2620

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Friday 17 June 2011

______

The President (The Hon. Donald Thomas Harwin) took the chair at 9.30 a.m.

The President read the Prayers.

PROCEDURE COMMITTEE

Report

The President tabled report No. 5, entitled "Report relating to private members' business and the sitting pattern", dated June 2011.

Ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (ELECTIONS) BILL 2011

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT (PART 3A REPEAL) BILL 2011

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 later hour.

CONDUCT OF MAGISTRATE BRIAN MALONEY

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [9.36 a.m.], on behalf of the Hon. Michael Gallacher: I move:

1. That in view of the report of the Conduct Division of the Judicial Commission of New South Wales concerning complaints against Magistrate Brian Maloney, dated 6 May 2011, and tabled in this House on 2 June 2011, Magistrate Brian Maloney, a Magistrate of the Local Court of New South Wales, be called on to address the House and show cause why he should not be removed from office.

2. That this House grants leave for Magistrate Brian Maloney to attend at the Bar of the House on Thursday 23 June 2011, at 3.30 p.m., in person or by his legal representative, to show cause why he should not be removed from office on the grounds set out in the report of the Conduct Division.

3. That in attending at the Bar of the House, Magistrate Brian Maloney or his legal representative be allowed a time not exceeding 75 minutes to address the House only in relation to matters set out in the Report of the Conduct Division.

4. That this resolution be communicated by the President in writing to Magistrate Brian Maloney and seeking a written reply by 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday 21 June 2011 as to whether or not Magistrate Brian Maloney or his legal representative will appear at the time and place appointed.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [9.37 a.m.], by leave: I am sure all members would like to hear from Mr Maloney and deal with his complaint as quickly as possible. I think he deserves the right to be dealt with, with due dispatch. I am concerned that the requirements for petitioning the Governor for the removal of a magistrate or judicial officer require both Houses to resolve the matter in the same session of Parliament. This session of Parliament will come to an end on Thursday. Therefore, if this House were to resolve that in this

17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2621

parliamentary session—and I am in no way prejudging the outcome of either my debate or the outcome of the majority of members in this House—the session would have ended before the matter could be presented to the other House. We would then be required to repeat the process in the next session.

In order for a petition to find its way to the Governor both Houses in the same session must resolve in that manner. That is a difficulty with which we will be faced if we deal with Mr Maloney's case on Thursday. For that reason we should give further consideration to this matter throughout the day and there could be further discussion amongst members. I ask the House to consider not resolving this matter immediately in favour of the motion being presented. That may be the best course of action. I ask that the motion be stood down to a later hour so that members are able to further consider the matter. I am concerned that the House may have to go through the process twice. I thank the House for granting me leave to speak. I ask that the Minister consider my request and that the House stand the matter down to a later hour of the day.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.40 a.m.], by leave: Our concern is somewhat different to that expressed by Mr David Shoebridge. If Magistrate Maloney were heard on the last day of this sitting, the House would not be able to resolve the matter one way or the other unless we sat very late or dealt with it five weeks later when Parliament resumed. I note the problem identified by Mr David Shoebridge, but I believe it should be the other way around. If the House were to resolve the matter one way or the other on the Thursday, the lower House would not be able to consider the matter. The better course of action in that situation would be to postpone the matter for five weeks. The House would not debate the matter until then and both Houses would be able to consider the matter. In that situation I am concerned that Magistrate Maloney's matter would be unresolved for five weeks. However, I understand that his representatives may have requested a postponement. If this matter were stood down to a later hour, members would have an opportunity to consider the issues.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [9.41 a.m.], by leave: I acknowledge the concerns raised by Mr David Shoebridge and the Hon. Adam Searle. I understand, although I am not sure, that the date set for the matter to come before the House was to suit the convenience of Magistrate Maloney. Given the concerns that have been raised, the proper course of action would be to stand the matter down until 3.30 p.m. when Government business takes precedence. That will give members time for clarification. Even if Magistrate Maloney made his speech on the Thursday, deliberation by this House could take place on that day. However, I note the concern about consideration of the matter by the lower House. Given that this is an important matter, standing the matter down to a later hour will give the House an opportunity for proper clarification. This matter comes before the House as a matter of process. The Government and this House did not willingly bring on this matter: we are fulfilling a process under the Constitution of the State. In order to deal with this matter appropriately, the best course of action is to stand the matter down until 3.30 p.m. when Government business takes precedence.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay, by leave, and set down as an order of the day for a later hour.

TERRORISM (POLICE POWERS) ACT 2002: DISALLOWANCE OF TERRORISM (POLICE POWERS) REGULATION 2011

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing orders the question is: That Business of the House Notice of Motion No. 1 proceed as business of the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion by Mr David Shoebridge agreed to:

That the matter proceed forthwith.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [9.48 a.m.]: I move:

That, under section 41 of the Interpretation Act 1987, this House disallows in clause 8 (a) the words "and 228" and clause 8 (b) of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Regulation 2011, published on the New South Wales Legislation website on 27 May 2011 and tabled in this House on 30 May 2011.

This Government regulation remakes a regulation which in large part was first made in 2005 by the former Government. To the extent that it remakes the regulation as made in 2005, this disallowance has no operation. But on 16 December last year the former Government amended those regulations specifically to exclude official 2622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

visitors from having any capacity, oversight or role in respect of reviewing people held under preventative detention orders under the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002. The 2011 regulation gazetted by the Government is a compendium of the 2005 regulation as originally gazetted, together with those provisions that were first made in December 2010 relating to official visitors.

The motion before the House refers to only a small part of the regulations and, if passed, would ensure that official visitors could still have some oversight of persons held under preventative detention orders. The Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 provides for preventative detention orders which allow people who are aged 16 years or more to be detained for up to 14 days at a time. At the end of that time there is the potential for a further 14-day order to be made. People held under those orders are given very restricted rights in relation to their capacity to call a lawyer, or to advise their friends and families of anything beyond the fact that they are safe and being held in detention. Telling their family anything beyond the fact that they are held in detention would amount to a criminal offence for detainees held under preventative detention orders. Therefore, access by such inmates held under those orders to official visitors should be one of the few safeguards to ensure they have fair and just treatment.

Official visitors to New South Wales correction facilities are appointed by the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice. The Hon. Greg Smith is at this very moment seeking expressions of interest for official visitors. They are to facilitate the resolution of complaints and inquiries made by inmates and staff within correctional facilities throughout New South Wales. Official visitors are appointed under section 228 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act. That provides that they must be appointed by the Minister and that notice must be published in the Government Gazette. Official visitors are assigned to a specific facility and are required to visit regularly, normally on a fortnightly basis. They provide reports to the Minister responsible for corrective services as well as to the commissioner.

Official visitors operate independently of Corrective Services NSW, and provide an important avenue for inmates and staff to lodge complaints and seek redress. The reports that official visitors provide to the Minister on a half-yearly basis, and to the commissioner quarterly, provide them with invaluable insight into areas of concern within jails. Importantly, they can also report on an ad hoc basis, when they deem that necessary, under regulation 157. The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 specifies protocols for official visitors. Those include that under section 155 correctional centre officers and inmates must be notified of when an official visitor will be at the centre and available for interviews. Official visitors have discretion, under section 156, when they receive a complaint to clarify details of the complaint, including with the complainant, to record details of the complaint, and work out what action should be taken or information provided. The official visitor can also suggest possible courses of action to resolve the complaint or even refer it to another person or organisation.

Of course, some classes of prisoners are excluded from official visitors—currently, they are a category AA male inmate, a category 5 female inmate, or an extreme high risk restricted inmate. Those definitions relate to the more extreme criminal elements held within our jails. The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 provides that the commissioner may designate an inmate as an extreme high risk restricted inmate if, in the opinion of the commissioner, the inmate constitutes an extreme danger to other people or an extreme threat to good order and security, or there is a risk that the inmate may engage in or incite other persons to engage in activities that constitute a threat to the peace. Effectively, this means that people held under preventative detention orders—people, I might add, who have not been found guilty of anything, and may at the end of the day be released without charge—are being judged by the Government as already guilty of some of the most heinous crimes provided for in New South Wales legislation. Effectively, they are being put in the same category as a category AA inmate, some of the most heinous criminals held in our criminal justice system.

The Corrective Services website identifies official visitors as one of the ways in which members of the public can contribute directly to Corrective Services policies and decisions. Official visitors are uniquely independent from the department, and their role cannot be fulfilled by other existing agencies. It may well be suggested by the Government that the Ombudsman can have an oversight role. But the resources of the Ombudsman are extremely limited. Given that there are approximately 40 to 50 official visitors at any one time in New South Wales, and given their obligation to be in prisons at least on a fortnightly basis, clearly official visitors provide a far better tool for the day-to-day oversight of our prisons. They are far more able to oversight the conditions of those held under preventative detention orders than is the Ombudsman.

In fact, in the 2009-10 financial year inmates raised with official visitors 5,367 matters that were recorded as complaints. Those matters included medical issues, property, food, offender services and programs 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2623

as well as other matters. This compares with a total of only 233 written complaints received by the Minister and commissioner. Some 249 letters were sent to the Ombudsman, and some 989 complaints were made on the Corrective Services support line. From those figures it can be seen that far and away the persons with the greatest role of ensuring that inmates are dealt with respectfully and humanely are official visitors. They far and away deal with the great majority of complaints and the great majority of instances where inmates have been able to seek redress for poor treatment.

Reports in 2008 indicated significant concerns from official visitors that the Government was seeking to erode the powers of that role. It seems, unfortunately, that this is set to continue under the current Coalition Government, as it continues to press with these regulations excluding the operation of official visitors from those held under preventative detention orders. We are talking here about a limited class of inmates: those held under preventative detention orders. Under section 26D of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 preventative detention orders can be made in only two instances. First, a preventative detention order can be made against a person if a court determines there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person will engage in a terrorist act, possesses a thing that is connected with the preparation for or the engagement of a person in a terrorist act, or has done an act in preparation for or planning a terrorist act, and making the order would substantially assist in preventing a terrorist act, and detaining the person for the period for which the person is to be detained under the order is reasonably necessary for the purpose of substantially assisting in preventing a terrorist act occurring.

So the order does not even have to be in relation to a principal in a terrorist act; it can be in relation to someone who simply has some information, or someone who might be being used as a tool, or someone who might be being duped, or someone who might be an unwilling agent. The scope for a preventative detention order is quite broad. An order can be made only in a very narrow circumstance, if you like, in the shadow of a potential terrorism event. That shows that there will be an enormous amount of political pressure at the time on those held under a preventative detention order, or for the authorities to seek to get information from someone, because the order is being made only where there are reasonable grounds to suspect a terrorism event may occur in due course. Inmates held under a preventative detention order are likely to be held in circumstances where there will be extreme pressure on the prosecution authorities, the police, to get some information out of the detainees and to force them to divulge further material. It is likely to be not only a highly emotionally charged but a highly politically charged incident which places inmates at real peril and at real risk of having their rights constrained in the interrogation process.

The only other circumstance in which a preventative detention order can be made is to preserve evidence of a terrorist act. When a terrorist act has occurred within 28 days and it is necessary to detain the person to preserve evidence, a preventative detention order can also be made. So it is either in the shadow of a potential terrorism event or immediately following a terrorism event that someone will be held under a preventative detention order. In those circumstances, given that there are international instances of persons held subject to terrorism laws, and during the so-called war on terror, whose human rights have been grossly breached—people have been subjected to what would clearly amount to torture in other jurisdictions in order to force information from them in relation to a potential or recent terrorism event—and given how politically charged the incident is going to be at the time a preventative detention order is made, surely access to official visitors is most important. Official visitors should be able to see what is going on, receive a complaint from an inmate in detention, and ensure that that person is treated with respect and humanity in accordance with accepted civilised standards in New South Wales. Surely that is one of the most important situations in which an official visitor should have access to an inmate.

I urge the House to seriously consider supporting this motion to disallow only these small parts of the regulation. The motion does not seek to disallow other parts of the regulation that, for example, prevent someone held in preventative detention from engaging in correspondence with family and friends more broadly. It does not seek to allow someone held under preventative detention to have unlimited access to telephones, letters, communications, emails or computers. It is simply saying that if someone is held under a preventative detention order that person ought to have the capacity to access the official visitor, and the official visitor ought to have the capacity to proactively access such persons to ensure that their human rights have been respected and they are not being subject to oppressive questioning and interrogation. They should be able to ensure that even in those highly politically charged moments we do all we can as a society to ensure that the human rights and basic human dignity of all our citizens are being respected and protected. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. DAVID CLARKE (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.02 a.m.]: We oppose this motion, which seeks to disallow specified parts of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Regulation 2011 that deal with official 2624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

visitors under section 228 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and in the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008. Under section 26ZD of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 the only people a person who is the subject of a preventative detention order can contact, and the purposes for which they can contact them, are specifically listed in division 5 of part 2A of the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act—for example, a family member, employer, the Ombudsman, or a lawyer. As the official visitor is not, and never has been, listed in that division, contact with them is inconsistent with a preventative detention order. Similar provisions exist in preventative detention legislation across Australia.

The relevant provisions in the Terrorism (Police Powers) Regulation 2005 have been in place since December 2010, and merely confirm the policy regarding access that has existed since the preventative detention powers were introduced in 2005, in section 26ZD of the Act. I also note that the legislation has been closely monitored by the Ombudsman since its introduction, and this issue has not previously been raised by the Ombudsman. If it is raised in a future report by the Ombudsman, the Attorney General is bound to carefully consider any recommendations made by the Ombudsman in this regard.

When it comes to the security of our nation, our State and the people of our State, we find The Greens are always on the opposing side. They always have been and they always will be. When laws relating to the security of our nation and New South Wales are introduced—whether those laws come from Labor governments or Coalition governments—we find The Greens always on the other side. They are always there to weaken them and dumb them down, and to sabotage the security of Australia, New South Wales and our people. That is what The Greens have always done; it is in their make-up. They just cannot help it. Just as a moth automatically goes towards the light, so The Greens automatically go to the very worst of actions. They are there to dismantle and eradicate the security that brings freedom and democracy to the people of Australia. They are there to sabotage security, to sabotage laws against terrorism, and to sabotage our relations and security arrangements with other nations in the free world. They have always done that.

In the past few years under the previous Labor Government and former Attorney General John Hatzistergos—a very good and decent man and a patriotic Australian—every time these issues were brought to Parliament, Labor took the lead and the Coalition supported them. Labor and the Coalition were as one for the security of the people of New South Wales. The Greens were always on the other side, pouring cold water on the proposals. The truth is that the spirit of Lee Rhiannon lives within The Greens throughout Australia. The spirit of Lee Rhiannon permeates to the very heart and soul of The Greens, wherever one finds them in this country. We believe in freedom in Australia, we believe in democracy, we believe in security and we believe the Labor Opposition does too, so we will speak up for Australia and The Greens will speak against Australia. We will oppose their motion today.

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [10.06 a.m.]: I lead for the Opposition in this debate. We do not support this disallowance motion. We are concerned not to take any step that may in any way impair the integrity of the existing regulation, certainly without a great deal more consideration of its potential impacts and effects. One of the core concerns, of course, is the issue of the security clearance of the official visitors who have access to those in preventative detention. Without giving this matter a great deal more thought we are not able to support disallowance.

Dr JOHN KAYE [10.07 a.m.]: I make a somewhat calm submission on this disallowance motion in support of my colleague Mr David Shoebridge. It has been a feature of the security debate that whenever anybody talks about the rights of people who are accused or even suspected of breaches of security or acts of terrorism those people automatically are somehow guilty of some form of treachery or some attempt to undermine democracy. The very essence of democracy is a respect for civil rights. The very essence of democracy is securing civil rights for all. Once somebody has been found guilty of a crime there are punishments dictated by the law. But the people we are talking about today that are being denied a basic right— the right to have a visitor—have not been convicted. In some cases, they have not even been before a court. They are suspected of being involved in an act of terrorism or, even more nebulously, they are suspected of being involved in a potential future—

Mr David Shoebridge: Or just having information.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Or just holding information about a potential future act of terrorism. There is a basic principle involved, which is the right of people to defend themselves before a court of law. There is another principle: respecting the rights of all people regardless of their guilt. The basic underlying tenet of 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2625

democracy is weakened when we take away that fundamental civil right. This disallowance motion seeks not to undermine in any way the capacity to detect a future act of terrorism or to apprehend those people who may have been involved in an act of terrorism.

The Parliamentary Secretary is entirely wrong in his view of the motivation for The Greens moving this disallowance motion. Indeed, he is entirely wrong about our motivation for respecting the civil rights of people who are suspected of having been, or who are about to be, involved in acts of terrorism. What is at stake here is a right of an individual who has been captured under the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 and who is being held in preventative detention to be visited by somebody who, as Mr Shoebridge pointed out, was appointed by the Attorney General as an official visitor to prisons. The official visitor is not appointed by The Greens, as we would assume from the presentation of the Parliamentary Secretary. The official visitor is appointed by the Attorney General, a close colleague of the Parliamentary Secretary. The official visitor has the right to go into a prison and visit an individual being held under a preventative detention order to ascertain whether there are any complaints that are worthy of pursuit in terms of the treatment of that individual.

In no way does that official visitor threaten the security of the Commonwealth or the State. In no way does that official visitor threaten the capacity to thwart a future act of terrorism or identify and charge people who have been involved in an act of terrorism. In no way does the official visitor role undermine the security of the State or the capacity of the police to pursue their important tasks. The role of the official visitor in a climate of elevated tensions regarding terrorism—and there are reasons why those tensions are elevated—is to protect the rights of those who may or may not be involved in acts of terrorism. Such people are merely suspected of being involved in an act of terrorism. This motion for disallowance simply seeks to ensure that fundamental human and civil rights are maintained. We should not allow those rights to be weakened for reasons of emotion, such as evidenced in the Parliamentary Secretary's response. It was hardly what we would call a rational response. In an environment that is becoming increasingly irrational—

The Hon. Marie Ficarra: Rubbish.

Dr JOHN KAYE: You cannot call it rational. The Greens persistently and proudly raise the issue of human rights. So to shout and accuse us of somehow being involved in undermining the security of the state traverses the border between rationality and irrationality. But when people are accused or suspected of being involved in, or of possessing information about, terrorism and are held in preventative detention, they are in an environment where their human rights may be abused. That is because the international environment is such that many of our allies are engaging in activities against those whom The Greens will always perceive to be abhorrent. The fundamental issue at stake is how we treat people. This disallowance motion merely seeks to maintain access to visitors as a safety check for those people who are abused by overzealous police or prison officers. It is a fundamental civil rights check and balance. I reiterate that official visitors are not appointed by The Greens; they are appointed by none other than the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice, so they are not likely to be agents of—

The Hon. Rick Colless: The Greens don't run the State.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Exactly. The Hon. Rick Colless is quite right. I am glad to see him supporting my argument—or at least reinforcing my argument. The Deputy Government Whip has conveniently reinforced my argument here that the official visitors are not appointed by The Greens; they are only appointed by the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice.

The Hon. Rick Colless: Point of order: I ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment. He has verballed me. That is not what I said, and I ask him to withdraw.

Dr JOHN KAYE: To the point of order: I am not sure which comment the Hon. Rick Colless is referring to.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I suspect he took offence at the comment, "I am glad to see him supporting my argument."

The Hon. Rick Colless: Mr President, I take offence at Dr John Kaye's statement that I reinforce his argument. I ask him to withdraw that part of his statement. 2626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

Dr JOHN KAYE: To the point of order: If I implied that the Hon. Rick Colless in any way supports my view, I withdraw that comment. However, his interjection that The Greens do not run the State indeed goes to our very argument. My argument is that official visitors are appointed by the Attorney General, so this is not some kind of plot by The Greens.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Has Dr John Kaye withdrawn the comment?

Dr JOHN KAYE: Yes, I withdraw out of respect for the Deputy Government Whip. There is no implication that he in any way supports what I am saying. I respect his right to take a contrary position—and I am sure that he does. If I have caused offence, I apologise. As I said, official visitors are appointed by the Attorney General, and it is very unlikely that he would appoint somebody who would wilfully and knowingly undermine the work of the police. Therefore, there is absolutely no risk to State or national security by restoring the right of official visitors to visit people held under preventative detention orders. I support the motion before the House.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE [10.17 a.m.], in reply: The vitriol and the irrational level of debate from the Parliamentary Secretary—

The Hon. Robert Borsak: There's only one irrational person in this House, and that's you.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: The interjection from Mr Borsak was extremely insulting to Mr Shoebridge, to me and to all other members of The Greens in this Chamber.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: To the point of order: The interjection was in response to the statement by Mr David Shoebridge, who said the debate was irrational.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Does the Hon. Robert Borsak wish to speak to the point of order?

The Hon. Robert Borsak: I will not speak to the point of order, Mr President; I just withdraw my comment.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I am addressing the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary. I have no doubt that he can, if he wishes, conduct himself in a rational manner and put a rational argument before the House. But I contend that the argument put by the Parliamentary Secretary was emotive, irrational and not to the point. The Parliamentary Secretary's argument misunderstands why we have a criminal justice system. We have a criminal justice system to provide an appropriate balance between security and the essential liberties that we should have as citizens of a democracy. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said, "Those who are prepared to surrender liberty for security deserve neither and lose both."

We should not allow ourselves to carry on down this path of ignoring the rights of those who are held under suspicion—only suspicion—of being involved in, or having information in relation to, either a potential or a recent terrorist event. If we allow the rights of those citizens to be eroded by not having the checks and balances in place to ensure that they have humane and safe detention, then those who support these kinds of measures are blind to the interests of an individual's liberty and human rights. They are trading liberty for security. If we allow that to go untempered, at the end of a line of developments such as this we will end up with a society that has given such untrammelled power to security forces that we are in peril of losing our liberty and removing the ordinary security that most citizens have in being able to access laws that protect their rights and uphold their individual liberties.

Ultimately, the real test of our security is that an individual must be able to stand up to an oppressive state and say, "Respect my rights as a citizen, respect my rights as an individual and treat me with humanity and dignity." One of the greats checks and balances in our correctional systems is the official visitor, who allows people to access those rights and who gives them the degree of personal security attaching to their humanity and dignity being respected, even if they are undergoing intensive and potentially highly charged interrogation, either in the shadow of a potential terrorism event or immediately following it.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Ombudsman did not support a specific review to allow official visitors to cover preventative detainees, and that is true. The Ombudsman seems satisfied with the modest role that the Ombudsman has. The figures I cited earlier of the very modest role of the Ombudsman compared with official visitors show that far and away the better outcome would be for official visitors to have 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2627

that role. I must say it is rare to find that Queensland is substantially more civilly advanced in criminal justice and corrective service systems than New South Wales, but Queensland allows official visitors to have access to people held under preventative detention orders.

So when the Parliamentary Secretary blithely stated that no other jurisdiction has that role, he conveniently omitted Queensland, which allows official visitors to have access to people who are held under preventative detention orders. And there has not been a consequential collapse of civil society in Queensland. Queensland is not known as the training camp for Al Qaeda in Australia. In fact, Queensland seems to be operating quite safely, quite effectively, and it allows for that check and balance to be maintained. Preventative detention orders at both a State and a Federal level have almost never been used, but one of the few cases is the detention of Dr Haneef under Commonwealth preventative detention orders. That was an absolute debacle. Dr Haneef had little, if any, access to the outside world. He was basically whisked away from the public domain and held under terrorism preventative detention orders.

At the end of the day it was apparent that the whole of the treatment of Dr Haneef—from the time of issuing the order seeking his preventative detention to throughout his detention and afterwards—was unlawful. It was unlawful from start to finish. Surely people such as Dr Haneef deserve the right to have their liberties protected by having access to a person who is vested with important safeguards such as an official visitor. People like Dr Haneef deserve that. I can only say that I am sure if the former Attorney General could hear his name being taken up so beautifully by the Parliamentary Secretary he would be most concerned—he may, even as I speak, be reviewing his support for these laws, having become aware of the passionate far Right conservative attack by the Parliamentary Secretary.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Oh, spare us. Stalin is back in the House.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I note the interjection.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Thank you. I appreciate that. It is like reading Pravda.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Exactly. The regulations I seek to disallow are the types of regulations that are found in police states. They are regulations that are more akin to an Eastern European former Communist regime that had no regard for its citizens and basic civil rights.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Which your former leader supported.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Those regimes had no regard for their citizens.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Remember, she left the Community Party. Don't tell us about Stalinists. Just tell us about the Socialist Party in Australian history.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: It is most remarkable to watch the flapping and to hear the clucking of someone like the Government Whip, who would support the types of laws that go completely against any sense of libertarianism.

The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. I remind the member, if he wants to recollect history, that Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the American Civil War.

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

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Those who respect libertarian tradition and who respect the rights of the citizen to stand against an oppressive state and those who oppose experimentation with an oppressive state, such as we have seen in other regimes, would support disallowance of the regulation. They would say, "We don't support this overreach by the State and the police without having that important check and balance provided by a citizen having access to an official visitor and without continuation of the important statutory oversight role of official visitors in relation to particularly vulnerable detainees who are being held under preventative detention orders." I commend the motion to the House.

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

Motion negatived. 2628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Charlie Lynn agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to permit a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 79 outside the Order of Precedence relating to Sergeant Brett Wood be called on forthwith.

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Charlie Lynn agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 79 outside the Order of Precedence relating to Sergeant Brett Wood be called on forthwith.

TRIBUTE TO SERGEANT BRETT WOOD, MG

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.27 a.m.]: I move:

1. That this House notes:

(a) the tragic death on Monday 23 May 2011 at approximately 11.00 pm AEST, of Sergeant Brett Wood, 32, from Victoria,

(b) that Sergeant Wood was killed when an improvised explosive device detonated during clearance operations in southern Afghanistan and that two commandos were also wounded during the incident,

(c) that Sergeant Wood was the 24th Australian to die in action in Afghanistan since 2001,

(d) that Sergeant Wood was a highly-decorated soldier and was awarded the Medal for Gallantry in 2006 after leading a commando team in extremely hazardous circumstances in the Chora Valley,

(e) that Sergeant Wood was on his third deployment in Afghanistan and had also served in Papua New Guinea, East Timor and Iraq,

(f) that the Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, said of Sergeant Wood: "Brett's loss will be deeply felt across Australia's special forces community as he was an inspirational leader and a popular and highly respected member of his unit", and

(g) that Sergeant Wood is survived by his wife.

2. That this House extends its condolences and pays tribute to Sergeant Wood and his family.

There is a note appended to messages of condolences circulated among veterans that reads simply, "And the world's a little poorer, for a soldier died today". Today I pay tribute to one of our finest warriors, Sergeant Brett Wood, who paid the supreme sacrifice in the war against terror in Afghanistan, and offer our sincere condolences to his wife, Elvi, his parents, Alison and David, and his brothers and sisters. Sergeant Brett Wood was born in Ferntree Gully, Victoria, in 1978. He joined the Army in 1996, when he was 18 years of age. After his recruit training he was posted to the 6th Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment. He was later selected for training as a commando and successfully completed the Army's toughest course to enter the 4th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment. The unit was later re-formed into the elite 2nd Commando Regiment at Holsworthy in 1998.

Sergeant Wood's first operational deployment was to Bougainville in 2000. The following year he deployed to East Timor on Operation Tanager and in 2003 to Iraq on Operation Falconer. In 2006 Sergeant Wood deployed to Afghanistan as part of Operation Slipper. He was awarded the Medal for Gallantry for leadership in action as a team commander during this tour. Later he received a Special Operations Commander—Australia and Commendation for Service with the Tactical Assault Group—East in 2007, and in 2009 he returned to Afghanistan as a section commander.

Sergeant Wood deployed to Afghanistan, for the third time, in March this year. He was serving with the Special Operations Task Group when he was tragically killed in action as a result of the explosion of an improvised explosive device on Monday 23 May 2011. He was just 32 years of age. It is difficult for me to articulate words to properly describe the heroism of Sergeant Brett Wood, the pride we feel for him as a son, a 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2629

brother, a husband and a warrior in the finest traditions of our Anzac heritage, or the debt we owe him as a nation. I represented Premier Barry O'Farrell at the 2nd Commando Regiment memorial service for Sergeant Wood at Holsworthy in May 2011. I share with members the eulogy given by his company commander:

We gather today as brothers in arms to commemorate the extraordinary life of Sergeant Brett Wood, Medal for Gallantry, after his life tragically drew to a close in Afghanistan on 23 May 2011.

Charlie Commando Company Group was conducting an operation in Kashmesh Khan, Kajaki, Helmand Province. The purpose of their mission was to disrupt the insurgents ability to finance, equip and support operations and reduce their influence over the population. They had been in contact with the enemy for over 48 hours and during this period, Sergeant Brett Wood was personally involved in three incidents.

In the final instance, Sergeant Brett Wood, seeing the insurgents withdrawing, gathered a team and led them to a compound seeking to isolate it. On moving to the right side of the compound, he stepped on a hidden pressure plate improvised explosive device.

If an organisation is defined by the people in it and their actions, then it is with mixed pride and sorrow that I say that Sergeant Brett Wood lived his life by a set of values that all members of the 2nd Commando Regiment should strive to follow.

Sergeant Wood was an honourable soldier. His professionalism was infectious and he represented the 2nd Commando Regiment through numerous training and operational deployments. His extensive operational service is in many ways a reflection of Australia's international security experience over the past decade. He was took part in Operations Belisi, Tanager, Falconer and three tours of Afghanistan on Operation Slipper with the Special Operations Task Group. He has participated in numerous counter-terrorist operations including Operations Deluge and Testament. He was a highly decorated soldier who at every stage, without fail, responded when the nation called. Sergeant Wood was an adaptive soldier. He was a no-frills soldier. When given a job to do, he got on with it with whatever manpower and resources he had available to him. He was meticulous with his planning, ruthless in his execution and pragmatic when reviewing his own performance.

Sergeant Wood was a soldier who relentlessly pursued excellence. He was a master of the commando skill set, had strong leadership and uncompromising standards. In 2009, he was awarded a Special Operations Command Australia Commendation for his service as an Emergency Action Commander in the Tactical Assault Group (East) and his development of the Protective Security Detachment capability. He was responsible for its operational validation and subsequently continued to adjust the course to incorporate the lessons learnt from the deployments. Sergeant Wood was a soldier with offensive spirit. He demonstrated a bias for action, the mental fortitude and physical toughness to persevere and overcome. In November 2006 Brett was the first Commando to be awarded the Medal for Gallantry. It was presented by the Governor General, His Excellency Major-General Michael Jeffrey AC MC, for his actions as a Team Commander on Special Operations Task Group rotation three. The synopsis of his citation reads:

"Corporal Wood's act of gallantry in action on the 17th of July 2006, as a Commando Team Commander during Operation PERTH, was testament to his courage, leadership and sense of duty to his team and the platoon. In extremely hazardous circumstances during clearance operations of the Chora Valley, Corporal Wood, despite being wounded, led numerous assaults to clear a number of Anti Coalition Militia held compounds in order to regain his Platoon's initiative during the battle."

His company commander added one more attribute to being a commando that Sergeant Wood personified: humility. He said:

Despite these accolades, he was a quiet achiever. There was an occasion in 2004-2005 when Sergeant Wood through happenstance was at the scene of an accident involving a vehicle and a cyclist. The stunned onlookers congregating did not take any coherent action. Brett made his way through the onlookers and rendered first aid to the cyclist who, sadly, later passed away. His actions were without fanfare, but not without notice. A follow-up was made by the New South Wales Ambulance Service, praising the anonymous commando for his compassion, dignity and humility.

Sergeant Wood sought a challenge and earned the Commando Beret, entering a brotherhood and family—a family that includes his wife Elvi, mother Alison, father David, sisters and brothers who have all endured the trials and tribulations of our work. To Brett's family, I say unequivocally that you have our enduring loyalty and support. We honour his sacrifice through our own determination and resolve to meet any challenge head on. Brett will always be part of the commando family. We will always remember him. Sergeant Brett Wood, Medal for Gallantry, rest in peace, your duty is done.

A fellow comrade then read a final personal letter to Sergeant Wood on behalf of his soldiers in Tango Platoon:

Woodrow,

It's always a privilege to be able to say a few words on behalf of our Platoon, I just wish more than anything it was not for this reason.

I remember we spoke once about the tragedy of losing one of our blokes—I never considered for a second that we would ever be farewelling you.

Mate, you would have been so proud of our boys on Monday. After you got hit those that could raced to help you and the others. They didn't think about themselves—they just pushed forward, under fire, through the smoke, the dust and confusion, without a moment's hesitation. Everyone did their jobs to the very best of their ability—the medics did everything they could to save you; 2630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

the engineers cleared a path out of there; and the operators laid down a thunderous weight of suppressing fire so we could get the Aero Medical Evacuation birds in. Their only thought was to get you and the others out of there as quick and as safe as possible. They were focussed, they were determined, and they were resolute in the face of the enemy, exactly the way you showed them. They were a credit to you, and I have never been so proud.

Since we brought you back we have stood by your side 24 hours a day, watching over you the way you watched over us. It is testament to the respect you earned from everyone you met and there have been volunteers to stand vigil from across the task force as well as our United States partners. It also speaks volumes about the man you were that there are so many tributes flooding in—you were a man of few words Woodrow, but when you opened your mouth to speak, everybody listened.

You were a soldier's soldier—you served Australia for over 15 years, and always with distinction. As one of the boys said, you were and are the standard to be reached. It's some comfort to us that you died doing exactly what you were born to do—seeking out and closing with the enemy. Only afterwards did I realise that over 48 hours we conducted four fighting patrols and you were on three of them. Your boys will always remember you leading from the front, showing them the way, proving time and again that there was never a more worthy recipient of a Medal for Gallantry.

Woodrow, on behalf of Tango Platoon, and all who served with you, we want you to know that we are devastated to lose you. You were the best of us, and we will never be the same. But as it always did your example inspires us to get back up and get back in the fight, just as you would have done. It has been our greatest honour and privilege to have served alongside a true and gallant warrior such as you. We will miss you, we will never forget you, we will be worthy of you and we will honour your name by finishing this trip the way you would want us to do—humble, professional and to the very best of our ability.

Now we send you home to Elvi—Rest in Peace mate, your duty is done.

Sergeant Wood's wife, Elvi, so young and so beautiful, then knelt before the regimental memorial, placed a flower and gently reached out to brush the inscription of his name. She touched the heart of every warrior in the regiment as she paused before it. Her words at Brett's funeral in St Andrews Cathedral two days later touched the heart of the nation. She said:

I have not only lost my husband, I have lost my best friend. The past six years with him were the happiest of my life and it was the biggest honour ever to become his wife and to be part of his family.

You have done your country proud Brett and you will always be remembered.

Brett you were my rock. I love you with all my heart. I miss you. My heart aches for you.

Elvi Wood, and the wives of our commandos, are our silent soldiers. Their service and sacrifice has been immortalised in a poem by Trina Parry-Plater that I would like to share with members:

I am a silent soldier, I am a Commando's wife, I wear no uniform, I wear no rank, Yet I live a Commando's life.

I may not do a 'selection test' but my challenges are real, my strength is tested time and again, along with character, resilience and zeal.

I may not carry an 'army' pack, but it's a pack of a different name, it may hold children, groceries and rigours of life. —I carry it and block out the pain.

I may not be part of a Company, and I must often survive alone, but I hold my dear friends close at heart, and their support is my backbone.

I may not have a Mess to dine in, or rations to swap with a mate, the demands that are put upon me mean some dinners are 'zapped' on a plate.

I may not run an Exercise, or instruct on the 'COB', but I multi-task with the best of them —I administer a family.

I may not hold a position, that can be reduced to an acronym, but I have many hats to wear more so, in the absence of 'him'.

17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2631

I may never have a 'Chain of Command', to issue a 'call-out' in the mid of night, but alone I will waken many times, to comfort children or dry tears from a fright.

I may not have a career mapped out, with guidance from peers above, my career is bent, broken and compromised, sacrifices I make for my love.

I may never receive a payment, for the quiet soldiering that I do, my work often goes unnoticed, and is appreciated by just a few.

I may never fight an enemy, or return injured or scarred from war, but I mend 'his' heart, I ease his mind, and the wounds I dress are raw.

I may never carry a weapon, but I will always protect my own, I won't drop my shield or lose my ground, I defend my love, my family and my home.

I may never have the comradeship, to spin 'warries' of the past, but the bonds with friends—shared fears and tears, forge friendships that will last.

I may never receive a medal, or march on ANZAC Day, but I stand tall in the quiet knowledge, that I too have a role to play.

I am a silent soldier, I am a Commando's wife, No uniform nor rank - just pride in knowing, I live a Commando's life.

Elvi Wood has now lost her Commando, her best mate, her husband, her rock. Although she has more than 700 guardians from the 2nd Commando Regiment to protect her and the sympathy of a grateful nation to comfort her, nothing will help ease the silent pain of her grief for many years. Sergeant Brett Wood has paid the supreme sacrifice in the war against terror. He has joined the immortals. The death of the brave is never in vain. Sergeant Brett Wood's death in the war against terror reminds us of our solemn duty to ensure that the deeds and sacrifices of our service men and women—past, present and future—are never forgotten. We have to ensure that their memories are enshrined in our national psyche through our education systems, our multimedia, and our parliaments, because they have died for the freedoms and values we treasure so much as a proud Australian nation. Rest in peace, Sergeant Brett Wood, we will never forget the sacrifice you made in the war against terror.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [10.42 a.m.]: I thank the Hon. Charlie Lynn for moving this motion. In particular, I thank him for his wonderful speech. It was fantastic. On behalf of the Opposition I pay our respects to Sergeant Brett Wood. I pay condolences to the family of Sergeant Brett Wood: his wife, Mrs Elvi Wood, and his parents—his mother, Alison, and his father, David. There is little doubt that Sergeant Wood was among our most outstanding soldiers. He was a soldier's soldier, as well as a loving son and partner. Our soldiers are asked to do extraordinary tasks in exceptional circumstances. Sergeant Wood did this in the finest traditions of the Australian Army and was one of our finest soldiers. This was evidenced by his comrades, who turned out in force to farewell their fallen comrade and whose tributes flooded in, particularly those from his platoon, Tango Platoon.

Sergeant Wood was serving with the Special Operations Task Group in Afghanistan when he was tragically killed in action as a result of the explosion of an improvised explosive device on Monday 23 May 2011. He was with the Sydney-based 2nd Commando Regiment. He was born in Ferntree Gully in Victoria in 1978 and joined the Army in 1996. After recruit training he joined the 6th RAR and undertook successful commando selection and training and then joined the 4th RAR in November 1998. Sergeant Wood had significant operational experience. His first deployment was to Bougainville in 2000. In 2001 he deployed to East Timor in Operation Tanager and in 2003 he deployed to Iraq on Operation Falconer. In 2006 Sergeant 2632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

Wood was deployed to Afghanistan as part of Operation Slipper. He was awarded the Medal for Gallantry for leadership in action as a team commander during this tour, and I will refer to that later, as did the Hon. Charlie Lynn.

In 2007 Sergeant Wood received a Special Operations Commander—Australia, Commendation for Service with the Tactical Assault Group—East. In 2009 he returned to Afghanistan as a section commander. Sergeant Wood was on his third deployment at the time of his death. It is worth noting that Sergeant Wood has been awarded the Medal for Gallantry, the Australian Active Service Medal with clasps: East Timor, International Coalition against Terrorism and Iraq 2003; the Afghanistan Campaign Medal; the Iraq Campaign Medal; the Australian Service Medal with clasps: Bougainville, Counter Terrorism and Special Recovery Clasp; the Defence Long Service Medal; the Australian Defence medal; the United Nations East Timor Medal; the NATO ISF Medal; and the Special Operations Command Australia Commendation and Unit Citation for Gallantry.

Sergeant Wood was also awarded the Infantry Combat Badge. Without doubt he was one of our most awarded soldiers. During his service in the Australian Army Sergeant Wood had been deployed on Operation BEL ISI in Bougainville in March 2000, Operation Tanager in East Timor in 2001, Operation Falconer in Iraq in 2003 and Operation Slipper in Afghanistan in 2006, 2009 and 2011. As the Hon. Charlie Lynn said, Sergeant Wood was one of the first to receive the Medal for Gallantry. The citation for his Medal for Gallantry states:

For gallantry and leadership in action as a Commando Team Commander, of the Special Operations Task Group—Task Force 637, whilst deployed on Operation SLIPPER Rotation Three Afghanistan, May—September 2006 ...

On the 17th of July 2006 during Operation PERTH, the Commando Platoon was tasked to conduct the clearance of an Anti Coalition Militia sanctuary in the Chora Valley, Oruzgan Province, Afghanistan.

The Platoon was partnered in support of an Infantry Company of the United States Army 10th Mountain Division.

At approximately 1pm, the Infantry Company came under heavy rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire on multiple flanks, resulting in six wounded and one soldier killed in action, effectively halting their advance.

Through thick vegetation, facing large numbers of dispersed Anti Coalition Militia and under heavy fire, the Commando Platoon commenced manoeuvring to provide assistance to the element which was pinned down.

During this move, the Commando Platoon received a volley of four rockets which impacted in the centre of the platoon's position, resulting in six Australian soldiers wounded in action, a loss to the platoon by one third of its force.

Unknown to the Commander at the time, Corporal Wood had also been wounded in the foot by fragmentation from the rocket-propelled grenade barrage.

In order to regain the initiative, Corporal Wood's team was tasked by the Commando Platoon Commander to assault forward and clear a group of compounds from which they were receiving Anti Coalition Militia fire.

Under these daunting conditions, Corporal Wood commenced this task without hesitation, completing a rapid and aggressive clearance of numerous threat compounds.

Once achieved, both the United States and Australian elements were free to continue with the battle, providing the necessary time to effect the back loading of the wounded by helicopter to the Forward Operating Base.

Throughout the afternoon, numerous and relentless probing attacks by a determined opponent followed.

Corporal Wood displayed extraordinary leadership and courage, inspiring his team and the remainder of the Commando Platoon to repel the continued attacks.

He then successfully led a marksmanship team to infiltrate the Anti Coalition Militia-held territory, killing seven Anti Coalition Militia.

Only after the engagement had been completed and the threat to the platoon subsided did Corporal Wood inform his Commander of the fragmentation wound that he had sustained during the original contact earlier that day.

Corporal Wood was then evacuated to the Casualty Collection Point where he was provided with medical treatment and later extracted.

Corporal Wood's actions on the 17th of July 2006 as a Commando team commander during Operation Perth were testament to his leadership, fortitude, and sense of duty to his team in the platoon.

His determination to continue to lead his team during the battle in extremely hazardous circumstances despite being wounded ensured that the Commando Platoon regained the initiative and contributed significantly to a decisive victory.

His gallantry and leadership in the face of the enemy has been at the highest order and in keeping with the finest traditions of Special Operations Command Australia, the Australian Army and the Australian Defence Force.

Sergeant Wood certainly brings to mind the last line of Alfred Lloyd Tennyson's Ulysses:

To strive, to see, to find, and not to yield.

17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2633

I think that describes the soldier that Sergeant Wood was. I think Sergeant Wood would appreciate that I also mention during that same bomb clearance operation that cost his life, two other soldiers were seriously wounded, one of whom received life-threatening wounds. I think Sergeant Wood would have thought that we should also think of the two soldiers who received those serious injuries and of the three other soldiers who were also injured on the same day. It would be remiss of me if I did not mention that. Our thoughts go also to those soldiers and their families.

Australia is the tenth largest contributor in Afghanistan. We are the largest non-North Atlantic Treaty Organisation contributor, but we are the third largest Special Forces contributor after the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Australian soldiers are held in very high regard by the Government of Afghanistan and by our international Security Assistance Force partners, the United States and the United Kingdom, for the effectiveness of our Special Forces operation. Sergeant Wood was perhaps paramount amongst those forces. Sergeant Wood was fundamental to bringing a sense of security to the local area in which he operated. He undertook dangerous tasks on behalf of the Australian people. His family should know that we are deeply saddened by his loss and proud of his achievements.

The Hon. ROBERT BROWN [10.51 a.m.]: On behalf of the Shooters and Fishers Party I am grateful to the Hon. Charlie Lynn for moving this motion, which we support wholeheartedly. On a number of occasions in this House, even as recently as today, I have heard the war on terror referred to as a "so-called" war on terror. Most Australians understand that there is a war on terror. Australia is perhaps blessed in that even though we have been touched by terror, and cut deeply, on our own soils we have had very little terrorism activity. People such as Sergeant Wood and other soldiers fight daily to protect Australians and citizens of the world from one of the most insidious, vicious, ongoing war this world has ever seen. We need those soldiers to continue to do their best to protect us. Vale Sergeant Wood. Vale a gallant warrior.

Dr JOHN KAYE [10.52 a.m.]: On behalf of The Greens I thank the Hon. Charlie Lynn for moving this motion and for making a very moving and important speech that I know will bring comfort to the wife and family of Sergeant Wood and to other soldiers who are in the field. I echo the sentiments and sympathy that he expressed. I also thank the Hon. Lynda Voltz for her presentation, spoken as somebody who spent time in the Armed Forces. She understands far more than I could the impacts of Sergeant Wood's death not only on his family but also on his comrades. It is absolutely clear from the presentation and information in the media that regardless of one's view of the sensibility of the mission itself, Sergeant Wood was an extraordinary man who undertook extraordinary work and showed extraordinary courage in doing so. The Greens join with other members in extending our sympathy to the wife of Sergeant Wood, his parents, friends and comrades in the Armed Forces. We support the motion.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [10.53 a.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I pay our respects to Sergeant Brett Wood and pass on condolences to his wife and family. I acknowledge the most moving speech by the Hon. Charlie Lynn, who honoured Sergeant Wood and defence personnel. At this time we pray not only for the other wounded soldiers but also for all the defence personnel who are representing the interests of our nation. It goes without saying that on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I think of the scripture, "Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for another". Rest in peace, Sergeant Wood.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.54 a.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their sincere contributions on this motion. They will bring some relief to the family of Sergeant Wood and to his 2nd Commando regiment. I am proud that the soldiers fighting in the war against terror have the support of all sides of politics on occasions such as this.

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

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Lynda Voltz agreed to:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Members' Business item No. 69 outside the Order of Precedence relating to National Reconciliation Week be called on forthwith.

2634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

Order of Business

Motion by the Hon. Lynda Voltz agreed to:

That Private Members' Business item No. 69 outside the Order of Precedence be called on forthwith.

NATIONAL RECONCILIATION WEEK

Debate resumed from 14 June 2011.

The Hon. MARIE FICARRA (Parliamentary Secretary) [10.58 a.m.]: I speak to the motion moved by the Hon. Linda Voltz. In so doing I acknowledge that we are on the traditional lands of the Gadigal people and pay my respect to elders past and present. As other members have pointed out, the theme for National Reconciliation Week 2011 is "Let's talk recognition". Like Premier Barry O'Farrell, I too am passionate about reconciliation and ensuring equality for members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and importantly bridging the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people of this nation.

I served on this Parliament's New South Wales Reconciliation Committee during my term in the Legislative Assembly as member for Georges River. I was a member of the last Parliament's Standing Committee on Social Issues, which investigated and examined complex range of disadvantage that our Australian Indigenous people endure. I still have great hope that one day this unacceptable and shameful disadvantage will be overcome. In June last year, during a discussion on Indigenous health in the Legislative Assembly, Premier O'Farrell stated:

Reconciliation has no meaning if it is not aimed at achieving equality of opportunity, life expectancy, education and life choices. No legislation, no motion and no signing will achieve that. It will take what is in our hearts. It will take a full-time effort that must be remembered every day, whether we are on this side of the House or on that side, or whether we are members of the public sitting in the gallery. Unless we have that commitment and determination, the goal of full equality, of reconciliation and of genuinely allowing people like Stan Tilpoloura to live a full life will not be achieved.

Stan Tilpoloura was the President of the Tiwi Land Council and a Labor member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Stan never got to complete his second term because he died at the early age of 35 from kidney disease. Premier O'Farrell, who shared some of his educational years with Stan Tilpoloura whilst his family was posted in the Northern Territory, got to know him. He was proud to pay tribute to him. The New South Wales Government operates on the premise that the best results are gained in Aboriginal affairs policy when Aboriginal communities drive the solutions. Government policy and service delivery should be created in close partnership with the Aboriginal community.

Allowing communities to identify, develop and implement strategies and projects within their own communities is key to the O'Farrell Government's approach and will be key to our approach in Aboriginal affairs. There is real strength in Aboriginal communities, and we will continue to build on this strength to create the partnerships required to help achieve the Council of Australian Governments targets to close the gap in Indigenous disadvantage. I am proud that this Parliament was the first to offer a unanimous and sincere apology to Australia's Indigenous communities. Importantly, in 1967 the Australian referendum that was held ensured equality to Indigenous Australians by the largest winning margin of any in the history of this nation— 90.77 per cent of votes cast were in favour and the referendum was carried in all six States.

The overwhelming support for the yes vote gave the Federal Government a clear mandate to implement policies to benefit Aboriginals. The 1967 referendum provided a symbolic meaning to a period of rapid social change starting in the 1960s and gaining momentum ever since. As a result, the referendum has been credited with initiating political and social change for Aboriginal people in this State and nation. However, it still saddens me to think that Aboriginal people were not recognised as Australian citizens until 1948, when a separate Australian citizenship was created for the first time. Before that time all Australians, including Aborigines, were British subjects. We recognise through historical facts that we dispossessed Indigenous peoples, that we took traditional lands and started breaking up traditional life and customs.

Certainly we brought diseases and alcohol into their communities. Indeed, our Parliament sits on the site of the north wing of the Rum hospital, reflective of the large part that alcohol played in society in the early days of the colony. Murders, rapes, bashings, maltreatment, discrimination, removal of children from their families and exclusion were all committed against Aboriginal people in a so-called civilised society. We feel shame for our ignorance, our prejudice and our racism. Aboriginal people from Queensland and Western 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2635

Australia gained the vote in the Commonwealth Territories in 1962. However, the Commonwealth voting right for Aboriginals from other States was confirmed by Commonwealth Act in 1949. While the Constitution already gave them that right, it was often interpreted differently prior to 1949. Aboriginals were given the vote in the New South Wales State election in 1962 and the Queensland State election in 1965.

I am proud that it was the Liberal Party that ensured the election of the first Aboriginal person to the Australian Parliament in 1971. Neville Bonner, AO, served in the Australian Senate until 1983. The quietly spoken, articulate Neville Bonner became a polished speaker, a capable administrator and a much respected politician. He was born at Franklin Island, a small settlement on the Tweed River in northern New South Wales. He worked as a farm labourer before settling on Palm Island near Townsville, Queensland, in 1946 where he rose to the position of assistant settlement overseer. In 1960 Mr Bonner moved to Ipswich where he joined the board of directors of the One People of Australia League [OPAL], an Indigenous rights organisation. He became its Queensland president in 1970. He joined the Liberal Party in 1967 and held local office in the party.

In the Senate, Senator Bonner served on a number of committees. In 1979 Neville Bonner was jointly named Australian of the Year and in 1984 was appointed an officer of the Order of Australia. In 1998 he was elected to the Constitutional Convention as a candidate of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy. In July 1998, in another first, the Queensland Premier invited Neville Bonner to address the opening of the Forty-ninth State Parliament ahead of the State Governor's Speech. Members of Bonner's Indigenous tribe were traditional owners of the land on which the Queensland Parliament House was built. He said that delivering the address was a moment of great pride in his career. Neville Bonner passed away at Ipswich in 1998 and in 2004 the Queensland Federal electorate of Bonner was created and named in his honour.

Reconciliation Australia encourages the community to hold an event that recognises the important contributions that Indigenous Australians are making to the community and to engage students, staff or friends more deeply in a conversation about the value of recognition and why it is of particular importance for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Reconciliation Week provides an opportunity for all Australians to continue the dialogue around what we share and the disparities that we need to rectify. I agree that recognition is about acknowledging validity and this can happen on all levels. During this year's Reconciliation Week the New South Wales Reconciliation Council asks us to think about "who deserves recognition in your community" and why "us" is stronger than "you and me". I congratulate all in this place who have supported this motion and importantly the wider community who have worked and continue to work sincerely and passionately towards genuine and lasting reconciliation measured in tangible physical and social improvements to the lives of our Indigenous Australians.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.06 a.m.]: I support the motion on National Reconciliation Week and I thank the Hon. Lynda Voltz for moving it and for providing members with an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I will not speak for long. I echo the words of my colleague the Hon. Jan Barham and other speakers in acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the unique role that Aboriginal people have played in the history of Australia, and the need for reconciliation to recognise the damage that has been done to Aboriginal people in the 215 years of European settlement. I also acknowledge that the theme for this year's Reconciliation Week is "Let's talk Recognition", which is an important theme. The passage of this motion plays, belatedly, some small part in recognising the importance of Aboriginal people and understanding that two of the most important signature events in reconciliation were the 1967 referendum and the 1992 High Court decision in the landmark Mabo case.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: I voted for it.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I was not able to vote for it, but I am proud to say that every member of my family who was old enough did vote for it, along with more than 90 per cent of Australians who recognised the savage injustice that had been done to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples by denying them constitutional recognition, effectively denying them citizenship until 1967. I was a very young man in 1967, but I still recall as a 12-year-old the elation on the evening that the referendum results came through, making it clear that Australians had taken one important step in correcting what was a substantial and devastating historical mistake.

I also remember of course, as we all do, the 1992 Mabo decision and the sense that this was a major step towards recognising the unique relationship between Australia's Indigenous people, the land that they occupied and the land that we stand on today. It recognised that that special relationship has to be translated into a stronger legal protection of their ownership of the land. It is important that all Australians recognise the debt 2636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

that we owe to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait peoples because of their 215 years of dispossession. It is also important that we look forward to a positive future in which we build on the strengths of our communities and move towards not just apologies but genuine reconciliation between the peoples of Australia.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [11.09 a.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I support the motion relating to National Reconciliation Week. In the Shoalhaven we have a large proportion of the Aboriginal population of New South Wales and we enjoy a great relationship with them. National Sorry Day was one of the greatest moments of healing for the South Coast population, particularly members of the Yuin nation, which covers the area from La Perouse to the Victorian border. It was a great day for our community as a whole. Since then we have been able to move on and celebrate National Sorry Day as part of the healing process. We have put the Aboriginal flag in the Council chamber as part of that recognition and we have a statement of commitment to the Aboriginal communities at Wreck Bay and Orient Point. There is also a settlement at Bomaderry.

Aboriginal culture is extremely important for us in the Shoalhaven and National Reconciliation Week is a very important week, as it is across New South Wales and Australia. I note the anniversary of the 1967 referendum on 27 May—which is a day before my birthday, in 1966—which enabled laws to be made for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I also note the anniversary of the Mabo land rights decision on 3 June 1992. For the Christian Democratic Party, National Reconciliation Week is part of the healing process for the Aboriginal people. I note that shortly we will be celebrating NAIDOC Week, when people will continue the process of adding to that wonderful thing called "community". The Christian Democratic Party supports this motion.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [11.11 a.m.], in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to this important debate. It is important for this Parliament to recognise National Reconciliation Week and the two events that bookend the week, in particular, National Sorry Day.

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

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Postponement of Business

Private Member's Business item No. 2 in the Order of Precedence postponed on motion by Dr John Kaye.

Private Member's Business item No. 3 in the Order of Precedence postponed on motion by Dr John Kaye, on behalf of Mr David Shoebridge.

INTERNATIONAL WORKERS' MEMORIAL DAY

The Hon. SOPHIE COTSIS [11.13 a.m.]: I move:

1. That this House notes that:

(a) 28 April was the International Day of Mourning for Workers, or Workers Memorial Day

(b) this is a day to mourn, honour and pay tribute to all workers killed at or by work

(c) a workplace illness or fatality can have a dramatic impact on families, communities and society, and

(d) a collaborative approach to workplace safety is the best way to reduce the incidence of death and injury in our workplaces.

2. That this House calls on both sides of politics to focus and reflect on workplace illness, injury and death and their causes.

On Thursday 28 April this year I, along with many colleagues in this House and the other place, attended a memorial service at Reflection Park in Darling Harbour, Sydney, to commemorate International Day of Mourning to honour and remember those who have lost their lives or been injured at work. It was organised by WorkCover NSW and Unions NSW and I thank the General Secretary of Unions NSW, Mark Lennon, and his 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2637

team and the many officials from WorkCover and organisers from employer and employee organisations who arranged a very moving service, particularly for the families of those workers, many of whom travelled hundreds of kilometres to attend. I acknowledge also the presence at the memorial of the Leader of the Opposition, John Robertson, Minister Greg Pearce, who also spoke, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Linda Burney, my colleagues Michael Daley, Paul Lynch, Lynda Voltz, Penny Sharpe and other members of Parliament. There were many employer and industry groups, employee organisations, community groups, unions, families and friends in attendance.

It was wonderful to hear the beautiful readings from the religious leaders who presided over the service—Father Boyle from St Bernadette's in Castle Hill, Reverend Bill Crews from the Exodus Foundation, Imam Omar Harbouche from the Lakemba Mosque, and Rabbi Zelman Castel, National Director of Together for Humanity. They provided beautiful words for the service and it was very touching. Her Excellency the Governor, Marie Bashir, also attended and gave a heartfelt speech to the families and friends of those who have been killed and injured at work. She captured the solemn feeling and the importance of the occasion and the need always to have at the forefront of our minds those who have been killed or injured, and in particular the families who have lost loved ones. So 28 April is recognised by organisations and unions around the world, led by the International Labour Organization, as a day to remember those who have been killed or injured at work. Clearly this is a major international commemoration. Participant countries include the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, countries within the European Union, the major developing economic powers such as Brazil and India, and smaller nations.

This year there is also an important and melancholy anniversary that we should remember. It is 100 years since the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City on 25 March 1911. This fire was one of the deadliest industrial disasters in the history of the United States. It was the worst catastrophe in the history of New York City until the destruction of the World Trade Center 90 years later. The fire caused the deaths of 146 garment workers who either died in the fire or jumped to their deaths. The factory was located on the eighth, ninth and tenth floors of a building in downtown New York. When the fire started an employee on the eighth floor was able to warn employees on the tenth floor via telephone, but there was no audible alarm or any other way to warn those on other floors.

The authorities concluded that the likely cause of the fire was a match thrown in a scrap bin which, at the time of the fire, held two months worth of accumulated cuttings. Many of the workers could not escape the burning building because, as was noted, management had locked some of the doors to the stairwells and exits and the foreman who had the keys had already escaped. Facing an inferno, these workers jumped from the windows of the building. Most of the victims were recently arrived, poor Italian and Jewish immigrant women. The oldest victim was 48 and the two youngest victims were 14. An eyewitness said:

I saw girl after girl appear at the windows, pause for a moment and then leap to the pavement below to land as a mangled, bloody pulp. Occasionally a girl who had hesitated too long was licked by the flames and screaming, with clothing and hair ablaze, plunged like a living torch to the street. The life nets held by the firemen were torn by the impact of the falling bodies.

The event, as horrific as it was, is rendered even more tragic by the fact that it could easily have been prevented. That fire led to action. The New York State Legislature investigated and found 200 more factories where a similar catastrophe was likely to occur. Safety codes were rolled out and by 1915 New York State had formed its equivalent of the labour occupational health and safety laws. Across the border in Canada, as events unfolded in New York State, the province of Ontario legislated in 1914 to provide workers compensation. It is in commemoration of this historic legislation that Canadian unions began observing International Workers' Memorial Day on 28 April 1985 which, as we know, has grown and spread around the world and hopefully will have a bigger contingency next year. This day has significance for us all because we have all been affected by friends, family or people we know who have been injured or tragically died from an incident at work.

When I attended the memorial service at Reflection Park in Darling Harbour I noted a beautiful memorial sculpture called Memory Lines, which was designed and constructed by Ingrid Skirka. Those who attended on 28 April were encouraged to leave memory cards on or near the sculpture for those loved ones who had been killed or injured at work. The commemoration also has the strong support of many church and community groups, including the Asbestos Disease Foundation and the families who have suffered from the tragedy of losing a loved one. In Australia it is reported that every year around 440 workers are killed in work-related accidents, which is too many. We have an obligation to do everything we can to prevent those deaths. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that over 640,000 Australians experienced a work-related injury during the period July 2009 to June 2010. 2638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

Workplaces are not just static locations. Members will recall the number of heavy vehicle drivers—our truckies—who unfortunately die or are injured each year on our roads. We recall also the many other occupations that carry a high risk of injury on duty, such as mining and construction. It should be remembered that work-related deaths and injuries can strike people well after their employment, such as those who have died or who are still suffering from exposure to asbestos. The campaign that has been run by the Asbestos Disease Foundation over the past few years has made us all aware of that. Tragically, many people, in particular, men who have completed their years of service and are in retirement, are still being diagnosed as having mesothelioma, which is a terrible disease. We still have a long way to go.

On Workers' Memorial Day I distinctly remember the deep sadness of families at the memorial service. After the memorial service a number of members went up to the sculpture and looked at the memory cards that had been left there by the families. Many were in memory of young workers, which was tragic and which broke our hearts. I had an opportunity to speak to a few families and I offered my sincere condolences. One of the families to whom I spoke was from Bathurst. We did not have a long conversation due to the sombreness of the occasion but those family members had lost a son, a husband and a dad. I could see in their eyes that their lives had revolved around a man who was no longer there. In the presence of others they tried to find an answer and they tried to find solace as their lives had been shattered. I spoke words of encouragement and told them that he would always be around, but it was very sad.

I was particularly touched by the young daughter, who let me give her a hug and with whom I exchanged a few words. This young girl will grow up without her father. He will not be there to see her start high school or teach her how to drive and he will not be there to walk her down the aisle. It was difficult to watch those families and their friends struggling with their pain. They will struggle for the rest of their lives. A workplace death, one of the most inexplicable and horrid events, is not random in its nature and often is preventable. These families had suffered the loss of someone who had been very dear to them and whose only mistake was going to work that day.

It is our duty as members of Parliament to remember these families. We must put aside politics and think about those family members who have been left behind. I encourage all members to stand up for workers and their families and to ensure that no-one endures such lifelong pain. I honour the memory of those workers all around the world who have died or have been injured at work. I am sure they will be remembered often. Unfortunately, throughout the world workplace injuries befall vulnerable women and children who often are living in poverty and degradation. I acknowledge the importance and significance of International Workers' Memorial Day.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [11.28 a.m.]: I contribute in debate on International Workers' Memorial Day to remember those who have been injured or killed in workplace accidents. I cannot imagine what it would be like to have a family member go to work and not come home again, which is why members in this Chamber place a great deal of importance on safety in the workplace. International Workers' Memorial Day is a day of reflection and remembrance for those who have been injured or killed in workplace accidents. In Sydney our remembrance service is held at Reflection Park where families of workers who have died on the job place pictures of their loved ones—a timely reminder to everyone of the importance of workplace vigilance in the areas of health and safety. Workplace fatalities have a tremendous impact on all members of our community. While employers, unions, co-workers and friends also must cope with the tragedy, no-one is more affected than the families of workers. It is on International Workers' Memorial Day that we take time to remember that.

Every workplace death and injury is preventable. For people who work in high-risk industries, and even for those who do not, we must ensure that tough worldwide standards of occupational health and safety are retained. However, International Workers' Memorial Day is not just about remembering those who have been killed and injured. It is also a reminder of the fight to ensure that people continue to be able to work in a safe environment. In Australia construction and mining workers, in particular, have been at the forefront of the struggle for improved workplace safety. The campaign to save workplaces has continued for more than 100 years. In 1902 laws relating to the safety of scaffolding were introduced after years of campaigning by building workers. In 1956 lead paint was banned. In the following year, the symbol of the construction industry—the hard hat—became compulsory. In 1971 Sydney Opera House workers went on strike to demand full pay for injured workers. During the 1980s asbestos was banned and a fund was set up, after pressure from building workers, to compensate those whose lives were cut short by asbestos-related disease.

Asbestosis is particularly relevant to me because one of my first jobs after working in a clothing factory was at the Workers Health Centre at Lidcombe, where I was a clinic coordinator. We conducted lung tests on 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2639

building workers who had been exposed to asbestos. The reality was that, although the disease was identified and the patients were tested, the disease was so advanced that the patients died before any compensation for their exposure to asbestos could be received by them or their families. Despite victories for safety in the workplace, the struggle continues. The Australian Building and Construction Commission still looms over the construction industry and threatens to take action against workers who hold meetings to talk about safety. It alarms me that New South Wales workers have lost some significant gains as a result of safety laws recently having been watered down. That is an enormous step backwards for safety in our industries.

However, we must keep fighting to ensure that people can go to work in the knowledge that everything possible has been done to ensure their safety in the workplace. The families of those who have died at work will hopefully find some comfort in the knowledge that unions, employers, members of Parliament and workers will continue the struggle for safer workplaces and to achieve the goal of eliminating death and injury at work. I pay tribute to the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority for its assistance in building the Workers Memorial in Reflection Park in Darling Harbour. The memorial is situated opposite the Sydney Entertainment Centre and is a significant site where bereaved families can preserve the memory of loved ones who went to work and did not return home, or who were injured at work. Members of Parliament appreciate that workers are the backbone of the New South Wales economy. We acknowledge the tragedy of those who have lost their lives in the workplace.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [11.32 a.m.]: I congratulate the Hon. Sophie Cotsis, the shadow Minister for Industrial Relations, on moving this important motion to commemorate International Workers' Memorial Day. Like many speakers who preceded me and who will follow me in this debate, I am very happy to be associated with the motion. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the commemorative event on 28 April at the Workers Memorial in Reflection Park, which is adjacent to the Sydney Entertainment Centre, because another matter prevented me from attending. In previous years I have attended the commemorative ceremony. Other contributors to the debate have provided us with a history of the creation of the Workers Memorial. It was an initiative of Unions NSW, which at the time was known as the New South Wales Trades and Labour Council, the Labor Government and others. The Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority provided space for the creation and construction of the memorial.

I invite people who have not seen the Workers Memorial to visit the site when they are taking some time off to spend with their families and are visiting Darling Harbour. It is a beautiful memorial. I am not quite sure who designed it, but it is a magnificent shape and design. Aside from its representation of creativity, the memorial is often visited by various people—presumably they are the mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, girlfriends, boyfriends or siblings of people whose lives are commemorated—who place a flower at the memorial, which is so moving. The design of the memorial is such that it draws us into reflecting on what the memorial represents, which is a combination of honouring the tragic death of individuals who died in the workplace and of providing people who mourn the loss of their loved ones with an opportunity to reflect and think about the life they shared with the deceased.

My experience of attending commemorative ceremonies at the site is similar to that conveyed to the House by the Minister for Finance and Services, the Hon. Greg Pearce, on 4 May this year. In response to a question from the Hon. John Ajaka related to the International Day of Mourning, the Hon. Greg Pearce reflected on his attendance at the commemorative ceremony. It was very clear to every member of this House that he had been genuinely moved by the ceremony and the memorial. Anyone who attends workers' memorial ceremonies takes away from them a similar experience. Attendance and institutionalisation of commemorative events is very important not only for people who grieve, as tragic as that is, but also for reminding us that the issue of workplace occupational health and safety is too important to be taken for granted. Most people begin their day with a normal routine and then head off to work. Not for a fraction of a moment does anybody contemplate that there would be any chance at all of not returning home at the end of that working day. For many people, given the nature of their work, that is a reasonable expectation.

However, for many other people who do very important work in a range of primary and manufacturing sectors of our economy, there are serious and concomitant risks. Although the industries to which I refer are probably self-evident, I cite mining, in particular. We must appreciate that the process of securing occupational health and safety standards in this State has been incremental over centuries, not decades. Australian workplace legislation can be traced to factories legislation in Great Britain in the nineteenth century. Prolonged, widespread and vigorous campaigns by the union movement not only have led to an increased awareness and observance of the issue of occupational health and safety but also to the institutionalisation of relatively high workplace safety standards. 2640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

However, in the context of this debate, it is appropriate to note that even in Australia, with its First World economy, incidences of workplace death still occur. Tragically, the mining and building construction industries not infrequently record workplace deaths. Importantly, International Workers' Memorial Day invites us to think more about not just death but all occupational health and safety issues and to get the right balance in the best interests of workers, their families and the whole community. Mitigating the likely possibility of tragedies, such as deaths and workplace accidents, will be of overall benefit to the economy, workers and their families.

It took some time to reach the position we enjoyed. Regrettably, New South Wales has regressed significantly with the passage of the Government's Work and Health Safety Bill 2011 and the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2011 only a few weeks ago. I do not intend to traverse or re-argue that debate but I struggle to reconcile the Minister's clear comprehension of the significance of workplace health and safety with the passing of that legislation. I mean no disrespect to the Minister, the Hon. Greg Pearce, but I would have thought the natural response would be to adopt a precautionary approach when considering whether it was wise to amend the State's occupational health and safety legislation. I still do not understand why the Minister saw the need to move so swiftly to secure the passage of the cognate bills through Parliament. Arguments were put about national comity with our legislation. I will not traverse the arguments about harmonisation et cetera, but I am instinctively attracted to aspects of comity and harmony. Much is at stake not just with workplace deaths, but with occupational health and safety generally in the largest State in the Commonwealth.

Will the amendments maintain the standard, improve it or make our occupational health and safety legislation less effective? The more cautious approach would be to think very carefully before changing the laws. The Government failed to address that point in debate. The national figures of some comparative data between New South Wales and the other States and Territories on occupational health and safety in Australia from, for example, Safe Work Australia or WorkCover New South Wales annual reports reveal that New South Wales is at the top end in standards across a range of indices. In other words, New South Wales is at the top end of the band with respect to occupational health and safety outcomes. One can ask the rhetorical question: Why might that be so? Obviously, I do not intend to embark on a lengthy debate to answer that question, but the perfectly reasonable and logical conclusion to draw is that at least up to 26 March this year New South Wales had strong and robust occupational health and safety legislation.

What troubles me greatly is that the principal argument of the Government in amending the legislation was, "Listen, there's this harmonisation. We've got to get on board, yadda yadda yadda. We might have financial penalties. If we don't, literally the sky's going to fall in." The Government was prepared to advance all those arguments to make changes to occupational health and safety legislation that any reasonable person can see has been quite effective for New South Wales workers. I would have thought a new cautious and careful Government would pause and reflect on the significant implications for individual workers and their families. That did not happen. The Government pushed the legislation through the House, knowing that those on this side of the Chamber could not agree or make a considered judgement because the arguments did not address whether the amendments made the legislation better, the same or worse. It will be interesting as time passes to see the outcome of this new Government's actions. The WorkCover New South Wales 2010-11 annual report will be available soon. It will take us through the final period of the Labor administration. That report becomes the red line. We will draw the red line under that report and say, "That's the standard that we, the Government, the Parliament and New South Wales communities achieved with workplace occupational health and safety."

My great fear is that workplace occupational health and safety standards will drop in New South Wales. I hope that fear is not realised. In my dealings with employers over many years, principally in the retail, fast-food, distribution and warehousing industries, and to a lesser extent in manufacturing, it was apparent that they understood the high occupational health and safety standards in New South Wales. Of course, there always will be employers who sit on the fringe, if I can use that phrase, and are never satisfied despite how much a piece of legislation is diluted—that is the reality of life. Intrastate and interstate employers who run national companies may not state it publicly, but quietly will say, "We actually appreciate that there is a high standard.

Clear legislation puts the onus on us to make sure proper occupational health and safety practices and policies are embedded in our company." Those employers acknowledge that is a benefit for their organisation. Of course it requires them to focus on and prioritise occupational health and safety, but at the end of the day those employers know in their hearts that it is important. Knowing that they will be tested against high standards, they realise that giving it a high priority in their organisation is in the best interests of the company overall from a corporate point of view—which could be extended to a shareholder point of view—and specifically with regard to their employees. 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2641

However, any recognition of that was absent from the contributions of Government speakers when we dealt with the amendments only a few weeks ago. We simply heard about the harmonisation process. We were told time and time again that we needed to get on board and that there would be a financial penalty if we did not do so, as if we were measuring people's lives. We had to make a value judgement as to how a potential diminution in occupational health and safety standards rated against receiving funding from the Commonwealth. I could not come to terms with that. The paucity of the argument from members opposite was amazing, given that their constituents and many large employers had to meet New South Wales standards and that those same standards had been extended throughout Australia, because New South Wales is so large. They had to come to terms with the New South Wales legislation. It was like the rising tide—all the boats around Australia would rise. But that has gone; those standards have gone.

I acknowledge that only time will tell the effects of a diminution in the occupational health and safety laws in this State. It will be on the Government's head if a review of WorkCover's annual reports next year and thereafter shows that there has been an increase in the number of workplace incidents. I hope that the number of deaths does not increase. Information from Safe Work Australia about the incident rates of serious injury claims, including musculoskeletal, in Australian jurisdictions across the 2008-09 period shows that New South Wales is second from the top in terms of a percentage improvement in the number of claims. That is mind boggling. This material, which is in the public domain, shows that New South Wales is in the top band. This motion gives us an opportunity to reflect on the tragic passing of people in the workplace—people who went to work and never returned home. It is appropriate that we spend some time each year in reflection. I appreciate the contributions of members who acknowledged that. It will serve us to reflect on the situation in the next year or so, following the Government's diminution of occupational health and safety standards in New South Wales.

The Hon. CHARLIE LYNN (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.53 a.m.]: I commend the Hon. Sophie Cotsis for bringing before the House this motion about International Workers' Memorial Day. On 28 April 2011 a moving interfaith ceremony was held at Reflections Park in Darling Harbour, attended by the Minister for Finance and Services, the Hon. Greg Pearce, MLC, as well as representatives of the Labor Party, unions and business organisations. Most importantly, many families that have experienced the tragic loss of their loved ones also attended. The hearts of all members go out to those families and friends who have lost loved ones. We honour those who have lost their lives as a result of workplace accidents, reflect on the past, on why occupational health and safety initiatives are so important, and on what can be done in the future to protect the physical safety of workers.

By way of history, as most members would know, and as outlined in academic publications by Professor Patrick Hudson of Leiden University in the Netherlands, the requirement for organisations to develop occupational health and safety systems followed a number of workplace disasters, predominantly in Europe. The Flixborough accident in 1974, when a whole village was blown away as a result of an explosion at the Nypro Ltd caprolactam production facility, led to the first requirement for petrochemical companies to present a safety case before commencing work. At the time the control of industrial major accident hazards legislation was restricted to United Kingdom onshore facilities. The Seveso incident in 1976 resulted in the European directive known as the Seveso directive in relation to workplace safety. In 1974 the United Kingdom Health and Safety at Work Act was introduced.

In Australia the 1995 Industry Commission inquiry and report into occupational health and safety recognised that best-practice organisations, measured in terms of occupational health and safety outcomes, have enterprise safety management systems. The commission recommended that occupational health and safety legislation in each jurisdiction recognise safety management systems as a means of managing risk. Also, in Australia in September 1998 Esso Australia's gas plant at Longford in Victoria suffered a major fire. Two men were tragically killed. This incident resulted in a royal commission being conducted, which investigated the disaster and put the spotlight in Australia on the need for proper occupational health and safety legislation and initiatives.

As members would be aware, in 2000 the New South Wales Occupational Health and Safety Act was introduced. In July 2000 the first National Conference on Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems was held at the University of Western Sydney, which occasioned some interesting papers written by various experts. The conference was funded by the WorkCover NSW Injury Prevention Education and Research Grant Scheme. The editors of papers written following the conference, Warwick Pearse, Clare Gallagher and Liz Bluff, stated at the time:

To date the uptake of occupational health and safety management systems (OHSMS) has been slower in Australia than in many other countries. However, there is now a momentum which will ensure that in the future many more companies will embrace OHSMS.

2642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

Professor Hudson of Leiden University wrote an interesting academic article following the conference entitled "Safety Management and Safety Culture: The Long, Hard and Winding Road". And indeed what a long road it has been in New South Wales in ensuring safe workplaces across Australia. Professor Hudson acknowledged that while safety seems so easy, in practice it is a lot harder to achieve a safe organisation that is capable of sustained safe performance in the face of significant hazards. Most importantly, he submitted it is imperative that:

The possession of a management system, no matter how thorough and systematic it may be, is not, however, sufficient to guarantee sustained performance. What is also needed is an organisational culture that supports the management system and allows it to flourish.

To proceed further it is necessary to develop organisational cultures that support processes beyond prescription, such as 'thinking the unthinkable' and being intrinsically motivated to be safe, even when there seems no obvious reason to.

Over a decade after the introduction of the New South Wales occupational health and safety legislation and that first national conference, I sadly note that last year there were 141 deaths on worksites, as well as 273 asbestos-related deaths reported. These shocking figures demonstrate why we need strong occupational health and safety initiatives in workplaces and, moreover, positive shifts in organisational culture. While I am pleased to note that through the combined efforts of industry, stakeholders, WorkCover and the Government, workplace injuries in New South Wales are at their lowest levels in 20 years, in my mind even one death on or related to a worksite is one too many. I agree with what the Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra said:

Over many years New South Wales businesses have taken significant steps to change their workplace health and safety culture, and we are now among the safest in the world. But more can always be done.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly expressed concern that perhaps occupational health and safety standards will not improve under the Liberal-Nationals Government. I do not think members on either side of the Chamber would subscribe to that view. This matter is important, and there must be a degree of common sense and respect to change the culture in the workplace. I remember one occasion about two years ago when I had just returned from the Kokoda Trail in Papua New Guinea after a very wet trek, slipping, sliding, tumbling and whatever to get here. About two nights later I attended a function. As I left the function and proceeded to walk down the steps to get to my car I was grabbed by a security guard, who said that I could not use the steps and had to use the lift. I said, "Why?" He said, "Occupational health and safety". I said, "Mate, I'm glad you weren't in New Guinea last week. I'd never have got down here." That seemed a bit over the top.

We need to look at occupational health and safety legislation through the eyes not only of legislators but also of business people. There can be no mercy shown to anybody who has an unsafe workplace. But for those who subscribe to it and do their best, and I think you can tell that in a culture, it should not be used as a blunt instrument against them. A safe workplace should be something that they all aspire to have. As we said one death in a workplace is one death too many. As we know one death can forever change the lives of so many people, families, friends and colleagues. I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. PAUL GREEN [12.01 p.m.]: On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I support the Workers' Memorial Day motion, also known as the International Commemoration Day for Dead and Injured that takes place on 28 April. We also note that, according to the International Labour Organisation worldwide statistics, two million men and women die as a result of work-related accidents and diseases, workers suffer approximately $270 million each year and fall victim to some 160 million incidents of related illnesses. Hazardous substances kill approximately 440,000 workers annually—asbestos claims approximately 100,000 lives—one worker dies every 15 seconds worldwide and 6,000 workers die every day.

In a world where occasioned death, injury and illness at work are hidden away and often taken for granted, Workers' Memorial Day is an opportunity for us to stop and highlight issues such as those mentioned by the Hon. Charlie Lynn. He referred to the organisation culture of the workplace—that is, occupational health and safety and the need to look after each other with safe work practises. It is obvious that in a world that is moving so fast quite often the community does not stop to grieve.

As a new parliamentarian I am glad that today we have taken the opportunity to stop and think of those who have lost their lives at work. It is important that we take time to grieve with those who have suffered a loss. It is a great opportunity for us to honour those who have lost their life. In particular, it is an opportunity to take time out to add value to those who are left behind who may be suffering not only the loss of their loved ones but also from the loss of wages. People who are suffering include spouses, sons, daughters and grandparents; they are missing the relationship of the human being. Those losses are felt very deeply. 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2643

If we stop and think about our work practises we will create safe places for people to work. We note that a carrot versus stick approach is often used to achieve safer opportunities or a safe culture. I note that we should probably use more carrot and less stick to encourage organisations to get better outcomes in respect of occupational health and safety. I note Shoalhaven City Council has been working hard and leads the way in local government in many ways in respect of safe practises. The Christian Democratic Party supports the motion in relation to Workers' Memorial Day.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR [12.03 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Sophie Cotsis to mark the International Day of Mourning, which commemorates the loss of those who have died at work. First, I offer my condolences to families and friends of people who have tragically lost their lives at work, as a result of workplace injury or a disease acquired whilst at work. I have worked for a third of my working life in occupational health and safety to try to prevent workplace injury or death, and I am extremely interested in the subject. I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I am aware that the Legislative Assembly has already noted the date as a matter of public importance. I also noted that my colleague the Hon. Greg Pearce spoke on this issue on 4 May 2011 in response to a question without notice.

The Hon. Greg Pearce noted that on 28 April he attended a ceremony to mark the International Day of Mourning. I recall his emotions when he gave that presentation and acknowledge how powerful that day must have been to him and all those people in attendance. The ceremony was held in Reflection Park near the Convention Centre at Darling Harbour. After a moving address by Her Excellency the Governor, a number of other addresses and readings were made by various religious representatives. Family members and others in attendance placed a card, a flower or some other memento on the Memory Lines sculpture.

Last year 141 deaths occurred on worksites in New South Wales, excluding 273 asbestos-related deaths. No incidence of workplace death is accepted. The sudden and unexpected loss of a loved one does cause unfathomable grief, something that unfortunately I have also witnessed firsthand in the workplace in my role investigating and trying to prevent these incidents. Any workplace fatality touches the lives of many people. When I delivered workplace safety workshops to employer and employee groups in a number of organisations throughout many different industries I would quite often start my presentations with what I believe is the most powerful piece of training material I have come across in a long time.

WorkCover ran a series of commercials called Homecomings. Many members may have seen them on television. The scenario is a young son waiting for his father to come home from work, he is out the front of his house with a basketball and the partner is making telephone calls to find out why he is not home. The suggestion is that the boy may not get his father home from work that day. The advertisement does not show a single workplace—for example, a construction site—but it is very powerful. For a long time in safety areas we would show graphic pictures of tragic accidents and go through the accidents, but that did not touch individuals. However, these advertisements allow every single person watching them to think about his or her family and what is at home waiting for them each day. People reflect upon their culture and behaviour in the workplace, and the decisions that are made each day in their workplace that will help get them home to their families.

When I would give the presentation some people would shed tears after thinking about their scenario. I commend WorkCover on its work with the advertisements. WorkSafe Victoria first developed the advertisements; WorkCover New South Wales then developed a New South Wales version. They illustrate the grief that many families will suffer from work-related deaths and disease work-related deaths in the workplace. We all have something precious to go home to. The one thing we need to strive for is that safety is part of every job in the workplace, not something that is bolted on to the job. Every organisation needs to progress to that culture and not believe it is something that is done on top of the jobs we do. For years New South Wales businesses and the Government have taken significant steps to change workplace health and safety culture. I am glad we are starting to talk about culture in relation to this matter. It is unfortunate that I was unable to participate in the debates on the occupational health and safety laws earlier this session. Culture and behavioural-based safety programs are the key to reducing workplace deaths.

We need to do all we can to establish in all workplaces a culture that no injury is acceptable. If an injury is regarded as acceptable, that means we need to work harder to try to prevent it. This Government will work to ensure that New South Wales has some of the best workplace safety procedures in the world. I know that workplace safety is a priority of the Government and the Minister. The Hon. Greg Donnelly said in this debate that he feared the adoption by the Government of harmonised workplace safety laws would lead to a deterioration of workplace safety standards and an increase in injury and fatalities in this State. Though I worked in the occupational health and safety field for a third of my life, I recognise that I do not have as many years under my belt as do some members of this place. 2644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

Dr John Kaye: Or as many grey hairs.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I would love to have grey hair, but I do not think I will enjoy that experience. I do not share the fears expressed by the Hon. Greg Donnelly. I see harmonisation laws as enabling workplaces to more easily comply with workplace safety laws. Harmonisation is not about reducing standards; it is about helping workplaces improve their standards and their compliance with occupational health and safety legislation. Unfortunately, I have been to workplaces where things are done merely to overcome their fears of the legislation and to be able to tick a box.

As I said, culture is the key to workplace safety, and harmonisation will make it easier for workplaces to comply with the legislation by understanding their obligations and building those into the culture of the workplace. I believe that will help us to maintain the high standards that we have in New South Wales. I do not think for a moment that those who drew up the national harmonisation laws want to water down standards that we enjoy in New South Wales. I believe they have cherry-picked some of the best pieces of legislation in this country to try to get a consistent approach and make it easier for all to comply with the legislation.

Events such as International Day of Mourning must always remain above politics. I was hesitant about talking about the implementation of safety laws, but I wanted to comment on the fears expressed by the Hon. Greg Donnelly. As the Hon. Paul Green mentioned, this is a day on which we should come together to mourn and to understand the grieving process that all who have been touched by workplace deaths and injuries go through. This is a matter on which we can all agree, and it is above politics. Unfortunately, workplace fatalities have life-changing effects for the families and friends of those fatally injured at work. The day of mourning plays a role in helping those families and friends through these stressful times. It is important not only that they grieve but that they understand that the Government, the parties and all members of this Parliament appreciate their needs in this matter.

The Government's sympathy and support continues for all the families, relatives and friends of those who have been killed in the workplace. I am sure that support will continue into the future. I hope that fewer families and friends will need to attend these days because of fantastic outcomes achieved in all workplaces right across the State. I trust that we will all strive to achieve a situation where workers will return home safety at the end of their working day. No job is worth a life. No job is worth leaving a young child to grow up without a mother or a father.

I use the example that we do not read that many firefighters have been killed in house fires in this State, the reason being that they value their lives and appreciate the need for the risk assessment and management approach that they take. It is very tragic to hear that one or two people have died in a house fire, but we do not hear of one or two occupants and three or four firefighters dying in a house fire. That is the sort of culture and standard that we should aim to have in all workplaces. We need to take five and think about what we need to do before we go to do any job. I have strayed again to lecturing on workplace safety, but it is a matter that I am very passionate about. I thank the Hon. Sophie Cotsis for moving the motion and enabling me to speak on this matter.

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO [12.15 p.m.]: I support the motion moved by the Hon. Sophie Cotsis. This motion is very important because, as has been noted by other members, it should be the fact that people come home from work safely every day. Though we cannot always control the circumstances of people's travel to and from work, we need to ensure that the workplaces themselves are very safe. Workers' Memorial Day was started by the Canadian Union of Public Employees in 1984, and the Canadian Labour Congress declared an annual day of remembrance in 1985, on 28 April, which has now become the international day recognised as Workers' Memorial Day. The anniversary of a comprehensive Workers Compensation Act, which was passed in 1914, is 28 April.

In 1991 the Canadian Parliament passed an Act respecting a National Day of Mourning for persons killed or injured in the workplace, making 28 April an official Workers Mourning Day. The American Federation of Labour followed on from the Canadian Parliament's action by commemorating Workers' Memorial Day. It was first commemorated in the United States of America in 1989. This was also the date of the passing of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Bill in the United States of America. That coincided with the day on which the same sort of legislation was passed in Canada. Every year, people in hundreds of communities and work sites recognise workers who have been killed or injured on the job, and trade unions around the world now mark 28 April as International Day of Mourning. 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2645

We must recognise that we in Australia are lucky. We have relatively good occupational health and safety regulations that provide some comfort for workers. However, we have to accept that there will always be employers and workplaces that will try to take shortcuts, and by doing so place their employees in danger. That is why we must have strong occupational health and safety legislation, and that is why I did not agree with the harmonisation legislation that went through this place, because I believe it diminishes the rights of unions in New South Wales to take a stronger stand on occupational health and safety. Each year on Workers' Memorial Day working people throughout the world remember those who were hurt or killed on the job and renew their struggle for safe workplaces. In union halls, at work sites and memorials, in community after community, unionists and workers have gathered to remember their brothers and sisters who have lost their lives, and to fight for safe workplaces and for good jobs for all workers.

This is an historic year for workers' safety and health. As my colleague the Hon. Sophie Cotsis mentioned, this is the 100th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in which 146 workers, almost all of them young immigrant women, were killed when trapped behind locked doors with no way to escape. That terrible tragedy spurred major labour reforms in New York and, following on from that, in other States and in other countries around the world. It is also worth noting that that terrible fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory was the instigation for International Women's Day, and that is where the fight for the rights of working women came about. That fire is very important for two reasons: firstly, it raised concerns about the rights of working women and their safety and, secondly, it heightened concerns about workplace safety in general.

This year is also the fortieth anniversary of the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the right of American workers to a safe job. I am going to focus a little on the United States because so often we see that what happens in the United States is picked up by people around the world who want to follow what the United States is doing. When one looks at the way the union movement is treated in some respects in the United States and the fact that workers do not have the strong protections that we have it is important for us to be aware of what is going on in the United States because eventually there is a trickle-down effect into workplace practices in Australia if we do not stop it.

Workplace fatalities and injuries have declined significantly in recent years as a result of strong occupational health and safety practices. Exposures to job hazards and toxic chemicals such as asbestos and lead have been reduced. Far fewer workers are dying from mining cave-ins or from being caught in unguarded machinery. But the progress does not happen just because occupational health and safety laws and mine safety laws and suchlike are passed. It happens because workers and the unions that represent them are organised and fight for their rights and demand action from employers and governments to ensure safe workplaces. Virtually every safety and health protection on the books internationally today is there because of the organised labour movement—the trade unions. It is the unions that have pushed for these safeguards. Let us be frank: if it was left to employers they would do what is cheapest for them. Cheap operating systems do not always equate to safe operating systems.

It was unions that demanded and won stronger standards to protect workers from asbestos, benzene, other toxic chemicals and safety hazards. It was unions that won the right to know about toxic chemical hazards in the workplace and in the community. It was unions that pushed for stronger laws and regulations to prevent chemical plants from exploding and to protect workers and the community from danger. It is the unions through collective bargaining that have given workers a voice and the ability to have a say about safety and health on the job, to raise safety concerns and demand that employers protect workers from harm. Through the work of unions jobs have been made safer and lives have been saved, not just those of union members but of all workers. It does not matter whether someone is in a union or not. The standards that have been fought for by unions apply to all workplaces. However, too many workers remain in danger and there is much more work to be done.

In the United States in 2009, 4,340 workers lost their lives on the job and another 50,000 died from occupational diseases. That is a total of 149 workers dying each and every day in what is generally regarded as one of the most developed nations in the world. That goes to show that we cannot take for granted everything that we think should happen in workplaces.

The Hon. Niall Blair: Have you got percentages or frequency data?

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: No, I have not. We should remember that some of the more conservative Republican administrations in the United States in recent years have tried to turn back the occupational health and safety protections that have been put in place. The Obama Administration has increased 2646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

the job safety budget and hired hundreds of new inspectors. Those inspectors are now moving to develop and issue new rules on major hazards, including silica, cranes and derricks, infectious diseases and coal dust. They have stepped up job safety enforcement, particularly for employers who repeatedly violate the law.

In the United States business groups oppose these stronger measures. The new Republican majority in Congress is doing business's bidding and trying to block new protections and roll back existing protections. As I said, what the Republicans do in the United States the employers groups and the Coalition in this country quite often try to follow. The Republicans have launched an all-out assault on all government regulations and safeguards and are trying to slash the job safety budget and weaken enforcement. Republicans and business groups are falsely claiming that these regulations and protections kill jobs. The fact is these regulations and protections keep jobs and employers from killing workers. These attacks are just like the attacks on collective bargaining and workers' rights that are going on in States such as Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and others. These attacks threaten the economic security and safety of all workers.

We have to remember that it does not matter if it costs a company or a corporation more to provide a safe workplace. That is their responsibility as an employer. If they want to try to increase their profits it cannot be done by placing their employees at risk; it cannot be done by taking shortcuts in occupational health and safety. We really have to focus on that. Looking at what happens internationally, the International Labour Organisation states that each year more than two million women and men die as a result of work-related accidents and diseases. Workers suffer approximately 270 million accidents each year and fall victim to some 160 million incidents of work-related illnesses. Hazardous substances kill 440,000 workers annually and asbestos claims around 100,000 lives every year. One worker dies every 15 seconds worldwide and 6,000 workers die every day. More people die whilst at work than while fighting wars. We need to always remember that.

In a world where, on occasion, death, injury and illness at work are hidden away and taken for granted, Workers' Memorial Day is an opportunity to highlight the preventable nature of most workplace accidents and ill health and to promote campaigns and union organisation in the fight for improvements in workplace safety. The slogan for Workers' Memorial Day was "Remember the dead—Fight for the living". Although 28 April is used as a focal point for remembrance and a day of international solidarity, campaigning and other related activities continue throughout the year around the world. It is not just a once-a-year event; it is a day when we remember those who lost their lives but every other day of the year we should try to ensure conditions improve so that workers do not lose their lives in the first place.

Workers' Memorial Day is recognised as a national day in many countries, including Argentina, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, the Dominican Republic, Luxembourg, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Thailand, Taiwan, the United States and the United Kingdom. Trade unions in other countries—including Benin, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Malta, Nepal, New Zealand, Romania and Singapore—are pursuing government recognition. Workers' Memorial Day is now an international day of remembrance of workers killed in accidents at work, or by diseases caused by work, and events are held throughout the world. We have had a memorial service here in Sydney and a memorial church service in Adelaide, and public events include speeches, multi-faith religious services, laying wreaths, planting trees, unveiling monuments, balloon releases, raising public awareness of issues and laying out empty shoes to symbolise those who have died at work.

What we need to look at, if we want to have a good conscience about occupational health and safety and stopping workers from dying at work, is what happens in the workforce in some of our major trading partners. In countries such as India there are regulations that are supposed to keep workers safe at work. However, they do not really provide the resources to follow through on that. For example, I refer to the large number of illegal battery recycling factories. If members have ever been to India they will know how low-tech some of the recycling industries are in India. They have an appalling record of lead poisoning, not just of employees who work in those factories but of their children.

I read in a recent article in an Indian newspaper of a man who worked at an illegal battery recycling factory and whose three young daughters had all died of lead poisoning. He was not aware of the dangers of working with lead or of the potential for him to take home clothing that was covered in lead contaminant. He was not aware of the dangers that created for his wife and particularly for his young children. Those are the sorts of problems we have to be aware of in our major trading partners. If we do not take note of that and we think we should be trading with all the developing countries that offer us cheap goods we will be doing so without having due regard for the safety of their workers. 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2647

In the past effective campaigns have been run to draw attention to the working conditions of people in, for example, high-end running shoe factories, whether those factories are located in Indonesia, Taiwan, China or other places. Concerns have been expressed about the working conditions and pay rates of those people. What is the worst thing that could happen to anyone working in a sneaker factory? Workers might be placed in danger because of some unguarded machinery, or because they are working long hours without adequate breaks. Of course, those workers receive an absolute pittance. But it is another matter for those who are working at a battery recycling plant where their long-term health and the health of their children, their spouses and the rest of their families are put at risk.

As a developed nation we have a responsibility to try to ensure that our trading partners put in place decent occupational health and safety standards for their workers. In some countries, which have the worst record in this area, the very idea of occupational health and safety is a fantasy for the majority of workers and only a pittance is allocated for regulation enforcement—an issue of which all members should be aware. I refer briefly to what Juan Somavia, Director General of the International Labour Organization, had to say in an article entitled "World Day for Safety and Health at Work 2011—Worldwide Events to Focus on Safety and Health Management Systems for Prevention and Control of Risks at Work."

On 28 April the International Labour Organization issued a report entitled, "OSH Management System: A tool for Continual Improvement" in which it outlined the step-by-step approach to be taken in applying occupational safety and health management systems and, more concretely, how such systems can be used at national and enterprise levels. The report also highlighted how to apply occupational safety and health management systems in particularly high-risk sectors. The International Labour Organization said that the implementation of these management systems was critical in helping to reduce occupational accidents, diseases and deaths. According to data provided by the International Labour Organization, an estimated 337 million workplace accidents and 2.3 million deaths occur every year, with 6,300 deaths each day. This year, it concentrated on field events and activities that were planned around the world to celebrate the day.

Conferences were organised in Europe and Central Asia, among other countries, which focused on management systems for occupational health and safety. Events took place in Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Macedonia and Kazakhstan. In Latin America, the Argentine Government celebrated the Eighth Week for Safety and Health at Work with a number of conferences, workshops and awareness-raising campaigns. The Government of the Province of Santa Fe in Argentina also organised workshops and seminars to mark that special week. The Better Work program of the International Labour Organization and the International Finance Corporation hosted a variety of events in a number of project countries. In Vietnam, a safety run was held, while in Haiti, Better Work organised an occupational safety and health fair for garment workers featuring awareness-raising activities, health checks and quizzes.

In Asia, the International Labour Organization, Beijing office, and the State Administration of Work Safety hosted a workshop in Tangshan, China, which focused on promoting a safety culture at the enterprise level. In Africa, a symposium was held in southern Tanzania, along with exhibitions by several enterprises and a best practice competition was held in the run up to World Day. On the day itself, an event was held, also in southern Tanzania, in collaboration with the workers and employers organisations in that country. The Tanzanian Minister for Labour and Employment held a press conference to mark World Day. In Algeria, workplace training sessions to sensitise enterprises on occupational safety and health was organised from 25 to 28 April in Algiers.

It must be recognised that we can take some comfort from the safeguards we have in place in Australia. But, as I said, we must also ensure that similar safeguards are in place in the developing world. We must try to ensure that workers are afforded safer workplaces. It is incumbent on Australia, as a developed nation and as a major economy, to ensure that our trading partners—in particular, underdeveloped and Third World nations with whom we trade—put in place occupational health and safety provisions for their workers. I know this does not happen at the moment; however, it would be a good use of some of our foreign aid money if we directed it to those countries to assist them in putting in place some of these procedures and practices. I am aware of the foreign aid money that is provided for a range of other activities, but assisting developing countries to put in place occupational health and safety guidelines and regimes would be a good use of that money. It would also enable us to trade with those countries with a greater degree of confidence that their workers were being protected.

The Hon. SCOT MacDONALD [12.37 p.m.]: I contribute briefly to debate on the motion moved by the Hon. Sophie Cotsis, which I endorse. However, this is an opportunity for me to give an employer's 2648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

perspective on the matter. It is also an opportunity for me to respond to some of the remarks that were made by the Hon. Peter Primrose and the Hon. Greg Donnelly that there was lukewarm or light support for harmonisation by employers—a remark made by the Hon. Peter Primrose during the harmonisation debate. At the time I did not think he was correct so I checked with the NSW Farmers Association, which has been proactive and clear in its support for the harmonisation legislation. I wanted to put that on the record.

I would also like to make some remarks about the onus of proof—an issue referred to by a number of speakers. The NSW Farmers Association and the National Farmers Federation, through their Farmers Fighting Fund, backed a challenge by Graeme Kirk, a farmer who was taken to court by WorkCover NSW after a death on a farm—Kirk Group Holdings Pty Limited v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales. In February 2010 the High Court found that the New South Wales Supreme Court made a jurisdictional error in the way in which it reversed the onus of proof. It was particularly mindful of the high level of supervision required in a farm environment where employees are often left unsupervised for days at a time; they are remote and much of the work that they do requires employee initiative. It is a difficult environment compared, for example, to a manufacturing environment—something with which I have more experience.

I had a lot of sympathy for Graeme Kirk when he attempted to reverse that onus of proof. Employers with all the will in the world attempt to protect their employees. It is nonsense to say that employers try to cheat or to take shortcuts, as employers of any substance would know that in the long run such behaviour invariably would cost them more. However, I am sure there are rogues in any environment—something for which we cannot properly regulate. I place on the record the appropriateness of the reversal of the onus of proof under the harmonisation laws. I do not foresee any diminution of worker protection, which is borne out by the interstate figures. As I have now placed on the record the employer's perspective, I commend the Hon. Sophie Cotsis for moving this motion.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM [12.39 p.m.]: On behalf of The Greens, I support the motion that recognises International Workers' Memorial Day. I commend the Hon. Sophie Cotsis for moving the motion to recognise this incredibly significant day. The International Workers' Memorial Day occurs on 28 April each year and honours those who have been killed at work. International Workers' Memorial Day was commenced by the Canadian Union of Public Employees in 1984. Commemorations are still led by unions throughout the world. The International Workers' Memorial Day provides us with an opportunity to take a moment to remember workers who died as a result of a workplace incident or occupational disease.

For 15 years prior to my election to Parliament, I worked as a stonemason and labourer in western New South Wales. In that role I spent a great deal of time dealing with families whose loved ones—husband, wife, son or daughter—died at work or died as a result of a work-related illness. It is shocking that someone can head off to work in the morning and never come home. The all-too-frequent death of truck drivers, labourers and factory workers demeans us all. The continual occurrence of workplace deaths shows that workplace safety is not as good as it should be.

One of the most poignant memorials I constructed was the memorial to New South Wales Emergency Services Volunteers in the Domain. I etched the names of all the people who died while serving as volunteers or when carrying out emergency services in New South Wales. Members of the Volunteer Coast Guard and the Rural Fire Service perform work, albeit unpaid work, and some of them never come home, which is incredibly traumatic for their families. In rural areas, workplace deaths occur by misadventure, even among people who are self-employed. Principally farmers, who are under pressure to be more productive and make a living, and farm labourers do things that are unsafe. Too many times we hear stories about people who have pushed the boundaries a little too far with the result that a tractor rolls, or a hay bale falls, or people fall asleep, crash their cars, and pay the ultimate price. That is a disaster not just for them and their families but also because their passing diminishes our community.

There is a high incidence of workplace-related deaths in the mining sector. In Australia the mining industry has come a long way in instituting safety standards in the workplace, but accidents still occur occasionally. The mining boom that is driving the New South Wales and Australian economies in so many ways is built on risks taken by mineworkers every day. I inspected an underground goldmine. It was terrifying to descend approximately two kilometres underground to an environment characterised by massive machines, huge explosions, water and vast quantities of rock. We place human beings in that inhumane and hostile environment and that inevitably results in the creation of risks, danger and accidents. In that type of heavy industry environment, people who are involved in accidents suffer death or serious injury. 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2649

I did stonemasonry work on the Lithgow Miners Memorial, which displays hundreds of names. The miners whose names are listed paid the ultimate price for contributing to our economy. We all recognise that mining involves environmental damage, but there is also the social cost of losing members of our community who are killed at work. According to International Labour Organization statistics, each year throughout the world workers suffer approximately 270 million accidents and fall victim to approximately 160 million incidents of work-related illnesses. Tragically in Australia we have evidence from the manufacturing industry of widespread work-related disease resulting in death and claims for compensation relating to mesothelioma. My family only just managed to avoid involvement in that tragedy. As a young man, my father travelled to north-western Western Australia and through serendipity missed out on getting a job in an asbestos mine. If he had got the job, it would have killed him. To this day he relates the story of turning up 15 minutes late and being one person away from getting that job. Instead of working in the asbestos mine, he got a job laying pipes and ultimately became a rigger. He narrowly dodged what would have been a horrendous illness and a workplace-related death.

Worldwide one worker dies every 15 seconds, which means that 6,000 workers die each day. Many of those workers are in the developing world—in places such as China and India where there is no workplace safety regulation. Some of Australia's biggest trading partners provide the clothes we wear and the tools we use. Those commodities are produced by workers in the developing world who are suffering. It should be acknowledged that the price benefit we obtain is off the back of the risks and inadequate safety conditions endured by workers. Australian Bureau of Statistics information shows that in Australia in 2009-10 approximately 640,700 people, or 5.3 per cent of the 12 million people who were employed at some time in the 12 months prior to that statistical period, experienced a work-related injury or illness. The incidence was lower than in previous years and represents a substantial improvement. As regulators and legislators, we are conscious of the incidence of work-related injuries and we are working on resolving the problems. As a former labourer and stonemason, I was often injured at work. Smashed fingers and back injuries were common occurrences.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: You still have trouble with your back.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: There is no doubt that I have a bad back. A lot of tradespeople who drive our economy by working in the building and construction industries suffer injuries at work. Of the people who worked at some time between 2009 and 2010, men were more likely to experience work-related injury or illness at a rate of 55 per 1,000—a decrease from 74 per 1,000 in 2005-06—than were women, who recorded a rate of 51 per 1,000. The rate of women's injuries over those periods did not vary. It is cause for concern that hardworking women who are involved in various trades and occupations need their rates of workplace injuries to be the subject of consideration by this Parliament and other Australian parliaments.

The occupational groups with the highest rates of work-related injuries or illness were labourers who recorded a rate of 88 per 1,000. I frequently saw workplace injuries suffered by casual labourers, people working on building sites and, in many instances, young people who were in their first year of employment. Although I do not have statistical evidence, I would be willing to bet that a higher proportion of young people suffer workplace injuries than people in any other category. The old hands know not only how to take the time on a job and not force the pace but also how it feels to really hurt oneself at work and the damage that that can do in the longer term. Obviously, death is irretrievable. The statistics included labourers, machinery operators and drivers, community and personal service workers. Community and service workers are being hurt performing voluntary work lifting things and pushing their work boundaries.

Statistics on deaths in the construction industry provided by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union indicate that, since the establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and building construction industry laws during 2005, deaths and serious injuries have increased significantly. It is of concern that workers on construction sites building the infrastructure that drives our economy are more likely to be hurt or killed at work than they were just six years ago. The number of deaths has increased from 3.14 per 100,000 workers in 2004 prior to the Australian Building and Construction Commission being established to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2007 and 4.27 per 100,000 in 2008. Statistics can hide serious circumstances, but those I have just cited demonstrate clearly that a worker was more likely to die, and did, between 2005 and now. That is quite alarming.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: They are bad laws, Jeremy.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: They are bad laws and they are causing the deaths of workers. Members should keep that in mind when we talk about unions, public sector workers and so forth. As 2650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

parliamentarians, we have an obligation to make sure that the laws of this State provide the best possible cover for workers and assure them that their safety in the workplace is paramount. This year the focus of the International Labour Organization on the International Day of Mourning was a systems approach for the prevention of workplace accidents—namely, the use of continual improvement of robust and evidence-based occupational health and safety systems in the workplace. We should embrace that progressive approach when dealing with occupational health and safety. We do not have to look far for examples of where things can go so badly wrong. Recent international examples highlight the dangers many workers face in their workplaces. We remember the Chilean miners trapped underground for so long and, more recently, the extraordinary bravery of workers at Fukushima. Before concluding my contribution, I read from a letter by Mr David Shoebridge to the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and the Workplace Tragedy Family Support Group:

The Greens NSW will continue to campaign for the protection of OHS standards in NSW to prevent workplace injuries and fatalities, and for just compensation for the victims of workplace tragedies. We believe that workers and their unions should have more rights to ensure workplaces are safe. It is a continuing blight on our country that on average one building worker is killed on a building site across Australia each week.

We understand that most fatalities occur on non-union sites. Non-union sites generally do not have delegates or union safety representatives.

We also believe that access to fair compensation for injuries sustained in the workplace is a fundamental right for all working people. Workers compensation benefits must be made affordable by increasing the focus on workplace safety and safe return to work rather than on reducing benefits to injured workers.

We will continue to campaign to get the government, WorkCover, the legal system and the construction industry to take more action to assist those who have suffered due to workplace accidents.

On behalf of The Greens, I commend the motion to the House.

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD [12.54 p.m.]: I speak in support of the motion. As many other members have done, I too commend my colleague the Hon. Sophie Cotsis for giving this House the opportunity to contribute to debate on this motion. We really are not debating it; we all support it because we recognise its significance and importance in acknowledging the need for safe workplaces around this State, nation and internationally. Workers' Memorial Day takes place annually in over 100 countries on 28 April as an international day of remembrance and action for unions, workers and their families and friends. It is an opportunity to gather and remember the men, women and children who were killed or injured at work, became sick from exposure to hazardous substances, were tortured, imprisoned, murdered or oppressed because of their trade union activities, or suffered degradation, pollution or destruction of their communities due to unsustainable work practices.

Workers' Memorial Day was started 27 years ago, in 1984, by the Canadian Union of Public Employees. The Canadian Labour Congress declared an annual day of remembrance in 1985 on 28 April, which was the anniversary of a comprehensive workers compensation Act passed in 1914. In 1991 the Canadian Parliament passed an Act respecting a national day of mourning for persons killed or injured in the workplace, making 28 April an official workers mourning day recognised by the International Labour Organization and International Trade Union Confederation. Workers' Memorial Day events have been organised in Canada, the United States of America and worldwide. Since 1989 trade unions in North America, Asia, Europe and Africa have organised events on 28 April. The late hazards campaigner, Tommy Hart, brought Workers' Memorial Day to the United Kingdom in 1992 as "Remember the Dead—Fight for the Living." In the United Kingdom the campaign for Workers' Memorial Day has been championed by the hazards campaign and taken up by trade unions, and was adopted by the United Kingdom Trades Union Congress in 1999, and the Health and Safety Commission and the Health Safety Executive in 2000.

Workers' Memorial Day began setting annual themes. The 2006 theme was "Union workplaces equal safer workplaces", focusing on increased awareness of HIV-AIDS and a global ban on asbestos. This motion provides the opportunity again to pay tribute to Bernie Banton and everyone who worked to bring about significant change to the awareness of the dangers of asbestos and ensure that victims exposed to asbestos are paid compensation and receive appropriate healthcare treatment. In 2002 the International Labour Organization announced that 28 April should be made an official day by the United Nations. This important day is recognised as a national day in many countries, including Argentina, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, the Dominican Republic, Luxembourg, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Thailand, Taiwan, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Trade unions in other countries, including the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Malta, Nepal, New Zealand, Romania and Singapore also are pursuing government recognition. 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2651

Remembrance is marked throughout the world in many different ways, including active campaigning and workplace awareness events. Public events include speeches, multifaith religious services, laying wreaths, planting trees, unveiling monuments, balloon releases—although I am not sure The Greens would like that— raising public awareness of issues and laying out empty shoes to symbolise those who have died at work. Before I refer to the statistics, and I acknowledge that other members also have done so, it is important to recognise the role of Workers' Memorial Day in awareness and education of workplace safety. Many of us are aware of some industries and sectors that are considered dangerous, such as coalmining. This motion provides an opportunity to remember and pay tribute to the miners who lost their lives recently in the New Zealand mine disaster and to their grieving families and friends. We pay tribute also to those emergency workers who did their best, regretfully in vain, to try to recover the miners' bodies. We continue to hear of horrendous accidents in coalmines throughout China, and worldwide we acknowledge also the Chile mine disaster.

[The Assistant-President (Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile) left the chair at 1.00 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 ______

PAYROLL TAX

The Hon. LUKE FOLEY: My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra. Given yesterday's passionate plea by the Government Whip, "I live for the day when we can repeal payroll tax … I live for the day when we can get rid of all job-destroying taxes", when will the Government abolish payroll tax?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question because it allows me to talk about our 100 Day Action Plan and some of the steps we have already taken, including our 100,000 jobs creation plan based on payroll tax rebates. For the next two years, from 1 July, we will be encouraging the creation of new jobs by offering a payroll tax rebate. That is 100,000 jobs potentially, 40,000 of which we are targeting in regional areas. That is because we are committed to the regions. The Government is committed to regional New South Wales. We have policies that assist regional New South Wales, unlike the former Government, which neglected regional New South Wales and took it for granted.

As shadow Minister for the Illawarra and now as Minister for the Illawarra, I can say that the former Government not only neglected the regions but imposed corrupt local government on them. That is why one of the first things we have done under our 100 Day Action Plan is to restore democracy in Wollongong and Shellharbour. Whereas the mob opposite was content to mix with and rely on corrupt people as part of its party, this Government acted immediately to restore democracy in Wollongong and in Shellharbour. So I thank the Leader of the Opposition. As this question time is sure to be interesting, I will conclude my answer because I am certain I will have a few other opportunities to talk about this matter.

MID NORTH COAST FLOODS

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House and provide further information on recent flooding in the State's north?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the member for his question. I know that he and the community in which he lives have been affected by flooding. As members are aware, flooding and extreme weather on the North Coast have closed a number of roads and forced the evacuation of people from their homes. In particular, the Pacific Highway remains closed between Kempsey and Clybucca on the State's mid North Coast. The closure of the Pacific Highway at Kempsey is expected to remain in place for an estimated three to four more days. I have been told that it will remain closed probably until Monday. Once the high-water mark clears, the road will need to be repaired before vehicles can travel on it.

Fortunately, the Pacific Highway has now reopened at Hastings River Bridge, but motorists need to exercise caution as there is water over the road at additional points between Port Macquarie and Kempsey. Crews have been working on the New England Highway to repair the flood damage. Along the New England Highway, areas that have been affected include west of Singleton, Muswellbrook, Aberdeen and Parkville near 2652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

Scone. The Chief Executive of Australian Trucking, Stuart St Clair, warned yesterday—this is appropriate—that flooding on the Pacific Highway meant that a vast number of trucks were using the New England Highway instead. For this reason the Roads and Traffic Authority has advised people not to travel on the New England Highway if they are able to avoid it, and there are a couple of ways of doing that. I strongly encourage motorists to exercise caution when driving in flood-affected areas. The following roads also remain closed by flooding: Hastings River Drive at Port Macquarie, Failford Road between the Pacific Highway and Tuncurry Road, Tuncurry, and Thunderbolts Way at Nowendoc.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: What about Cleveland Street in Redfern?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I do not believe Cleveland Street in Redfern is closed. Meanwhile on the North Coast, the Bluff Point ferry at Lawrence is still out of service due to high water levels, as is the ferry at Ulmarra. Pleasingly, a number of major roads have reopened in the past 24 hours, although they remain affected by water on the road and drivers should show caution. These include the New England Highway at Muswellbrook, Bellingen via the Waterfall Way, which is an alternative route to the New England Highway, the Oxley Highway between the New England Highway and the Pacific Highway, and the Golden Highway between the New England Highway and Rang Road, Whittingham. Traffic commanders are in flood-affected areas, along with strategically placed variable messaging signs to keep people updated on traffic conditions.

There are problems with the tarmac on the New England Highway as a result of the flooding in January. The Roads and Traffic Authority had nearly completed restoration of the tarmac on the New England Highway at the time of the latest rains and the subsequent increased movement of trucks and cars on the highway. Sadly, there are problems in areas between Glen Innes and Armidale. There are seven electronic signs on the highway at the moment. People need to be careful. The wheels and tyres on a large number of cars on the New England Highway have already been damaged. I urge people to take care. The road crews are doing a fabulous job repairing the New England Highway. We have lowered the speed limit in certain areas. Trucks are travelling slower, which means that other vehicles will travel slower. We simply need to be patient because, as members know, it is a natural disaster and people are trying to overcome these problems as quickly as possible. [Time expired.]

GOSFORD PUBLIC SCHOOL

Dr JOHN KAYE: My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Education and Training, and relates to the proposed relocation of Gosford Public School onto the grounds of Henry Kendall High School. Is it correct that the Government has commenced exploring alternative sites for the primary school? Will the Minister tell the House what alternative sites have been explored and when a final decision will be made on the relocation?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The question in relation to the proposed relocation of Gosford Public School onto the grounds of Henry Kendall High School is important. Obviously I do not have a detailed answer but I will forward the question to the Minister for Education and seek a response as soon as possible.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS LEGISLATION

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. I refer to his answer yesterday when he justified his Government's industrial relations legislation by comparing it with legislation in other States. Given those States will retain oversight by an independent industrial tribunal and this Government's legislation binds the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission to implementing only government policy on wages conditions, will the Minister admit that this Government is the only one in Australia that denies public sector workers access to an independent tribunal?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: No.

PUBLIC SECTOR WAGES POLICY

The Hon. SARAH MITCHELL: My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Minister, I also refer to your answer yesterday in which you noted that the Tasmanian approach to public sector wages has limited wages growth to 2.5 per cent. Will the Minister update the House on any developments transpiring from the Tasmanian budget that was handed down in Parliament yesterday? 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2653

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: That is an interesting question from the Hon. Sarah Mitchell, who shows great interest in what is happening in this State. I have been informed that the Tasmanian budget was handed down yesterday by Premier Lara Giddings, who is also Treasurer and Minister for the Arts. Members will know that the Government of Tasmania is a Labor-Greens coalition, just like the Federal Government is a Labor-Greens coalition and the New South Wales Opposition is a Labor-Greens coalition. The Budget Speech makes very interesting reading, particularly the section of the speech that talks about wages policy. The Premier of Tasmania said:

Mr Speaker, employee related costs account for almost 50 per cent of the State’s total Budget costs.

That sounds familiar. She continued:

Increases in wage and salary costs have a significant impact on our Budget position and our capacity to deliver critical government services.

That is very familiar. She went on:

Over the last decade public sector salaries have grown on average by 5.3 per cent per annum, compared with growth in private sector salaries of 3.5 per cent.

It is not strictly comparable, but in New South Wales over the 12 years from 1997 to 2010 public sector wages grew at 10.4 per cent greater than the private sector—Tasmania, 3.5 per cent but here 10.5 per cent. She continued:

The Government recognises the critical contribution public sector employees make in the delivery of services, and we value the hard work and dedication of our staff.

How many times have I said in this Chamber that we value the hard work of public servants in New South Wales? She then said:

But the historic levels of public sector pay growth are not sustainable.

That sounds like the Hon. Eric Roozendaal. That is what Michael Costa said. Morris Iemma said it was "not sustainable". This is the best bit. She continued:

A new Wage Policy will allow for non-productivity based wage increases of—

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Of 2.5 per cent?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: No. It is:

… 2 per cent per annum for all new agreements, with flexibility for measureable productivity improvements of up to 0.5 per cent to be negotiated.

Those opposite have gone quiet. That sounds familiar—a minimum pay rise with the ability to negotiate further additional pay rises if savings are achieved, but in Tasmania it is up to 2.5 per cent. [Time expired.]

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

The Hon. Luke Foley: Point of order: The Hon. Sarah Mitchell asked the Minister to elucidate his answer specifically with reference to Tasmanian wages policy. That is not in the Minister's area of responsibility and so the question is out of order.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The standing orders clearly provide that a supplementary question is in order when it asks for the elucidation of an aspect of the answer. In his answer to the question the Minister clearly referred to the Tasmanian wages policy. The question is in order.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I will conclude the quotation of the Premier of Tasmania, who said:

This policy is consistent with public sector wage restraint being shown in other jurisdictions.

The public sector wages limit in Tasmania, the first State to follow us, is 2 per cent with a possibility of 2.5 per cent if savings are identified. That is the absolute limit. New South Wales is being generous. We have 2654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

said that wage increases may be up to 2.5 per cent and then, consistent with the former Government's policy, said that wage increases above 2.5 per cent are achievable provided the savings are achieved. There could not be anything fairer than that. As I pointed out yesterday, Tasmania is not alone. The other States have similar approaches: Victoria, 2.5 per cent; South Australia, 2.5 per cent; and Queensland, 2.5 per cent. [Time expired.]

PUBLIC DENTAL SERVICES

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: My question is directed to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that dental caries is Australia's most prevalent health problem, with recent estimates suggesting that 11 million people suffer new decay each year? Approximately 133,000 people are currently on a waiting list for general dental services in New South Wales, with more than half waiting at least six months. Oral health and dental treatment is excluded from funding under Medicare, which means that the majority of dental services in Australia are self-funded. New South Wales has the lowest per capita funding for public dental services of any State or Territory, at $23.20 per person. Given those findings, how will the Minister make public dental care more accessible to people who cannot afford it? How much direct funding will be allocated to oral health and public dental services during this budget term?

The Hon. Mick Veitch: Point of clarification: When a Minister is absent from the House is it not the usual practice in this place that a statement is made at the commencement of question time to indicate who will represent that Minister during question time? I do not believe that occurred at the commencement of question time today.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Mr President, I apologise if I did not follow the precedent. I certainly told the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but not other members, that I will be taking questions on behalf of the Leader of the Government, who is absent today attending to issues to do with the State Emergency Service and the floods.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Had the member concluded his question?

The Hon. PAUL GREEN: Yes, Mr President, but obviously I redirect it to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, representing the Minister for Health.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: You can freewheel this one, Duncan.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I will.

The Hon. Luke Foley: We're sliding down the evolutionary ladder when we get to you.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: That's a harsh call, especially coming from you. I thank the honourable member for his question on the important issue of dental decay and oral health. Certainly, 16 years of neglect in this State has left a legacy in many areas—this one included. I will pass the question on to the Minister for Health for a composite and important answer.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS LEGISLATION

The Hon. ADAM SEARLE: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Given his answer to my previous question, will the Minister identify which other Australian States have denied their workers access to an independent industrial tribunal?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is referring to his previous question, he asked me to concede something and I said no.

SYDNEY HARBOUR POLLUTION

The Hon. NATASHA MACLAREN-JONES: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will the Minister update the House on the new harbour cleaning vessel?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the honourable member for this very important question. This really is good news. It should interest Opposition members because they are used to garbage, and this is one way of removing garbage. Sydney Harbour is world famous for its sparkling blue water and beautiful foreshores. 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2655

Every year, millions of Sydneysiders take to the water, swimming, boating and fishing. Unfortunately, in recent years, pollution in Sydney Harbour has been a blight on our environment. Similarly, for 16 years the Labor Government hoarded rubbish at Parliament House. On 26 March this year the people of New South Wales overwhelmingly voted to take out the trash, and this Coalition Government is repaying their faith by cleaning up Sydney Harbour. Currently, 3,500 cubic metres of rubbish is collected each year. That is the equivalent of 125 garbage truck loads—much like the ones that carted shredded documents from Parliament House in the dying days of the former Government.

The Hon. Luke Foley: Be careful, or I will talk about what you left behind in your office.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: There is nothing left there. Rubbish in the harbour ranges from large objects such as trees and tyres, to debris washed into the harbour from harbour-side suburbs. The NSW Maritime and Environmental Services team is primarily responsible for removing floating litter from Sydney Harbour, including litter that enters the harbour through the stormwater system. I am pleased to announce the newest addition to the Environmental Services fleet, a 16-metre vessel purpose built to provide specialist cleaning services to the harbour. It will be able to pick up large volumes of floating debris around the harbour by skimming litter with a special water jet assisted litter capture cage. This is the best bit of gear that members would have seen in a long time, and it was developed by the staff of NSW Maritime. They put together the concept of using pumps to deliver a jet of water, creating a venturi that allows—

The Hon. Luke Foley: Can we get that in Hansard?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: A venturi, for those who do not know, creates an action very much like water going down the sink in bathrooms. I know that Hansard has trouble picking up my hand signals. Any mechanic and any shearer would love a great bit of equipment like this. The staff at NSW Maritime have done a fabulous job of putting this together. I think it is so good that we could potentially export it to the world. Sadly, it was built in New Zealand; that is the only downside. But this vessel is fantastic. It will be doing a great job in our harbour. It is a 16-metre vessel and, from memory, cost about $1.9 million.

The Hon. Mick Veitch: Stick to the notes.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yes, I should have. I went for a short run on the vessel the other day, and it was just fabulous. So good on the staff for putting together this world-class vessel.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Give them a pay rise.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: They will get one—2½ per cent. Ian Kiernan, who did so much to help Sydney clean up and established Clean Up Australia was there and he too was impressed with it. Well done.

M5 EAST TUNNEL VENTILATION

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Given that a recent study of ultrafine particles in the M5 East tunnel, entitled "An investigation of commuter exposure to ultrafine particles in Sydney" and published in Air Quality and Climate Change, found that a Sydney commuter could be exposed to up to 41 per cent of their daily exposure to ultrafine particles while travelling through the tunnel, and that in 2006 the Department of Health recommended that motorcyclists avoid using the tunnel and that motorists in cars close their windows and switch the ventilation system to recirculate, will the Government be taking steps to erect signs at the entrance to the M5 East tunnel, and any others if necessary, to pass on this advice from the Department of Health to motorists, given the previous Government did not take that advice and erect those signs?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I thank the Hon. Cate Faehrmann for her important question. I am unaware of the document. I do not normally have the same reading list as the honourable member, but I accept the validity of the material that she has sourced—which is a brave move anyway. The point made by the honourable member is valid. For a long time, people have been concerned about the M5 tunnel. Those great people from Residents Against Polluting Stacks and the local community tried to warn the failed former Government of the potential problems associated with building a tunnel that was not wide enough and not properly filtered.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Local people only wanted one. 2656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Don't try to take the credit for all of it. The blame is to be shared with a few others; you cannot take all the blame.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: You've got the big white cars now; what are you going to do?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I do not have a big white car. But it would not matter if you had a big white car; the M5 tunnel is a problem for everyone. The suggestions made in the question are valid, and I will put them to the Roads and Traffic Authority for examination. I know when I travel through the tunnel I wind up the windows and change the vehicle's ventilation system to recycling. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile indicates that he does the same. I would bet that a canny shearer like the Hon. Mick Veitch, who has been through some tough times, would still wind up the windows in the Veitch-mobile and proceed with caution. I thank the honourable member for the question.

I am informed there is a filtration trial underway at the moment as well. It is a $65 million investment in the trial of tunnel air filtration equipment in the western end of the westbound M5 East road tunnel. The trial commenced in March 2010 as one component of the M5 East air quality improvement plan and was expected to run for about 18 months. Currently it has about six months to run. I understand that an update on the progress of the trial was posted on the buildingsydneymotorways.com.au website in August 2010. It might be worth the member's looking there. The CSIRO is currently undertaking an independent assessment of the performance of the plant. Initial measurements indicate that the plant is removing a significant amount of particulates from the air but not at the anticipated rate of 80 per cent. A further update will be provided as soon as possible. [Time expired.]

ELECTRICITY PRICES

The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: My question is directed to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Resources and Energy. Given the Minister's demand last year that the then Government "reject these price rises which will see many families toppling into financial collapse", will the Government overrule the latest recommendations of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] on electricity prices?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: This is an important question for the people of New South Wales who are struggling under the huge electricity bills in this State. They are paying for infrastructure that had already been paid for. When the former Minister, John Robertson, went out in his hard hat and reflective vest—the sun king, as some call him—people knew that they were paying for that publicity. When he stood before the cameras and had his moment in the sun the electricity users of New South Wales—the mums and dads, the pensioners, the small business owners and the farmers—were paying to put in place infrastructure that they had already paid for. In fact, they had copped it three times. When Michael Egan could not pull off electricity privatisation he said, "I'll take it over." He took over the distributors and they were like rivers of gold. They are like the union movement that the Labor Party and The Greens are currently fighting over to get their hands on the rivers of gold—

The Hon. Helen Westwood: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. I specifically asked the Minister whether the Government will overrule the latest recommendations of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal regarding electricity prices. I did not ask for a history lesson.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Minister of the need for him to be generally relevant in his answer.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I take your advice on board, Mr President. I know how sensitive the Labor Party and The Greens are about the border skirmishes to get their hands on the river of gold from the unions. Yesterday the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal announced that the regulated electricity retail prices for small customers will rise on average by between 16 per cent and 18 per cent, which amounts to an increase of $228 to $316 from 1 July this year. An average business customer will be paying on average $307 to $528 a year. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal report says that the biggest impact on price increases is the financial cost to retailers of complying with obligations under the Commonwealth Government's renewable energy target, which will add $75 per annum to the average household bill.

[Interruption] 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2657

It is the biggest single factor. The Premier has announced a three-point plan to try to ease the impact of the proposed power price rises announced by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal. The Government has already commenced implementing this plan with the following initiatives already underway: Firstly, the introduction of a new low income household rebate, which will commence at $200 per year, and the development of the Family Energy Rebate, which could see some families receive rebates of up to $250 per year. This will be funded by the merger of three electricity distributors into two. Secondly, there will be an immediate review of the electricity network licence conditions to halt any overspending which may be forcing up power prices. Thirdly, we have sought compensation from the Federal Government to offset the price rises caused by the Commonwealth's renewable energy target, which has been identified by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal as the major reason for the huge increase in power prices.

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services. Will the Minister update the House on the Government's commitment to information and communications technology?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the honourable member for his question and note the ongoing interest that members on this side of the House have in the development of information and communications technology [ICT] strategies for New South Wales. Today I was joined by the Deputy Premier and the Treasurer to announce the Government's commitment to information communication and technology innovation and delivery. I was fortunate to be able to showcase the Government's priority to make New South Wales the nation's leader in information communication and technology at the inaugural Strategic ICT Forum, consisting of more than 80 industry and government leaders. The high level of enthusiasm shown by the large contingent of information communication and technology industry leaders this morning reflected the desire of the broader community to have access to better ICT services.

The forum marks the beginning of a new collaboration between industry, Government, the research and education sectors and the community. It is vital that industry is engaged in the development of programs, which will stimulate the information communication and technology sector, restore confidence to the private sector and the community and enable government service delivery into the future. I had the pleasure of speaking with members of the information communication and technology industry who expressed their desire to see the New South Wales Government become the leader in ICT. Their level of support for such an initiative was evident for all to see, given that those opposite sat idly by and did nothing to give the industry any confidence on information communication and technology delivery and innovation during their 16 years in office.

Members opposite never had a long-term vision for information communication and technology, they never cared about it and they could never implement any information communication and technology policy with any real value for New South Wales. During 16 years of Labor, any information communication and technology investment was disparate and nothing more than piecemeal thought bubbles, with agencies choosing to undertake their business in isolation from the Government. There was no consultation because there was no relationship between Government, the industry and the community at large under that mob. We want to be the leaders in information communication and technology innovation and delivery. New South Wales residents are technologically savvy and they understandably want their Government to move with the advancements in technology.

This Government has the vision to put information communication and technology front and centre of Government to eradicate the short-term cost-cutting measures that resulted in suboptimal return on investment through higher long-term costs and low productivity gains. Historically the New South Wales public sector has operated under a decentralised and non-mandated information communication and technology framework. Ensuring governance that enables the Government to respond quickly on issues in the dynamic information communication and technology environment remains paramount. The rapid pace of technological change is both a hurdle and an opportunity for all of us and how we respond will have ramifications for the entire community.

Advances in information communication and technology present us with enormous opportunities to increase public sector capacity, improve service delivery and make significant and sustainable productivity gains. Indeed the Australian is already covering the event this morning. Look, here is a photo of me—

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: I understand that the Minister is excited because there is a photo of him in the paper, but the use of props in the Chamber is unparliamentary. 2658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

The PRESIDENT: Order! The use of props is unparliamentary. I suggest that the Minister briefly conclude his answer while he has the chance.

[Time expired.]

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX: I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister elucidate his answer, particularly in relation to this morning's important forum on information communication and technology?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: As I mentioned, the Australian has already reported enthusiastically on our information communication and technology forum this morning. I shall quote from it—

The Hon. Luke Foley: Point of order: I ask the Minister to table the document that he is promoting.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Mr President, I am happy to table it. However, I would like to quote from it first:

The audience hung on every word as Messrs Pearce, Stoner and Baird took turns to deliver their speeches.

Even the bells ringing to call members to the Chamber did little to distract them.

It was a golden opportunity, a momentous occasion, as one participant described the event.

The fact that they got this event off the ground a few months after the election says a lot.

The industry has found it difficult in the past to engage with the previous government...this is a sign that the new government is open to ideas and collaboration.

I seek leave to table an article from The Australian entitled "NSW Government asks industry to help reform $2 billion tech spend", dated 17 June 2011.

Leave granted.

Document tabled.

SENSASLIM DEFAMATION CASE

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: I direct my question to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Attorney General. Is the Government aware of the $800,000 defamation case brought by SensaSlim, a diet slimming spray products company, against Dr Ken Harvey? What action is the Government taking through the Department of Fair Trading to consider action against these suspect products? What action has the Government taken to ensure the Therapeutic Goods Administration is not blocked by defamation cases such as this being brought before the courts? Will the Government extend the same protections that journalists have to those in the scientific community when addressing concerns with questionable commercial products?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: While I do not have direct knowledge in this area, the concerns of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile are valid. I know Opposition members do not share those concerns, but I do. I will refer the matter to the appropriate Minister and seek an answer as soon as possible.

WOLLONGONG CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra. What is he doing to bring about the revitalisation of the Wollongong central business district?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: Just a little while ago I met with the general manager and another gentleman from Wollongong City Council to discuss this very issue and to obtain a briefing from them. The honourable member needs to understand that the revitalisation of the central business district has two components that are being worked on at the moment. The first is the mall itself, which is the province of the council, and it has been going through a long process to determine the appropriate option for the mall and what it proposes to do. It has had various options on exhibition at various times, we have commented on them and I obviously was commenting on them in the consultation with the general manager and his director of infrastructure. They intend to recommend an option before the council elections in September. When the new council is elected, it will have a recommended option with all of the work before it and it will be able to proceed on that basis. 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2659

The other most significant part of the redevelopment of the central business district concerns the General Property Trust development and redevelopment. I had a briefing on that the week before last. Honourable members will recall that before the global financial crisis General Property Trust was ready to proceed with redevelopment. It has shopping centres on both sides at the top end of the mall and it also has a site across the road. It was ready to go with the redevelopment of both of the sites on the main mall. We know of the corruption problems and other issues at Wollongong council. General Property Trust, of course, did not go to the table of knowledge. Surprise, surprise—its approvals did not come through in time for it to get started on the redevelopment.

General Property Trust, with a commitment to the Illawarra and Wollongong, then proceeded to refurbish parts of the development. It has done one side, and I do not think there is any problem with disclosing to the House that it has well advanced plans for development of its third site. I hope that it will proceed with that in a fairly timely way. As Minister for the Illawarra I will do as I have just described: speak to the stakeholders, encourage the stakeholders and look for any way that the Government can on a whole-of-government basis support them and encourage them to move forward with this important series of developments. The Wollongong central business district is integral to the entire region. If a town or city does not have a functioning, vibrant central business district, it has an adverse impact on the entire region because it does not draw the jobs and the businesses that are needed.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: I ask a supplementary question.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: It was a good answer, wasn't it?

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE: Yes, and I accept the Minister's answer. I ask him to elucidate on the issue of transport in relation to the revitalisation of the Wollongong central business district.

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I did not mention transport in my answer, so I do not think that is really a supplementary question. However, I am happy to talk some more about the Wollongong central business district revitalisation. The New South Wales Government supports the efforts of the Wollongong City Council to develop and implement the Wollongong city centre action plan. The business community, stakeholders and the wider public now have a clear understanding of the timing and coordination of actions required to revitalise the city centre. We will continue to work with the Wollongong City Council and all stakeholders to implement the plan. Of course, any new requests for funding—and I did not get to this in the previous answer—to help implement the plan will be given due consideration in the normal budget process. However, no funding applications are currently being considered in the budget processes.

The Wollongong city centre revitalisation plan was prepared in 2007. It establishes a vision to promote the Wollongong city centre as the Illawarra's capital and one of the State's key regional cities. In 2010 the Wollongong city action plan was prepared by council, in consultation with stakeholders, to provide further details on the timing, priority and coordination of actions to implement the wider revitalisation plan. Actions by the New South Wales Government have included support for various studies and other ongoing work. The private sector is also working very hard—

[Interruption]

I do not want to spoil the question I will be asked later by answering it now. In relation to the Crown Street Mall upgrade, Wollongong City Council has advised— [Time expired.]

LANE COVE TUNNEL SPEED CAMERAS

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA: I direct my question to the Minister for Roads and Ports. Will he update the House on the Lane Cove Tunnel?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: As I have told members of the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, the Hon. John Ajaka is the finest Parliamentary Secretary anyone could ever have, partly because he asks important questions. Two weeks ago I became aware of problems with certification of fixed speed cameras in the Lane Cove Tunnel. The eastbound and westbound fixed speed cameras were not certified by the due date of 14 March 2011. Certification involves the accurate calibration of speed cameras. The Roads and Traffic Authority rescheduled certification and immediately advised the State Debt Recovery Office to hold infringements until the cameras could be certified. Unfortunately, as a result of human error, infringements were halted from the westbound camera, but not the eastbound camera. 2660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

As soon as I became aware of the problem I ordered the Roads and Traffic Authority to take immediate action to calibrate the speed cameras. That occurred within 24 hours of my directive. Both the eastbound and westbound cameras have been certified. That incident shows what can be done when the State has a Minister for Roads who is willing to take action rather than the succession of ineffectual, lazy and hopeless roads Ministers that beset the former Government. This issue occurred repeatedly during the term of the former Government, but people were not informed. I made the point in no uncertain terms to the Roads and Traffic Authority that such areas and oversights frankly are not up to the authority's usual standard. The Roads and Traffic Authority has now implemented measures to ensure that that will not happen again, including a computer-generated alert system. Like all of us, Roads and Traffic Authority officers are human. We are human and we all make mistakes.

The Hon. Amanda Fazio: Are you sure?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: We are not certain whether some people are human. An electronic device has been installed that will serve as a reminder to ensure that the problem does not recur. The Roads and Traffic Authority has apologised for the inconvenience caused to motorists. Approximately 860 motorists were detected speeding by the eastbound camera during the relevant 11-week period, and approximately 160 paid the penalties. Those who paid fines for speeding infringements in the Lane Cove Tunnel will have their payments refunded. Although the cameras were working correctly, they were not certified. Therefore, approximately $32,000 in penalties will be refunded in full and demerit points will be reinstated to motorists who were affected by the mishap.

The Hon. John Ajaka: It is the right thing to do.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: It is good news for the motorists, but it is bad news for the taxpayer. Am I happy? No, I am not happy. The incident is not something that the Government applauds. However, I pay credit to the Roads and Traffic Authority, which accepted the mistake and devised a solution by installing a failsafe computer alert—and good on them.

DISABILITY ACCESS

The Hon. JAN BARHAM: I direct my question to the Minister for Finance and Services, representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. The Disability (Access to Premises—Buildings) Standards and accompanying changes to the Building Code of Australia commenced on 1 May 2011, giving greater emphasis to universal design principles. To support these reforms, an Access Advisory Committee has been established to assess applications for exemptions from the standards, based on unjustifiable hardship. Will the Minister advise whether any Commonwealth or New South Wales disability advocacy organisations have representation on that committee? If not, why not? Will the Minister advise how many applications for exemptions from the standards have been sought from the Access Advisory Committee and whether the exemption process will be mandatory?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I thank the Hon. Jan Barham for her very interesting question. I will be interested to obtain an answer from the Minister and provide it as soon as possible.

ILLAWARRA DATA CENTRE

The Hon. AMANDA FAZIO: My question is directed to the Minister for the Illawarra. What is the current status of the Warren data centre?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: I think the member is referring to the current tender for potentially two data centres. That tender is being evaluated. No doubt in due course I will be able to report to the House on the evaluation. I accept the question in my capacity as the Minister for Finance and Services because my department is running the tender. The tender is being evaluated. I will be pleased to report to the House when the evaluation is completed.

AGRICULTURAL SECTOR EMPLOYMENT

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM: I address my question to the Minister for Roads and Ports, representing the Minister for Primary Industries. The Minister would be aware of the Australian Bureau of Statistics report released yesterday showing a sharp drop in agricultural employment despite a jobs growth in other sectors of the economy, particularly mining. Is the Government concerned about the loss of jobs in the 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2661

agricultural sector? What is the Government doing to ensure that employment in the agricultural sector does not continue to decrease? What is the Government doing to attract and skill up young people for a career in the agricultural sector?

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I am pleased to see the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham laughing, but this is an important question. I have not seen the Australian Bureau of Statistics report that was released yesterday, but I accepted the member's word on the statistics. Frankly, it is not surprising. The agricultural sector recently endured a decade of drought. I sometimes wonder whether The Greens care about farmers, or whether their consideration is limited just to making the point against gas mining. The understanding among most of The Nationals is that The Greens find large-scale farming equally abhorrent.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. I asked how the Government is responding to the skills shortage in the agricultural sector. The question had nothing to do with the Minister's ongoing diatribe against The Greens.

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

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I again acknowledge the humour of the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham and the manner in which he treats such issues. While good humour is present occasionally, threats are constant—which the Government has come to expect. The perception that The Greens are warm, cuddly and friendly is dispelled when they issue threats daily across the Chamber. So much for being warm and friendly! As the Hon. Mick Veitch, the Hon. Rick Colless and many other members of this House know, New South Wales endured 10 years of drought, which was the longest period of drought in the nation's history. Some records were set during that time. Stocking rates were down and money is non-existent for many families involved in the agricultural industry.

The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham has lived in a rural community and he should know what happens. He is the orange Green, unlike the pink Greens, the purple Greens and the Smarties Greens. He is the orange Green, and he should know that it takes a while for recovery to occur in rural areas. As I previously advised the former Minister for Primary Industries, Ian Macdonald, the day a drought ends is not the day that the financial drought ends. When the first rain comes, it is approximately two years before an income begins to be generated.

The Hon. Rick Colless: At least.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Yes. Many areas that were hit by drought were hit immediately by floods in the aftermath of the drought, but The Greens do not care about that. The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham is once again trying to make a point against the mining industry.

The Hon. Trevor Khan: A cheap political point.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: There is no care at all on the part of the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham for the rural industry or farmers—just crass hypocrisy. He wants to make the point that he does not want a mixed New South Wales economy. He does not want any royalties going to hospitals, roads or police in this State. He does not want a mixed economy in this State. He wants us to live in the dark. The illustrious dear leader, as his colleagues refer to him, has one idea: anti-mining. The crocodile tears about farmers is— [Time expired.]

SOUTH COAST FOOTBALL

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and Services, and Minister for the Illawarra. Will the Minister guarantee the $2.5 million in funding needed to establish a home for football on the South Coast?

The Hon. GREG PEARCE: That matter should be addressed to the Minister for Sport and Recreation.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: If members have further questions, I suggest they place them on notice.

GOSFORD PUBLIC SCHOOL

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: Earlier Dr John Kaye asked a question about Gosford Public School. On 17 December 2010 the former Government announced that Gosford Public School would be relocated to a site 2662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

within the present grounds of Henry Kendall High School. I am pleased to inform the House that the Minister for Education has been working closely with the member for Gosford, Chris Holstein, to review the information relating to the decision to relocate Gosford Public School. The Government is keen to ensure that the current plan delivers the best educational outcomes for the people of Gosford today and in the future. The Minister will announce the outcome of the review when it has been completed.

COAL SEAM GAS EXPLORATION

The HON. DUNCAN GAY: On 27 May 2011 The Hon. Jeremy Buckingham asked me a question regarding the Eastern Star Gas proposal. I provide the following response:

I am advised: Newcastle Port Corporation has a Draft Strategic Development Plan, currently under review which will be made available for public consultation shortly.

Questions without notice concluded.

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

The House continued to sit.

INFRASTRUCTURE NSW BILL 2011

Bill received from the Legislative Assembly, and read a first time and ordered to be printed on motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay.

Motion by the Hon. Duncan Gay agreed to:

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

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

CONDUCT OF MAGISTRATE BRIAN MALONEY

The Hon. JOHN AJAKA (Parliamentary Secretary) [3.34 p.m.], by leave: I move:

That the question be amended by omitting "Thursday 23 June 2011" in paragraph 2 and inserting instead "Tuesday 21 June 2011", and omitting "Tuesday 21 June 2011" in paragraph 4 and inserting instead "Monday 20 June 2011".

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [3.35 p.m.]: I thank all members for their attention to this matter. I know the House supports the principal motion and the amendment. I commend the motion to the House.

Question—That the amendment of the Hon. John Ajaka be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Motion as amended agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Minister for Roads and Ports) [3.36 p.m.]: I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

CARBON TAX

The Hon. RICK COLLESS [3.36 p.m.]: I issue a challenge to those supporters of a carbon dioxide tax to prove that such a tax will have any impact on the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. The many 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2663

economic reasons why a carbon tax simply should never be implemented have already been and continue to be succinctly ventilated by many conservative members of Parliament, many commentators and a majority of the wider community throughout Australia. I point out to the House a series of scientific facts that clearly show the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature. The first scientific fact relates to the temperature carbon dioxide forcing curve. This curve has been generated by the University of Chicago and shows that the effect of CO2 on temperature is strongly logarithmic. This means that global temperature increases actually decrease with increasing carbon dioxide concentration.

The first 20 ppm of CO2 has a greater temperature effect than the next 400 ppm. Members opposite should know that. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, increased atmospheric CO2 has increased the temperature of the atmosphere by 0.1 degree Celsius. By 2030 the level of CO2 is projected to increase from 380 ppm to 420 ppm, which equates to an increase in atmospheric temperature of 0.04 degrees Celsius. By 2150 the CO2 content is projected to increase an additional 200 ppm to 620 ppm, resulting in a further 0.16 degrees Celsius increase in atmospheric temperature. Those scientists that acknowledge this scientific fact argue against this curve on the basis that the feedback loop caused by cloud cover and water vapour in the atmosphere will further increase global temperatures. Further examination of this claim reveals that Danish researchers have identified that an increase of global low cloud cover of just 1 per cent corresponds to a global temperature decrease of about 0.07 degrees Celsius, so small increases in temperature caused by significant increases in carbon dioxide levels will be neutralised by the negative feedback loop caused by increased cloud cover.

Many other factors are impacting on the global temperature of the Earth. For example, solar cycles average 11 years in length, and from 1700 have varied from nine to 15 years. Shorter cycles have higher solar intensity, meaning the sun is actually hotter; and longer cycles have lower solar intensity so the sun is a little cooler. When the sun is hotter the earth will warm, and when the sun is cooler the earth will also cool. Historical records of the global temperature clearly show that during the previous 1,000 years there has been a significant variation in the global temperature. From about 950 AD until about 1350 AD the Earth was warmer than it is today, with a maximum variation being some two degrees warmer than at present.

That period was followed by a much cooler period, known as the Little Ice Age. Its lowest trough was two degrees lower than it is today, a total range of four degrees Celsius. The recent warming during the twentieth century has been just 0.7 degrees Celsius. A further significant fact is that in the past carbon dioxide levels have been much higher than they are at present, with levels up to 7,000 parts per million—20 times higher than today, evident during the Cambrian era. For the majority of the Devonian era the carbon dioxide levels ranged from 2,000 to 4,000 parts per million, and global temperatures were some eight degrees warmer than today. This is significant because this was a period of great construction of fringing barrier reefs, despite those supporting the carbon tax attempting to convince the community that higher carbon dioxide and temperatures will result in ocean acidification and subsequent destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. Members opposite need to take the time to travel to Western Australia and visit Windjana Gorge.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: It's a great State.

The Hon. RICK COLLESS: It is a great State. Windjana Gorge is a popular tourist destination, and there is a big population of freshwater crocodiles. The gorge has been cut through the Napier Range by the Lennard River over the past 300 million years. The Napier Range is a former fringing barrier reef constructed by corals and marine organisms during the Devonian era, when carbon dioxide levels were in excess of 2,000 parts per million and up to 4,000 parts per million. This reef extended out into the Indian Ocean and circled around the present north Western Australian coastline and remnants of it are evident near the current community of Wyndham. I would like members opposite to answer a few questions. What will be the reduction in global carbon dioxide levels as a result of the introduction of a carbon tax? As a result of a decrease in carbon dioxide, by how much will the global temperature decrease? [Time expired.]

YOUNG PARENTS PROGRAM

KARINYA HOUSE FOR MOTHERS AND BABIES

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY [3.41 p.m.]: One measure, and perhaps one of the most important measures, of how decent a society is can be discerned by looking at how individuals are treated, supported, cared for and encouraged when they find themselves in difficult and unplanned circumstances. All of us in one way or another have found ourselves at some time or another in such a place. Fortunately in most cases we have been able to navigate ourselves back to calm waters, and in many situations we have got there through the assistance of others. 2664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

One thing I have found puzzling and disheartening, which has only been reconfirmed time and again as I have travelled around New South Wales since entering the Legislative Council in 2005, is how poorly we assist and support girls and women with an unplanned or unexpected pregnancy. I appreciate that this is a broad and generalised statement with which some people, both in this House and in communities throughout New South Wales, may disagree. However, my question to them is this: Except for one outstanding exception in New South Wales, please demonstrate that I am wrong. Honourable members may be aware that I have spoken about the outstanding work done by Karinya House for Mothers and Babies in the Australian Capital Territory.

The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: It's in Queanbeyan.

The Hon. GREG DONNELLY: No, it is not. I have been there. Karinya House, along with its sister facility Erin House, provides what I have described in this House in the past as the "gold standard" when it comes to comprehensive care and support for pregnant girls and women who find themselves vulnerable, isolated and in many cases without family members or friends to assist and look after them. Those wishing to find out more about the excellent work of Karinya House can visit the website. I invite those interested to read the annual reports to see not only how its work and activities have grown over the years, but also how the Australian Capital Territory Government seriously supports it financially and in other ways. I believe that in New South Wales we should have a close look at this very successful model of care and support and establish whether the same or similar initiatives can be cultivated and encouraged in this State.

I note that both Karinya House and Erin House have for some time cared for and supported young girls and women from New South Wales from as far afield as Sydney, Kempsey and Lismore. In virtually all cases, they had been referred there by New South Wales Health and Community Services employees. The one and only comparable establishment in New South Wales that provides similar comprehensive levels of support and care is the Australian Red Cross Young Parent Program run at the Glen Mervyn Centre at Randwick. On 7 June I had the opportunity to visit the centre and be given a detailed briefing and tour by Anne King, Manager, Youth Families and Communities, and Sophie Mackey, the Operations Manager of the Young Parents Program. While people can get some sense of everything that it does by going to its website and reading the information provided, it is no substitute to seeing the program in operation and how it gets through what it does.

The Australian Red Cross, those associated with running the centre and the 105 volunteers have much to be proud of. The care, support and encouragement are making such a profound difference to the lives of the girls, young women and their babies. The Young Parents Program strives to assist the development of both mother and child in three stages. The Young Parents Program is partially funded by South East Sydney Area Health Service, and clients contribute a nominal amount per week toward the running costs of the program. Also operating out of the Randwick site is an extensive outreach program that forms an integral part of their work. Glen Mervyn also offers a fully accredited long day care centre with an occasional care component, dedicated to quality child care. The centre is licensed for 24 children at any one time: 19 children in long day care places and five in occasional day care places.

I particularly thank Sophie Mackey who went out of her way to show me around the centre and provide me with the briefing. I offer her, the staff and the volunteers my very best wishes for the future of the centre. Sadly, in my view, the examples I have given are the exception, not the rule. There is only one establishment like the Glen Mervyn Centre operating in the whole of New South Wales. I believe that there is so much more we can and should do. I sincerely hope that the Coalition Government will not just look, but act to significantly increase the assistance and support given to these most vulnerable girls and women.

MARINE PARKS

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [3.46 p.m.]: Over the past few weeks there have been a series of backward steps for marine protection in New South Wales. First was the revocation of recent zoning changes to the Solitary Islands and Jervis Bay marine parks. When announcing the revocation the Minister for Primary Industries, Katrina Hodgkinson, said that the Government will undertake a full and scientific audit of all marine parks by the end of the year. Meanwhile the Government has also begun another consultation on grey nurse shark protection, releasing a discussion paper earlier this month. This is despite scientific reviews conducted by both State and Federal governments, which have come up with the same recommendations: the only way to ensure the survival of this critically endangered species is to protect critical habitat areas from fishing.

These announcements from the Government are attacks on marine scientists and the scientific consensus on the effectiveness of marine parks and sanctuary zones. These attacks are uncomfortably familiar. 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2665

Just like the attacks we are seeing on climate science from the deniers in the Coalition, they must be challenged wherever and whenever they appear. The Minister for Roads and Ports recently referred to the decades of research behind the creation of marine parks and sanctuary zones as "voodoo science and voodoo environmentalism". What a slap in the face of the professional marine scientists and management experts who have dedicated their lives to ensuring a future for recreational and commercial fishing in Australia and around the world. One such marine scientist, marine biologist Associate Professor Steve Smith from the Southern Cross University's National Marine Science Centre, said in the Coffs Coast Advocate:

The decision to repeal the marine park zonings flies in the face of marine conservation around the world.

NSW is possibly the only Government globally that's rolling back marine parks. Claims made within the Government that these new measures were not based on science are ill-founded and wrong.

Luckily for those of us who have not quite understood their significance, many hundreds of peer reviewed articles and studies have shown that protecting some areas in our oceans will result in increases in the abundance and average size of many marine species, particularly those that are heavily exploited. Notably, the Parliament's recent inquiry into recreational fishing was presented with a bibliography of 1,098 articles from around the world concerning the effectiveness of marine parks. Another excellent literature review from Dr Melissa Nursey-Bray of the University of Adelaide found:

Evidence is clearly showing that abundance, biomass, economic value, habitat and migration routes are all enhanced by the declaration of marine protected areas.

In 2003 T. J. Willis et al, in the "Journal of Applied Ecology", found that snapper in northern New Zealand marine reserves were 14 times more abundant than in nearby fished areas. In 2004 D. H. Williamson et al, in the "Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology", found that the four sanctuary zones around the Palm and Whitsunday islands contained four to six times the density and abundance of coral trout compared to similar fished areas. In 2007 N. S. Barrett et al, in the "Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology", found that at the Maria Island Marine Reserve in Tasmania the southern rock lobster increased by 260 per cent over 10 years and at Tinderbox Marine Reserve a tenfold increase in the abundance of large fish and a doubling of species diversity in the no-take areas compared to other fished areas.

In 2003 M. Westera et al, in the "Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology", found that at Ningaloo Marine Park in Western Australia, five sanctuary areas contained significantly greater biomass, size and abundance of legal-sized emperors, the most targeted fish family in the area. In 2002 P. A. Butcher et al, presenting at the World Congress on aquatic protected areas, described how in relation to estuarine species, within the Solitary Islands Marine Park in New South Wales the abundance and mean size of mud crabs are consistently greater within sanctuary zones compared to the fished areas within the same estuary. In 2006 N. S. Barrett et al, in the Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute internal report, described increased abundance and size distribution of red morwong in sanctuary zones relative to fished areas at the Jervis Bay Marine Park. In 2001 C. M. Roberts et al, in Science, found that, within five years of the creation of a network of sanctuary zones around the Caribbean island of St Lucia, catch by fishers outside these zones increased between 46 per cent and 90 per cent, depending on the gear they used.

In 2003 F. R. Gell and C. M. Roberts, in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, found that at the Scandoli Nature Reserve in Corsia, densities of 11 fish species were five times higher than fishing sites after 13 years of protection. Again at the Maria Island Reserve in Tasmania, lung fish were three times more common after six years protection. At Kenya's Mombasa Marine National Park, copper rock fish are 100 times more abundant and 70 per cent of biomass of fish are reproductively active compared with 20 per cent in nearby fishing areas. In 2008 M. Stowar et al, in a report to the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Cairns, found that in two pairs of discrete deepwater shoals in the southern Great Barrier Reef, species such as the red emperor, red throat emperor, venus tuskfish, spangled emperor and golden spot hogfish were significantly greater in number in protected areas. Species primarily targeted by fishing in the closed zones were at around twice the abundance of those same species in open zones. Ratios were between 1.1 and 11.9, with a mean of 2.8.

In 2007 Tetreault and Ambrose found in Ecological Applications that in southern California where five reserves were compared to fished areas, fishes normally targeted by recreational and commercial fishers consistently exhibited increases in abundance of 150 per cent, size 30 per cent, biomass 440 per cent, and egg production 730 per cent inside the reserves. In 2006 N. T. Shears et al in the "Journal of Biological Conservation", found spiny lobster within no-take areas of one New Zealand marine park were 11 times more abundant and with biomass 25 times higher than the comparable area where commercial fishing was excluded but recreational fishing allowed. In 2004 C. M. Denny et al in the Marine Ecology Progress Series, showed that 2666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

at Poor Knights Islands marine reserve, total snapper biomass increased by 818 per cent relative to fished control locations, with a significant increase in abundance but particularly for larger fish of around 30 centimetres and above. [Time expired.]

URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE TEAMS OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENT

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR [3.51 p.m.]: Earlier this week I spoke about the Fire and Rescue NSW post mission report on the Christchurch earthquake. I refer now to the post mission report on the Japan earthquake and subsequent tsunami. On Friday 11 March 2011 at 2.46 p.m., Japanese time, a massive earthquake measuring nine on the Richter scale unleashed a huge tsunami which crashed through Japan's eastern coastline, destroying infrastructure, major hazard facilities and sweeping buildings, boats, vehicles and people miles inland or back out to sea. The Japanese Government launched a massive rescue mission mobilising thousands of troops, 300 planes and 40 ships amid fears that more than 1,000 people had died.

Once a request was made by the Japanese Government to the Commonwealth Federal Government, the negotiations and parameters for deployment were made through Emergency Management Australia. The Fire and Rescue NSW heavy urban search and rescue capability team was registered in 2001 with the United Nations to be a major responder to incidents such as this and was on rotation at the time of this event. On 12 March 2011, the New South Wales Urban Search and Rescue Taskforce members were telephoned and notified to be on alert status. Confirmation of deployment to the Myagi Prefecture of Japan was received by New South Wales authorities who were to be available to deploy from the Royal Australian Air Force Base at Richmond at 1800 hours on 12 March 2011. The deployment was in one wave, with 200 tonnes of equipment and 10 days of food and water supply for members on board.

The heavy taskforce consisted of category 2 urban search and rescue technicians, HAZMAT specialists, communications staff, a New South Wales police liaison officer, nine paramedics, two doctors, two structural engineers and an incident management team. The major risks that were experienced by this task force were obviously the ongoing earthquakes and aftershocks from the initial earthquake, the threat of another tsunami, the radiation risk and also the extreme temperature risks coming into some of the coldest weather in Japan. The team commenced deployment and operations on 12 March and arrived back in Australia on 27 March 2011.

During this period the Australian taskforce completed the following operational achievements: 31 primary searches of buildings, searched four square kilometres of earthquake and tsunami damaged areas, three days of travel to disaster areas, five days of 12-hour operations and recovery of four deceased victims. The task force was led by Chief Superintendent Rob McNiel and assisted by Superintendent and Deputy Task Force Leader, Warwick Kidd. I know some of the Christchurch team members and also some of the firefighters and search and rescue operators who went to Japan. It has been described as one of the most devastating and emotional scenes that they have ever experienced. It was a superb effort. They put up with horrific conditions and each one of the members of the taskforce must be acknowledged. I seek to incorporate that list of names in Hansard.

Leave granted. ______

Alpha Watch: Graham Tait, Rob McNiel Taskforce leader—* Superintendent, Steve Hirst, John McNamara Russell Turner, Dean Broadwood Neil Maher, Brendan Daley, Craig Vincent, Mick Butcher, Wayne Ferguson, Darren Johnson, Adam Turner-Brown, Jeff Atkinson, Richard Stevens, Steven Pigott, Brendan Hurley, Greg Faulkner, Michael Packham, Anthony Hatch, Wayne Cannon, Andrew Christenson, Lindsay Court, Clynton (Scott) Hardes, Tim Fox, Tony Northbrook-Heine, Dean Scifleet, Justin Clarke, Eamonn Purcell Ambo Graham Cunningham Rodney Davis, Glenn Launt, Norm Buchanan Geoffrey Healey Mikall Kogan, Greg Rolf, James Gustas

Bravo Watch: Warwick Kidd, Gary Meagher, Stuart Mitchell, Calyton Allison, David Cross, Bernard Evans, Peter Watson, Terrence Caban, Gary Wardlaw, Jeff Fell, Brett Butler, Adam Campbell, Ron Miller, Jon Ivison, Michael McHugh, Adrian Laing, John Wells, Jason Woods, Tim Brown, Bryan Jordan, Phil Parry, Anthony Bishendon, Paul Thompson, Dave Grant, Dirk Zeikenheimer, Jim Manuao, Bruce Fitzpatrick, Glenn Jackson, Peter Morrison, Kim Reeson, Michael Harvey, Pavel Novotny, Alexander Tzannes, Arash Roushani.

______

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR: I thank members for allowing each of those brave members of Fire and Rescue NSW and the Urban Search and Rescue Team to be acknowledged in Hansard because of their sacrifice and outstanding efforts during this most critical incident—an incident ultimately of international significance. 17 June 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 2667

MORTGAGE STRESS

The Hon. WALT SECORD [3.56 p.m.]: I refer to mortgage stress and mortgage delinquencies as it affects New South Wales families. This is the third time in a week that I have spoken about cost of living pressures. On Wednesday, the New York City based credit ratings agency, Fitch, released a report showing that New South Wales had the second highest rate of mortgage delinquency in Australia, behind Queensland. The report called "Fitch's 30 + Day Dinkum Index" found mortgage delinquencies increased in all States. "Late" is defined as a borrower who is more than 30 days behind on a repayment. The report found that one out of every 400 Australian homeowners, borrowers, was behind on his or her loan repayments. Fitch reported that this number is likely to grow in the coming year.

In New South Wales the hardest hit areas were Budgewoi on the Central Coast and Riverstone in western Sydney. Nelson Bay in Port Stephens also featured strongly in Fitch's ratings list. Unfortunately, as a region, western Sydney, the State's mortgage belt, was prominent. Seven of the 20 worst performing postcodes in Australia for mortgage delinquency were in western Sydney. The major banks attributed the rise in mortgage arrears to a combination of factors, including natural disasters and higher interest rates. Since October 2009 the Reserve Bank has increased the cash rate seven times. This has put real pressure on working families. There is added pressure here as the average New South Wales mortgage is approximately $400,000, which is $50,000 higher than the national average.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics said that, based on recent data, more than one in 10 Australian homebuyers was experiencing another phenomenon known as mortgage stress. Individuals and families are defined as being under mortgage stress if they are paying 35 per cent or more of their gross income on home loan repayments. Of even more concern is the fact that 88,000 Australian homebuyers are paying at least 45 per cent of their income on home loan repayments. Two-thirds of those families are low-income households earning less than $36,000 a year. Unfortunately, for a number of Australians the dream of owning a family home is very difficult, with many facing mortgage stress or mortgage delinquency. New South Wales families are doing it tough and living week to week.

During the March State election Barry O'Farrell went to great lengths to say that he would fight for families and respond to their concerns about the cost of living. Interestingly enough, Sydney's lower North Shore is the least mortgage stressed region in Australia, with less than 0.55 per cent of borrowers in arrears. I therefore urge the O'Farrell Government to look beyond the leafy northern suburbs. On that note, I look to the forthcoming State budget to provide relief to struggling New South Wales families. This is an issue that the O'Farrell Government must tackle. I am pleased to be able to put these matters before the House. I make these comments in the spirit of bipartisanship as home ownership is a fundamental human right that needs to be protected by government at all levels. We must work together to assist struggling families with the cost of living.

ISRAEL

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [3.59 p.m.]: I wish to speak on the subject of the future of Israel, and in doing so quote from a speech made by the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, on 24 May 2011 to a joint meeting of the United States Congress. He said:

We have a free press, independent courts, an open economy, rambunctious parliamentary debates.

Courageous Arab protesters are now struggling to secure these very same rights for their peoples, for their societies. We are proud that over one million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades. Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel's Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights.

I note, too, that they have elected Arab members of the Israeli Parliament. I quote further from the speech:

Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of one-percent are truly free, and they're all citizens of Israel! This startling fact reveals a basic truth: Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is right about the Middle East.

Israel fully supports the desire of Arab peoples in our region to live freely. We long for the day when Israel will be one of many real democracies in the Middle East.

Israel's view is that peaceful cooperation and negotiation is the only viable path to an independent Palestinian statehood. It is a goal of the Israeli Government to achieve two states for two peoples. But that goal can be attained only if Israel's security and legitimacy can be assured. Yet, in seeking this fundamental right, Israel often meets a double standard in the international community. The urge to tamper with the delicate process of 2668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 17 June 2011

peace is persuasive, but according to some, only Israel, unique among all nations, must accommodate this provocation. Soon, a barrage of boats will again breach Israel's borders. Its organisers do not seek to complement the considerable humanitarian aid that Israel already provides to the people of Gaza. Rather, they picture an Israel embarrassed, forced into defending its own border under fierce publicity.

In September the United Nations will consider a motion to rashly impose Palestinian borders— contradicting the very peaceful deliberations on which the body has for decades insisted. If the motion is successful, it will shatter the fragile progression of peace. For why would Palestinian leaders ever commit to negotiation if their goal of statehood is already asserted with false authority? Provocation will not produce an independent Palestinian state. To further the process of peace, we urge Palestinian leaders to repudiate acts of violence and return to the negotiating table alongside Israel as a lasting and legitimate neighbour. There are no short cuts; only a commitment to compromise and cooperation can ensure this enduring peace.

I conclude by saying that Israel has no option but to maintain its 1967 borders until its future security is guaranteed, particularly by radical organisations such as Hamas, and the nation of Iran. Israel cannot accept Jerusalem, its holy city, as any capital of any future independent Palestinian state. Israel cannot absorb six million descendants of the original Arab refugees. They should be settled in any future Palestinian state. Arab nations must realise that if they attack Israel they have to live with the consequences when they are defeated. Long may Israel live.

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 Monday 20 June 2011 at 2.30 p.m.

______