTS
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Have nomination committees for overseeing board appointments been established for all State-owned corporations?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Is this Groundhog Day? I have answered this question twice. I said that this Government goes through a proper process for appointments, unlike the Labor Party, whose process was based on donations. When I was asked about my knowledge of donations by a particular board member—
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order—
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: You don't want the answer, do you?
The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Mr President, my point of order is that the Minister is flouting your ruling. He keeps attempting to answer questions that have been asked previously. My question specifically asks about a nominations committee, which is very different from earlier questions. I ask you to ask him to respond. It is not the same question. 15996 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order. Does the Minister want to add anything further?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: No.
F3 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on what is being done to improve traffic flow on the F3 and other related matters?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: On Sunday 28 October 2012 the Transport Management Centre will carry out contraflow exercises on the F3 at Berowra in an effort to further improve traffic management during major incidents on the freeway. The exercise will take place between 5.30 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. involving personnel from the Traffic Management Centre, Roads and Maritime Services and NSW Police Force. While the exercise takes place all north-bound lanes on the F3 will be transferred to the south-bound lanes using a contraflow for 1.5 kilometres between the on and off ramps at Berowra. The contraflow will start at 8.00 a.m., with all lanes reopened by 9.00 a.m. The exercise is one of the major recommendations from the Moroney report arising from the F3 traffic debacle in April 2010. The new shadow Roads spokesman, Ryan Park—
The Hon. Michael Gallacher: For this week—
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: This is the third one in my time as Minister. He was the former Director General of Transport and the one-time chief of staff to former Minister for Roads David Campbell. That Minister went missing in action when the freeway was blocked for more than 12 hours, causing chaos and leaving people stranded in their cars. Mr Park now has an opportunity to do something good for the people of New South Wales. I urge him to deliver five key commitments by the end of the year to avoid being just another failed Labor hack, like many of those opposite. First, he must talk some sense into Federal Labor, in particular, Anthony Albanese, to stop them from short-changing New South Wales on funding and get them to return to the 80:20 model, which is the model the previous Government shared with its Federal mates.
The time for playing politics with the Pacific Highway is over. First, Mr Park must secure the funding required to achieve the Prime Minister's agreed 2016 deadline to complete duplication. Second—this is the key performance indicator that I will mark him on—he must support the Coalition's commitment to build WestConnex by getting Federal Labor and Julia Gillard to provide matching funding. Third, he must provide regional New South Wales with an assurance of his support by securing matching funding for the Bridges for the Bush program. Fourth, he must show some maturity and end the scaremongering in local communities by supporting increased and improved services at the one-stop shops the New South Wales Government is rolling out across the State.
[Interruption]
Is the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham singing after dinner, again? I am having difficulty concentrating as The Greens member sings Roll out the Barrel. That is something that normally the member does after dinner. [Time expired.]
POLITICAL LOBBYING
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: Mr President—
The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: My point of order relates to the dress of the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham in view of the President's ruling on Tuesday in relation to the size of badges and previous rulings by President Burgmann and Deputy-President Gay in relation to this matter. I draw the President's attention to the size of the badge on the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham's lapel and ask that the member be asked to remove it. Further, I suggest that by continuing to avoid the President's requests the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham is in danger of falling under Standing Order 190, which relates to persistent disorderly conduct.
The PRESIDENT: Order! As I understand it, the badge that the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham is wearing, based on his public comments, is not substantially larger than the Legislative Council member's badge. I ask the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham for an assurance that the badge he is wearing is not larger than the Legislative Council member's badge. 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15997
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I cannot give that assurance. It is larger than the Legislative Council member's badge.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I have a badge that is very similar to the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham's badge, which is smaller than the Legislative Council member's badge. The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham can get one from me after question time.
The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Premier. During the recent budget estimates hearings the Minister for Resources and Energy, Mr Chris Hartcher, repeatedly refused to reveal whether he had met with registered lobbyist Santo Santoro. Does the Government stand by its commitment to increase transparency and public confidence in its interactions with lobbyists? Will the Government place all meetings that Ministers have with registered lobbyists on a publicly available lobbyist contact register?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham asked the Minister for Resources and Energy the question during the estimates hearing.
The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Point of order—
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: You said the Minister refused to answer the question.
The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: I did not say that at all. The Minister is now debating the question. I said the Minister refused to answer whether he had. My question relates to whether the Government will put all interactions with lobbyists on a publicly available contact register.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: I have not read the Hansard of the estimate hearings. I will take with a pinch of salt the aspect of the member's question in relation to the Minister refusing to answer. But if the member has questions that he wants to ask of the Minister during the estimates process then he has ample time to put those questions on notice for the estimates committee.
WORKCOVER
The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: I address my question to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister update the House on WorkCover's Return to Work—Engagement with Workplaces pilot program?
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the member for her question. We all know that the best outcomes for injured workers occur with return to work within the first 12 weeks after injury. In New South Wales in recent years WorkCover has observed a trend for injured workers to stay off work for longer periods. This was one of the drivers for the recent reforms, as there is a strong body of evidence that prolonged absence from work adversely affects the injured worker. Australian and international research has consistently found a correlation between early return to work and improved health outcomes. The expectation that a worker would not return to work until fully fit, which influenced scheme design a decade ago, has been replaced with the understanding that a worker will not make a good recovery unless they return to work as soon as possible.
In March 2011 the Australasian Faculty of Occupational and Environmental Medicine of the Royal Australian College of Physicians released the Consensus Statement on the Health Benefits of Work. The consensus recognised a recommendation from the faculty's Position Statement: Realising the Health Benefits of Work, that work is generally good for health and wellbeing and that long-term work absence, work disability and unemployment generally have a negative impact on health and wellbeing. I quote:
Work absence tends to perpetuate itself: that is, the longer someone is off work, the less likely they become ever to return.
Anyone who has known an injured worker knows that long-term absence from work is harmful to physical and mental health and wellbeing. It is obvious that getting back to work quickly is the best outcome for an injured worker. It is better for a worker's health and wellbeing, their workmates, their family and their employer. Improving return to work outcomes is important for the individual, the community and the economy. That is why recovery and return to work should be key priorities of any workers compensation system. WorkCover has now also developed the Return to Work—Engagement with Workplaces pilot program to assist injured workers to safely return to or stay at work. 15998 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
The program uses an integrated approach with WorkCover frontline field staff and executive staff, scheme insurance agents and brokers. The program will be using targeted business intelligence, building the capability of WorkCover frontline field staff, and collaborating across WorkCover divisions with scheme insurance agents. The aim of the program is to help businesses take more decisive action by providing suitable employment to injured workers and to keep the cost of workers compensation premiums down.
It is important employers understand the economic and legislative reasons for providing safe suitable employment for their injured worker. The pilot has three engagement activities: the WorkCover executive and, where appropriate, the scheme agent or broker representative will meet 10 large and medium employers who have been identified as having the greatest capacity for savings if their claim experience was in line with the base premium for that industry; WorkCover inspectors and scheme agent business account managers will meet medium employers who have a worker who is fit for suitable employment but is not back at work; and WorkCover inspectors and, where possible, scheme agent case managers will meet small employers who have a worker who is fit for suitable employment but who is not back at work. The objective is to assist employers to get those employees back to work. This is an important initiative to improve return to work and an initiative I will report on further as it yields its results.
FIREARMS LAWS
Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I direct my question without notice to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Why has the Firearms Amendment (Ammunition) Control Bill 2012 not yet been proclaimed?
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The Government is working through it and I will report back to the House when it is finalised.
M5 WEST WIDENING PROJECT
The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. In answer to a question on notice published on 16 October the Minister said that breakdown lanes on the M5 West are generally 2.5 metres in width. Will the Minister confirm that breakdown lanes will be available for the entire length between King Georges Road and Fairford Road as part of the M5 West widening project?
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: On my understanding, the answer is yes, but that is my understanding. I will get information and ensure that my understanding is correct.
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: The time for questions has expired. If members have further questions they should place them on notice.
GOVERNMENT BOARD APPOINTMENTS
The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Earlier in question time I was asked questions by the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in relation to appointments. However, I was not given the opportunity to answer because of the Opposition's tactics. I indicate that I first became aware of donations to both the Liberal and Labor parties when the matter was reported in the media. Further, I have not had any discussions about donations in relation to any State-owned corporation board appointment I may have made. Finally, I repudiate any suggestion that potential political donations are in any way a consideration in any State-owned corporation appointment in which I have participated.
FIREARMS LAWS
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: Earlier in question time Mr David Shoebridge asked me a question relating to the Firearms Regulation. I am advised that the New South Wales Firearms Consultative Committee was recently provided with an initial draft of a new Firearms Regulation 2012, with a view to getting the committee's early input on issues to be addressed in the regulation. Following feedback from the committee I directed the ministry to write to members of the committee to confirm that the draft regulation will be substantially rewritten and updated. The draft that had been circulated can be disregarded. The updated draft will be accompanied by a discussion paper clearly identifying all proposed changes that the organisation has proposed to change and the rationale for the change. Further consultation with the Firearms Consultative Committee will not in any way preclude the Government's commitment to wider public consultation on a future draft regulation. I am advised that the regulation will need to be remade by September 2013. 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 15999
WILD DOGS
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: On 11 September 2012 the Hon. Robert Borsak asked me a question about wild dogs in State forests. I provide the following response:
A total of 457 wild dogs have been shot by Game Council conservation hunters in State forests during the period of March 2006 to September 2012.
During this period, hired contractors were not employed by Forests NSW to remove wild dogs.
Forests NSW estimates that if commercial rates were applied to the removal of 18,485 feral and game animals from its estate, this would total $2.4 million during 2011-12.
EDUCATION REFORM
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: On 13 September 2012 the Hon. Greg Donnelly asked me a question about the Minister for Education requesting advice on making changes to section 21 of the Education Act. The following response is provided:
There is no proposal to make changes to section 21 of the New South Wales Education Act. The New South Wales Government will work with the non-government sector on how to effect the cap on non-government school funding.
COAL SEAM GAS EXPLORATION
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: On 13 September 2012 the Hon. Paul Green asked me a question on the use of fracking chemicals. I provide the following response:
The New South Wales Government has lifted the moratorium on hydraulic fracturing—which applied to new approvals— following completion of the independent review process. Existing standards for fracturing and well design have been strengthened to ensure world's best practice, as overseen by the New South Wales Chief Scientist and Engineer, Professor Mary O'Kane.
The New South Wales Government has released the Code of Practice for Coal Seam Gas Fracture Stimulation as part of the Strategic Regional Land Use Policy.
The code requires the identification and public reporting of all chemicals to be injected as part of the fracture stimulation process, the volumes and concentrations of those chemicals, as well as potential risks to water quality and human health arising from exposure to those chemicals.
This information will be published on the Division of Resources and Energy website.
Fracturing applications are assessed by the Division of Resources and Energy, the Environment Protection Authority, the Office of Environment and Heritage and the NSW Office of Water.
Hydraulic fracturing has been utilised for over 65 years in gas and oil production globally and for over 40 years in Australia, and is also used as an essential safety measure in some underground coal mines.
EDUCATION FUNDING
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: On 13 September 2012 the Hon. Peter Primrose asked me a question about funding for the office of the Department of Education and Communities in Newcastle. The Minister for Education has provided me with the following response:
• Over the next four years the total required savings for Education and Communities is estimated to be $1.7 billion. For further clarification, I would direct the member to the fact sheet released called "Savings Measures to Meet our Budget."
• The regional structure currently in place will be replaced with a new structure.
• Changes of this nature, changes that affect people's positions are serious matters.
• The department will be undertaking this work in accordance with the Government's Managing Excess Employees 2011 Policy and its associated procedures, such as the Agency Change Management Guidelines. The policy and guidelines set out key steps all departments must follow when undertaking a significant realignment of functions and staff.
• Since 14 September, there have been discussions with Regional Directors, School Education Directors and Principals' Associations about the new model to replace regions. A draft model will shortly be released for feedback from stakeholders.
• As for the impacts of the $1.7 billion cuts on the department, I refer you to the fact sheets released by the Minister on 11 September, titled "Savings Measures to Meet our Budget"
16000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
FOETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: On 13 September 2012 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile asked me a question regarding foetal alcohol syndrome. I provide the following response:
I am advised:
NSW has demonstrated its commitment to prevention approaches in the recent education campaign to raise awareness of Aboriginal women and their partners of the risks of consuming alcohol during pregnancy and the early stages of infancy. The campaign, launched in July 2012, includes print and radio advertising running until October 2012. The campaign also includes posters, a postcard, an illustrated story book and a Facebook page which will run until June 2013. The Facebook page, which provides health information about pregnancy and having a young baby, including specific information about the impacts of alcohol consumption and Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, has proved very popular, averaging more than 350,000 visits from Australians per week since the launch.
Other NSW Ministry of Health policy and program initiatives include the establishment of a Ministry of Health Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder working group to review existing policies and guidelines, and the development of a further educational resource for use by health and welfare professionals for educating Aboriginal women and their families regarding the use of alcohol and other drugs during pregnancy. This is planned for launch in September 2013.
FIREARMS REGISTRY
The Hon. MICHAEL GALLACHER: On 18 September 2012 the Hon. Robert Brown asked me a question about the error rates in the New South Wales Firearms Registry database. I provide the following response:
The NSW Police Force has advised me that inquiries with other States and Territories reveal that most are not required to routinely report on errors within their databases. The Firearms Registry database does not define errors as such. However, processes are in place to ensure the accuracy and completeness of registry records.
Questions without notice concluded.
TABLING OF PAPERS
The Hon. David Clarke tabled, pursuant to the Legal Profession Act 2004, the report of the New South Wales Bar Association for the year ended 30 June 2012.
Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. David Clarke.
ADJOURNMENT
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [3.34 p.m.]: I move:
That this House do now adjourn.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Dr JOHN KAYE [3.34 p.m.]: The world faces the greatest challenge in human history: reducing greenhouse gas emissions and saving the planet from runaway climate change. A recent article in New Scientist of 1 September 2012 entitled "The Ultimate Meltdown" highlighted the dreadful plight of the Arctic. The article stated:
On 27 August, the daily update from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center … reported that the ice pack had shrunk to 4.1 million square kilometres. That is 70,000 km2 smaller than the 2007 low.
At that stage the full effects of summer had not been felt. The article further stated:
The long-term trends are damning. The latest climate models predict that by around 2050 the Arctic will be completely ice-free during the summers.
This is not simply a warning to the planet; it is a driver of climate change itself as the El Niño effect is reduced by the changing colour of the Arctic and solar radiation is increased, further exacerbating global climate change. This is a serious matter which, if not addressed rapidly in a coordinated global fashion, will not simply inconvenience future generations. It will leave future generations struggling to maintain any quality of life and it 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16001
will devastate the natural environment and the capacity of our economy to continue to operate. Australia and particularly New South Wales are especially vulnerable to climate change. Therefore, it is worth looking at the O'Farrell Government's response to the global climate challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The New South Wales electricity industry emits 60 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. That is a small amount by global standards but a large amount on a per capita basis. The O'Farrell Government's Renewable Energy Action Plan—it is now being called the O'Farrell Government's renewable energy inaction plan—fails to come to grips with the future of the renewable energy industry. That industry can offer the State the opportunity to reduce global warming, reduce our contributions to global warming and along the way generate a lot of new jobs and economic activity. The O'Farrell Government's draft renewable energy action plan fails to end the war on wind generation and rooftop solar energy, develop a timetable for phasing out all fossil fuel generation and address the investment in large-scale concentrating solar thermal plants with energy storage that can continue to provide a reliable electricity supply to households, businesses and the community and at the same time increase jobs and reduce climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions.
The solar energy industry is on its knees. The rooftop solar industry has been destroyed by the sudden withdrawal of the solar bonus scheme, with no replacement, and no funds are available for large-scale concentrated solar thermal investment. Without an immediate injection of several billions of dollars into solar thermal, New South Wales will be left behind the rest of the world; in the end we will have to respond and we will do so by importing technology. Importing technology means that jobs will be lost and world-leading Australian technology will go overseas yet again. The O'Farrell Government has draft wind planning guidelines that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has admitted are some of the toughest in the world. Those guidelines will be tough on an industry that can deliver 10,000 new jobs in New South Wales, slash 22 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the State's greenhouse gas emissions, attract billions of dollars of new investment and economic activity, and provide unemployment relief to rural communities across New South Wales.
Yet that industry is facing a set of planning guidelines that will ensure that it has no place here, and those jobs, investment and greenhouse gas reductions will disappear from this State and turn up in South Australia. That is good news for South Australia; it is terrible news for New South Wales. New South Wales will continue down the path of a coal and fossil gas future, which will be an economic, social and environmental dead end. Without a renewable energy action plan to replace the massive damage being done to the climate and the local environment by coal and gas, the State will become a coal-bucket State—a State that is left behind, as many other States have been left behind economically and socially. Real action on renewable energy to address climate change is needed urgently. [Time expired.]
OCSOBER
BREAST CANCER
The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL [3.39 p.m.]: I want to inform the House about two wonderful charity initiatives that I am taking part in during the month of October. This month I am taking part in Ocsober— a fundraising initiative that encourages people to give up alcohol for the month of October. Ocsober supports Life Education and its iconic mascot Healthy Harold who—for 30 years—has been empowering Aussie kids to make smart and healthy life choices, free from the harm associated with drug misuse.
Since its beginnings in 1979 Life Education has developed as a leading drug and health education program that teaches young people to draw from their own strengths and to make reasoned and well-informed decisions. It has proven so effective that Life Education now runs in 13 countries around the world, including the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, New Zealand and South Africa. Life Education is continuing its mission of empowering young people to make the best choices for a safe life and ensuring that over four million Aussie kids receive the best possible advice to help them to achieve a healthy lifestyle.
Life Education programs are delivered by a team of 120 qualified educators with a fleet of mobile learning centres to help create a dynamic learning space for young children. Ocsober aims to highlight the growing danger of binge drinking and alcohol abuse, particularly amongst younger Australians. When I looked at the statistics, I was shocked to learn that over 22,000 people die in Australia each year as a result of alcohol and drug abuse. An Australian dies every 24 minutes through the use of legal or illegal drugs. By the age of 15 almost one-third of teenagers are binge drinking. They are five times more likely to become dependent on alcohol when compared to those who do not start drinking until they are older. 16002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
Ocsober this year is aiming to raise $750,000 for Life Education. That money will enable Life Education—and its loveable mascot, Healthy Harold—to go to even more schools across Australia to educate our kids about the risks of alcohol abuse. Already Ocsober has raised over $400,000, putting Life Education well on the way to reaching its target. I have always been a big fan of Life Education. I still remember the excitement at Gunnedah South Public School—my primary school—when the Healthy Harold bus would come for its yearly visit. There was a lot of goodwill towards Healthy Harold and Life Education then, as there is today. My friends, family and colleagues were keen to support my Ocsober campaign when they were told that the money would go to Life Education.
I have set a fundraising target of $1,000, and I have already received $650 in donations. I am very thankful to those family members, friends and colleagues—including the Hon. Rick Colless—who have supported me thus far and I am hopeful that others will follow suit. Those who wish to sponsor my Ocsober efforts can visit www.ocsober.com.au and search for Sarah Mitchell. All donations will be happily accepted in support of this wonderful cause.
October is also National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. At Parliament House yesterday, the Hon. Lynda Voltz and I co-hosted a Pink Ribbon Breakfast in support of the National Breast Cancer Foundation. The Pink Ribbon Breakfast campaign has been running for over 10 years and the event at Parliament House is in its fifth year. It is always well attended by both members and staff, and yesterday was no exception. I believe the support shown for the breakfast is because breast cancer is something that affects so many women in our community. In 2012 alone 14,610 Australian women will be diagnosed with breast cancer—roughly one in eight women.
At yesterday's breakfast we were delighted to hear from Dr Alison Butt, the Director of Research Investment at the National Breast Cancer Foundation. Dr Butt told us a little about the work and research aims of the foundation and how our donations would help it achieve its goals. When the National Breast Cancer Foundation was founded in 1994, 30 per cent of women diagnosed with breast cancer lost their battle with the disease. In less than 20 years, this figure has halved. The foundation's goal is that by 2030 no women will die from breast cancer. It is a big challenge but the tireless work and effort that the foundation has put into fighting this disease shows that if any organisation can achieve that goal it will be the National Breast Cancer Foundation.
I would like to thank Dr Butt for coming along to our breakfast yesterday. I am sure I speak on behalf of members and everyone who attended the breakfast when I congratulate her and the team at the National Breast Cancer Foundation on the wonderful work they do in raising awareness of breast cancer and in researching the various ways to detect, prevent and treat breast cancer. I am delighted to report that, through the generosity of members and staff at the breakfast, we were able to raise over $550—a wonderful achievement.
I also thank our resident barbecue volunteers, the member for Murray-Darling, John Williams; the member for Myall Lakes, Stephen Bromhead; and the staff from my office and the office of the Hon. Lynda Voltz. Last, but not least, I thank the girls from St George Girls High School, who come every year to give us a hand and whose team effort has helped to make the morning such a success.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING
The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [3.44 p.m.]: The Minister for Local Government has it said himself: "Half the councils in New South Wales are struggling financially." But instead of helping those councils, the O'Farrell Government is making it harder for councils to deliver the services and infrastructure local communities rely on. The Government has been doing this in three ways: massive cost shifting, debt raising and revenue cutting. The O'Farrell Government has slashed the Community Building Partnership program, affecting local councils by cutting the funding to each electorate by $100,000.
The Government has cut funding to local councils to mark International Women's Day. In March this year the Government cut funding, which affected 25 councils, many of which are from regional and rural communities where resources are scarce. I raised this issue with the Minister for Women last week at the budget estimates committee. I could not believe the Minister's answer when she stated that her application criteria was first in, best dressed. Many rural and remote councils are resource scarce and I was disgusted at that answer.
The Government has also cut funding to the Domestic and Family Violence Grants program for the entire year, freezing $2.9 million. The $1.2 billion in State programs and services has been cut. These cuts will 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16003
affect council delivery of service and put cost pressure on councils. The $5.5 million in funding for graffiti prevention programs has been cut. Funding to repair non-State roads following natural disasters will be simplified following recommendations from the Schott report. No details for 2011-12 funding for asbestos disposal have been made available. Funding for that appears to have ground to a halt.
Councils are facing major infrastructure challenges. They desperately need funding to upgrade their infrastructure, particularly in rural and remote communities. But they need a new funding model. I ask the Government: Where is the intergovernmental agreement that the Government says it has been working on over the last year? Instead, the Government is offering an interest subsidy scheme that is one of the most massive cost-shifting programs that I have seen in the history of this State. The Government should be helping struggling councils to improve their finances and to look at other ways of income generation. It should be organising a tripartite agreement between local, State and Federal governments. Instead, it is pushing councils further into debt.
Councils are taking up the offer of interest subsidies because they have no other choice. Sixty-two councils have applied for subsidies. That will amount to $439 million of further debt for local councils. Half the councils are from regional and rural communities that are already struggling with increasing needs and decreasing funding. One such council is Brewarrina council. The Government has shifted costs of $550,000 to upgrade a community centre, meaning that the 1,000 ratepayers in that council area will have to bear the interest costs. That is an absolute disgrace. The Government should be looking at this council and similar councils, and helping them with income generation and with other ways of funding, rather than imposing further rate increases on ratepayers.
On behalf of the ratepayers of New South Wales, I asked at the budget estimates how councils that have been approved for access loans will service those loans. What happens if there are market variations to interest rates? What happens if the scope varies in these big projects? Port Macquarie council has now had an election but it was under administration during the last few years because of financial mismanagement. For the next 15 years the ratepayers of Port Macquarie will be paying a levy because of that financial mismanagement.
I asked the Minister a number of questions that he refused to answer. This Government has no plan B if these councils cannot service the loans or cannot pay back their loans. I will continue to pursue the Government on this matter. I will continue to pursue the answers because I want to ensure that ratepayers get value for money—particularly ratepayers in struggling councils. If the global financial crisis has taught us anything it is that treasuries and banks can be wrong. In pushing councils to take on more debt, the Government is going to create a CFC—a council financial crisis. Let us look at what happened in the United States. Lending standards were lowered at a time when risks for loans were being raised and as the ratio of debt— [Time expired.]
CARESOUTH
The Hon. PAUL GREEN [3.49 p.m.]: Tonight I speak about the CareSouth institution and the great work they do on the South Coast of New South Wales. Foster care is care provided in the private home of a substitute family who receive payment that is intended to cover the child's living expenses. The most recent statistics from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare show that as of 30 June 2011 there were 37,648 Australian children living in out-of-home care. This means these kids could be in foster care, kinship care or residential care. This is an increase of 4.9 per cent from the 35,895 children in out-of-home care on 30 June 2010.
In New South Wales alone 3,542 children were admitted to out-of-home care, with the majority of them being between the ages of one and 14. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare statistics show that 93 per cent of all children living in out-of-home care in Australia are in home-based care. Of that figure, 44.6 per cent are in foster care, 45.9 per cent are in relative or kinship care and 2.5 per cent are in a different kind of home-based care. Compared with other States and Territories, New South Wales had the highest proportion of children placed with relatives or kin, 56 per cent, whereas other States such as Queensland and Tasmania had a relatively high proportion in foster care—59.6 per cent and 52.9 per cent respectively. CareSouth is a not-for-profit organisation that provides care and support services to strengthen children, young people, adults with disabilities, families and communities. Foster care is one of their services among many. They describe themselves as being:
... passionate about helping people enhance their lives by promoting resilience and growth—thereby encouraging social inclusion.
16004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
Indeed, their mission statement is:
... supporting individuals, families and communities.
They describe their core values as promoting self-responsibility and self-determination; working in cooperation and partnership; openness, honesty and integrity; effective resourceful management of service; quality outcome-focused service delivery; listening and responding to people who use their service; commitment to continually improve their service; and client participation. CareSouth provides essential services in the community, which include accommodation services, advocacy and community development, clinical services, early intervention, foster care, mentoring and support services.
CareSouth commenced in 1992 in response to a great need to support children and families in the Shoalhaven region. From there it spread to become a provider of care and support services in southern New South Wales and it has become renowned for its innovation, flexibility and strong commitment to the region. CareSouth has offices in Wollongong, Nowra, Ulladulla, Goulburn and Queanbeyan. It is managed by a voluntary board of directors and is a not-for-profit community organisation and registered charity. CareSouth provides safe emergency crisis accommodation for those aged between 16 and 24 years in a youth hostel in Nowra, with a worker on site 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Individuals can stay for up to three months. CareSouth also provides a range of programs for children, young people and adults with a disability which are funded by Ageing, Disabilities and Home Care and Community Services.
CareSouth is part of Family Choices, which is an Ageing, Disability and Home Care-funded program. This program is managed by CareSouth and supported by its consortium partners, Anglicare in the southern regions of New South Wales and CareWest in the western regions. The Family Choices program provides voluntary alternative family-based care for children and young people with disabilities who are unable to be cared for in their own homes due to a range of circumstances. Supervised contact is another service provided by CareSouth. It provides a safe and secure environment for contact between children in out-of-home care and their birth families. The CareSouth workers usually transport children from their carers to and from the contact venue. They also supervise the visit and provide the referring agency with a written report on the interactions and behaviours observed. Overall, CareSouth provides invaluable assistance to a great number of individuals in southern New South Wales and I commend the great work they do. I note that a former colleague and councillor on Shoalhaven City Council, Peter Murphy, is the chairman of that great team. God bless them.
NATIONAL POLICE REMEMBRANCE DAY JEWISH SERVICE
The Hon. WALT SECORD [3.54 p.m.]: On Friday 28 September 2012 I attended an historic Shabbat service at Central Synagogue at Bondi in Sydney's east. It is historic because it is the first non-Christian service in New South Wales to mark National Police Remembrance Day. This remembrance honouring police officers who lost their lives in the line of duty is observed on the feast day for St Michael the Archangel, the patron saint of police. Police Remembrance Day was first held on 29 September 1989. However, this year a Jewish service was added to ceremonies by Rabbi Mendel Kastel, the Jewish chaplain for the NSW Police Force. I have had the pleasure of knowing Rabbi Kastel since the late 1980s when he first came from New York City to be trained and ordained at the Yeshiva Gedola Rabbinical College in Bondi.
Over the years, Rabbi Kastel has also served as a rabbi, cantor and community leader in a range of different locations throughout the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, New Zealand and, finally, Australia. He is now the executive director of the Jewish House, a crisis centre established by the Yeshiva in Bondi. Rabbi Kastel has seven children and a lovely wife, Tzippy. He is also a person with a deep commitment to chaplaincy and pastoral work. In Judaism, visiting the sick and caring for and consoling the ill is more than a good deed. It is a positive religious commandment or mitzvah, making it an obligation on all members of the faith. Accordingly, as Rabbi Kastel told me recently, he has been visiting the sick in hospitals since he was a teenager. It is no wonder then that he has now found the energy to extend this obligation to those in the police community who deeply deserve our respect and care.
The New South Wales Police Remembrance Day Jewish service started at 5.30 p.m. It flowed into the regular Shabbat service conducted by the Central Synagogue's spiritual leader, Rabbi Levi Wolff. A number of police officers from various commands, including the Eastern Beaches Police Commander, Superintendent Gavin Dengate, and the Parramatta Commander, Tony Trichter, attended the service. There were Jewish police officers there, as well as families showing their support and respect for our police and their sacrifice. Local political leaders included Waverley Mayor Sally Betts and Deputy Mayor Tony Kay and newly elected 18 October 2012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 16005
Randwick Councillor Pat Garcia. As an aside, Councillor Garcia is a friend and former colleague who served as Premier Kristina Keneally's director of policy throughout her premiership. I believe he will make an excellent representative of the Randwick community.
I attended as a long-time supporter of the Jewish community and in my capacity as the deputy chair of the New South Wales Parliamentary Friends of Israel. I was honoured to be asked to recite a prayer in the synagogue—not only honoured due to my long support of the New South Wales Jewish community, but equally honoured to help commemorate the bravery and selflessness of our police officers. As I have said in this Chamber before, police officers make incredible sacrifices and do so for our sake. As a society, indeed as lawmakers, we ask them to stand between civility and harm. We ask them to stand where I think most of us would admit we cannot. It is an incredible request and, incredibly, thousands of officers embrace it each day. That is heroism. Heroism is not just in the bravery of a deed but in the motive. Tragically, there are days when that bravery comes at an ultimate price.
On 6 March in the New South Wales Parliament I spoke as Labor's duty member for Tamworth on the tragic death of Senior Constable David Rixon. At Central Synagogue's police remembrance service, New South Wales Deputy Police Commissioner Nick Kaldas spoke beautifully about this same officer. Senior Constable David Rixon was the 251st police officer in New South Wales to lay down their life in the line of duty. Finally, amid the sadness, there was optimism. The Central Synagogue choir singing Waltzing Matilda in Hebrew not only was uplifting but also captured the very spirit of this event—to give thanks for the freedom and diversity of New South Wales society and to acknowledge the men and women who daily protect that very society. I congratulate Rabbi Kastel on organising the police remembrance service. Rabbi Kastel has since called me to suggest he will try to make it an annual event. I sincerely hope he does. I thank the House for its consideration.
YUM YUM … WHERE DOES IT COME FROM? BOOK LAUNCH
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [3.59 p.m.]: I wish to advise the House of a very special initiative by three extraordinary women from western New South Wales. In March this year, a regional manager for New South Wales Farmers, Emily Colless and her mother, Cathie, were contemplating the well-known problem of children from all backgrounds and locations not having a full and thorough understanding of where the food presented to them each day comes from. This issue is compounded with children growing up in urbanised areas who do not have ready access to food- and fibre-producing farms. They often develop to a mature age believing their food comes from a supermarket.
As recently as two generations ago, people living in the major metropolitan areas had either family or friends who lived in rural areas, owned a farm or worked in the rural industry in one capacity or another. During my childhood we lived on a farm and we often had cousins or friends from the city come to stay with us during the holiday seasons. It was not like a holiday at the beach; our visitors were expected to participate in whatever activities were happening on the farm at the time, whether it was drenching the sheep, marking the calves, stick-picking in the new cultivation paddock, bringing in the firewood for the fuel stove, or preparing the woolshed for shearing. Our visitors loved the experience and they were always willing to come again the following holiday. Those experiences are enjoyed by a diminishing number of urbanised children today as the number of people living and working in rural areas is declining and as the population is becoming more urbanised. We are less likely to have relatives or to know people living and working in rural areas. Today kids are finding it more difficult to learn about the source of their food.
Emily and Cathie have written a children's book, with illustrations by Deb Murray, to teach young children about where their food comes from. Yum Yum ... Where does it come from? was created following media reports of children not understanding where their food comes from. Emily, Cathie and Deb saw a need to educate the children. They believed they could play a considerable role and, further, that they had a responsibility to do so. Emily and Cathie are from Come-By-Chance, east of Walgett, while Deb lives west of Walgett. All three women are actively involved in farming businesses that produce beef, lambs, wool and a variety of grain crops, with Emily occupying a professional position with NSW Farmers, working with rural people around the Western Division to ensure that their concerns are heard by the decision-makers.
I was honoured to be invited to attend the launch of Yum Yum ... Where does it come from? at the Colless family property, Fernleigh, Come-By-Chance, on the evening of Friday 12 October. Following a welcome and introduction by Emily's father, Rob, the manager of Rabobank in Dubbo, Mr Peter Anderson, 16006 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 18 October 2012
formally launched the book in the company of 60 family, friends and members of the local community. The book is written in a rhyming style and targets late preschool and early school-age children and is attractively illustrated to reflect the rhyme. For example, the first page of the book says:
Milk in a glass and cheese between bread. Yoghurt for snacks when first out of bed. Spaghetti Bolognese, sausages and steak, all come from a cow, isn't she great?
On the opposite page is an illustration of low hills with grassy plains and a variety of beef and dairy breeds, which allows the reader to explain to young children the difference between cattle that produce milk and cheese and cattle that produce sausages and steak. This theme continues through seven pages of the book, with the eighth page highlighting the importance of fresh and natural foods for our health and wellbeing. The ninth page thanks our farmers for the healthy and wholesome foods they create the fact that the farmers care for their land and their animals, making sure that fresh food is always available to us. Finally, on page 10 there is a philosophical statement about how Australia's land must be nurtured, repaired and restored, and that the farmers of Australia do this.
I am sure that all members of this House will join with me in offering my sincerest congratulations to Emily, Cathie and Deb on this magnificent publication. I suggest that all members obtain a copy of this book to read to their children, their nephews and nieces or grandchildren as we all work towards raising awareness in the youngest generation of where our food comes from. The book is available from Emily at [email protected].
Question—That this House do now adjourn—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 4.04 p.m. until Tuesday 23 October 2012 at 2.30 p.m.