13832
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Thursday 9 December 2004 ______
Mr Speaker (Mr John Aquilina) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.
Mr Speaker offered the Prayer.
BILLS RETURNED
The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council with an amendment:
Home Building Amendment Bill
Consideration of amendment deferred.
CRIMINAL APPEAL AMENDMENT (JURY VERDICTS) BILL
Bill introduced and read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [10.02 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Criminal Appeal Act with respect to appeals against jury verdicts to provide that the courts apply a tighter test when deciding whether there has been a miscarriage of justice due to prejudicial material relating to the case being published or broadcast. At present the court has the discretion to form its own opinion as to whether the publicity is so prejudicial—by way of judicial notice almost—that the jury should be discharged, or that the verdict given by the jury is unsafe requiring the matter to be retried. The bill seeks to limit the circumstances in which a court can take such action. It requires the court to be satisfied that the material influenced an opinion or conclusion formed by the jury or a member of the jury and that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
The bill provides that the court may examine a juror on oath to determine whether that juror read, saw or heard alleged prejudicial material and then to decide whether such material influenced the jury. Under this bill the court must be satisfied about those two matters. In other words, if the bill becomes law, there must be evidence of influence arising out of the reading of material that influenced a juror or jurors in their verdict and the mere opinion of the court is not sufficient to warrant a retrial. The bill arises from a decision dated 4 March 2004 in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in Regina v Tayyab Sheikh. The President of the Court of Criminal Appeal, Justice Mason, the Chief Judge at Common Law, Justice Wood, and Justice Sully were the three judges to hear the appeal. Page 3 of their judgment states:
These grounds argue that the sensational and widespread publicity during the critical period [the start of Sheikh's trial and the return of verdicts in the first trial] caused the miscarriage of justice and rendered this Court's earlier decision for a separate trial worthless. It is argued that Sheikh's position was worse than if he had been tried jointly.
Justice Mason and Justice Wood, based on their own assessment, decided that the verdict should not stand in light of the widespread publicity. In coming to that opinion they quoted Justice McHugh of the High Court in Gilbert v The Queen, who followed the important test upon which more weight should be placed. Paragraph (21) of the judgment in the Sheikh case stated:
The criminal justice system proceeds on what McHugh J described as "the assumption that criminal juries act on the evidence and in accordance with the directions of the trial judge." … Merely because a jury gains access to inadmissible material does not mean that the trial miscarries even if that material is damaging in some way to the accused.
Justice McHugh is one of the most respected judges in the nation and he applied the proper test. I believe the courts should apply this test more widely in deciding whether publicity is prejudicial. The judgment continued: 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13833
In the case of sensational media publicity that gives a jury access to damaging inadmissible material there may be cases where the jury's capacity to ignore the material is put into serious doubt. The courts have used various remedies including adjournment and express directions to the jury to exclude from their minds anything heard or perceived outside the courtroom. In some instances none of these remedies will be fully or sufficiently effective.
In this instance, the court found that to be the case for many reasons. The appeal was based on a number of grounds and the Court of Criminal Appeal found that it was not safe for the verdict to stand. The majority judgment, which goes to the heart of this bill, is as follows:
Appellate courts give broad deference to the decisions of trial judges faced with applications for discharge and/or adjournment. But there is undoubted jurisdiction under s6 of the Criminal Appeal Act— and this bill amends that Act—
to set aside a conviction in an extreme case if the trial has miscarried because of the atmosphere of external hostility in which it was conducted.
In their majority judgment Justice Mason and Justice Wood said:
In our view, this was such a case.
Two affidavits have been placed before the Court giving details of media coverage of the earlier trial and its outcome. They span the period 7-14 June 2002 and include transcripts of radio broadcasts of leading Sydney radio and televisions stations. These broadcasts and telecasts provided extensive and graphic reportage of the earlier trial and strongly expressed commentary about the conduct, character and deserts of the accused/convicted men.
They then detailed some of those comments, which I will not repeat here. In the event, the court found that it was unsafe for the matters to stand, and it took a decision to substitute its own decision, in effect, to send the matter back for a retrial. The minority judge, Justice Sully—in my opinion he is a highly respected judge—took another course. We need to make that course the majority position by legislation, which is what this bill does. Justice Sully again quoted Justice McHugh and applied the test differently. In the judgment he said:
122 It follows that the appellant's present argument must be that he lost that fair chance of acquittal because the refusal to discharge the jury entailed that the assessment of the competing cases was made by jurors whose fairness and objectivity had been subverted by the media coverage of which the appellant now complains.
123 There are in my opinion two flaws to this argument.
124 First: there being no submission that the verdicts cannot be supported …
125 Secondly: the argument does not give due weight to his Honour's instructions to the jury.
The second point raises a key issue. Justice Sully has confidence, as do I, that a properly instructed jury, instructed in plain English with a plain English direction, can and should be allowed to consider these matters and can and should be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is specific evidence to the contrary, as the bill provides for, to deliver a verdict when, despite media publicity, it has been properly directed to ignore that publicity. The second point raised by Justice Sully in paragraph 125 is the key. He then sets out at great length over a couple of pages the direction that the trial judge gave to the jury in this case, which in his view was sufficient to deal with the very strong publicity that had been given to the case.
Anyone who is interested in this whole issue should read and give close attention to the direction given to the jury. The decision in that case persuaded me to introduce this bill. However, decisions by even higher judges in New South Wales—that can only be the Chief Justice—are starting to head in a different direction. A case in the New South Wales Court of Appeal—John Fairfax Publications v District Court—has a judgment date of 15 September 2004. It is a judgment of the Chief Justice, Justice Handley, and Justice Campbell—again, that is an exceptionally strong bench. The Chief Justice, as he does, delivered the judgment which, in addition to dealing with the matter, set out some broader principles. I have a lot of time for the way the Chief Justice delivers his judgments and deals with the wider issues. His judgment is an important one. At paragraph 17 he said:
The principle of open justice and the principle of a fair trial each inform and energise many areas of the law …
That is the point, and it is the balance we seek in these matters—that is, the openness of justice. It means that people, one way or another, will discuss controversial trials. There is a public demand for it. We live in a democracy. Some might say that the demand is insatiable but it is strong. If we are part of a democratic system, whether we swear an oath to the Parliament, an oath as a judge, an oath as a juror or anything else, we must 13834 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004 accept that an open and robust media is a fact of life. To think that it is anything else is simply denying reality. We must make the system work in the context of an open, robust and democratic society in which the media are becoming more central to things every day.
I understand that the Chief Justice, by referring to open justice, is acknowledging that point. But he then talks about the equally important principle of a fair trial. That is the balancing point. It is important, but never easy, to weigh up those two principles. As the law stands at the moment with the case I referred to previously, one would say that the balance in favour of a fair trial is for the Court of Criminal Appeal to intervene if it forms the view that a jury's verdict is unsafe to stand in the face of strong publicity. That balance needs to change, and there must be actual evidence of a problem with a juror or jurors being influenced by publicity to swing the outcome of the matter, so to speak, away from the idea of open justice in the broader sense to the idea that a fair trial has been compromised. In this important judgment the Chief Justice, if I read him correctly—it is a civil matter, not a criminal matter—is starting to make a more robust case for juries being given more latitude to have their way despite strong publicity. In paragraph 59 of the judgment the Chief Justice said:
It is conceivable that media publicity may create a situation in which an accused will not be able to have a fair trial within a reasonable period or at all. In that circumstance an anticipatory non-publication order may be needed to ensure fairness to the prosecution. However— this point is important—
that exceptional case is so unlikely that it cannot form the basis of an implication of a power on a test of necessity.
… If a truly exceptional case ever arises it can be handled by the exercise of the protective inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
The Chief Justice is trying to narrow down significantly the ambit of the suggestion that, without specific evidence that a jury has been influenced, it is open to a court simply to step in and say, "We have decided that it is too unsafe to stand." The judgment continues in fairly strong terms. At paragraph 103 the Chief Justice said:
There are now a significant number of cases in which the issue has arisen as to whether or not an accused was able to have a fair trial in the light of substantial media publicity, indeed publicity much more sensational and sustained than anything that occurred here. Those cases have decisively rejected the previous tendency to regard jurors as exceptionally fragile and prone to prejudice. Trial judges of considerable experience have asserted, again and again, that jurors approach their task in accordance with the oath they take, that they listen to the directions that they are given and implement them. In particular that they listen to the direction that they are to determine guilt only on the evidence before them.
Although the words were not uttered for that purpose, I take that as strong support for the idea behind this bill— that jurors are more robust than a lot of people give them credit for. It has been argued that there is no need for this bill. The decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Regina v Sheikh, which is a strong precedent, stands in the way of the application of this type of rule. I think—and I am certain that the public thinks—it ought to be applied. That is the reason this bill is before the House. Anybody interested in criminal law should read the speech made by Justice Dunford at the Criminal Law Conference on 27 July. It contains excellent and thought- provoking material, not that everybody would necessarily agree with every part of it. The Government, to its credit, has already acted on parts of it, but there is more to be done. In relation to juries, Justice Dunford said:
Unfortunately there are a number of persons in the legal profession who seem to regard jurors in much the same way as politicians regard voters—
I am not saying that I necessarily agree with Mr Justice Dunford on that precise point—
that is, as absolute idiots, who need to be spoon fed any information, are incapable of rational thought and can be easily swayed by irrelevant matters and information. I disagree. Jurors are our fellow citizens, our neighbours, the persons with whom we do business and so on, and they are not lawyers.
He goes on to state:
I know some lawyers believe that juries can be swayed by emotion and red herrings, but after almost 18 years on the bench I remain, as I say, a supporter of the jury system, and over that time there are only a handful of cases where I have personally disagreed with the jury's decision, and even in those cases, I have been able to see a reasonable and logical reason why a jury has come to a different conclusion.
He goes on to talk about the importance of having juries in corporate fraud cases and said that he would not support the abolition of juries in retrials of sexual assault cases. After a bill such as this is passed I hope there is less room for retrials on some sexual assault cases. If there is evidence that a juror has been influenced by media 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13835 attention the Court of Appeal can move. Despite that little jibe at politicians, the main point that the judge makes is important. I strongly agree that juries are robust. After a long career on the bench and elsewhere the judge certainly formed that view. Michael Chesterman, emeritus Professor from the University of New South Wales, delivered a paper at the nineteenth annual conference of the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration in September 2001. The web site of the Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales contains this interesting information about Chesterman's study:
The study reaches the conclusion that NSW criminal juries have a relatively successful record on resistant to publicity.
It also states:
In the opinion of the researchers, these findings suggest that NSW juries achieve a relatively satisfactory level of resistance to publicity.
The summary conclusion states in part:
Most of the juries discharged conscientiously their duty to scrutinize the evidence carefully and, if necessary, at length.
After the conclusion of an extensive study, emeritus Professor Chesterman had this to say on page 5 of his report:
Our interviews provided grounds for believing that counsel engaged in the case and, to a lesser extent, the trial judges tended to over-estimate the level of recall of these matters.
He was referring to pre-trial publicity. He went on to talk about the Internet, which has already been dealt with by Parliament. At page 7 he said:
Secondly, in the 38 of our trials which were attended by specific publicity— that is, the number of trials considered in the study—
very few of the 167 respondent jurors considered that this publicity might have influenced them. Only 4% gave a positive answer to this question, with a further 13% not responding to it. Similarly the jurors did not believe that their fellow-jurors were influenced …
He refers to one juror who was obviously interviewed for the purpose of the study and continues:
One juror linked the preceding assertion (inaccuracy of reporting) with this one (lack of susceptibility to media influence):—
"I don't know how stupid they think jurors are. When something wrong was reported, we didn't read it and go, 'Oh, was I asleep for that?' We knew we heard everything, so the papers didn't influence us."
That important point reflects the widespread view in the community that people are able to deal with these matters. They are subjected to reasonable direction to put things out of their minds for the purpose of coming to a decision. On page 19 Professor Chesterman's concluding comments are as follows:
Overall, the picture of jurors' reactions to media publicity emerging from our research was, as we viewed it, a relatively optimistic one. In particular, they appeared less likely to encounter or remember pre-trial publicity, and less vulnerable to bias in the reporting of trials, than is often supposed by judges and legal practitioners.
The report does not state that everything was 100 per cent satisfactory, but nobody could say that in respect to any part of the administration of justice in this State, given that at the end of the day it depends on human nature, whether one is a judge, a juror, a witness or a lawyer. There will always be room for error and improvement. However, overwhelmingly Mr Chesterman's report heads in the direction of giving jurors more credit for disregarding media publicity. If that statement is contested I refer honourable members to the web site of the Law and Justice Foundation, which reaches exactly the same general conclusion. On the other side of the coin I refer to a presentation in May 2004 by the Chairman of the Press Council, Professor McKinnon. He talked about the case I referred to this morning—the basis for the need for this bill—and said:
At the heart of the Appeals Court judgment was the assertion that
appellate courts have a power to set aside a conviction in an extreme case if the trial has miscarried because of the atmosphere of external hostility in which it was conducted. Justices Mason and Wood find this such a case …
The majority judgment said that the directions given to the jury in the trial did not remove the prejudice from extensive media comment to a degree that enabled the majority to be confident the trial was not compromised. 13836 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
He went on to quote some of the references in the judgment and said:
Media comment was evidently the demon. But is saying "would have lingered heavily" more than simply an assertion?
He referred to Justice Hunt and said:
David Hunt put the mind-set of judges very clearly in saying:
Even judges who are trained to ignore extraneous prejudicial material have to exercise great care in doing so. For jurors, who have no such training, it is obvious that there will be cases where extraneous material is so overwhelming that they could not be expected to disregard it, and such a trial will inevitably be compromised … This is not an assertion of distrust in juries, merely a commonsense recognition that in some cases a jury will be unable to ignore such extraneous material.
In response to that Mr McKinnon said:
Jurors can't, but judges can! Is this touch of arrogance well founded?
Setting aside arrogance—I do not want to talk about that—I say that whatever judges can do, jurors can do in their area of responsibility, provided they are properly instructed. I agree with Mr McKinnon, Justice Sully and the Chief Justice that jurors should be trusted. It is important that the House pass this bill because the law on this issue needs to be improved. As it currently stands, unless and until there is a major change to the legislation it will be necessary to send cases back for retrial.
Paul Sheehan, who writes robustly in the Sydney Morning Herald about these matters, wrote an article on 29 November in which he set out the overall cost of sending matters back for retrial. He referred particularly to the cost to victims and the public concern that victims do not want to give their evidence again. We must avoid that situation at all costs, and the way to avoid it is to try to ensure that victims do not have to give evidence a second time. We must study the circumstances where victims have had to give evidence a second time, and ask whether the system can be improved to prevent such situations occurring. Steps can be taken through publicity to change the requirement for victims to give evidence again. That issue is covered by the bill. If passed, the bill would prevent victims in some cases from having to face the trauma of giving evidence a second time. That provision is of critical public importance.
A very senior Court of Appeal bench has laid down the law in Sheikh's case, and I do not believe that matter will be reconsidered in the near future. We are not able to confidently tell our constituents or the public of New South Wales that in cases of a major crime a court will not intervene to impose its own view that a jury will not be allowed to proceed to a verdict or that the verdict will stand. We cannot be confident that that is the law as it currently stands. In fact, I believe it is not.
We cannot wait for the possibility that the courts may change the law in this regard. I say "possibility" because the Chief Justice is heading in that direction, but a change is not inevitable and there is certainly no timeline. The public would expect the Parliament to deal with a matter of such public importance robustly. We should head in the same direction followed by the Chief Justice, being the principal representative of the courts, in his view on the concept of a fair trial, and Professor McKinnon, who is the primary proponent of the concept of the importance of an open trial.
Yesterday the Attorney General referred to comments I made about the Director of Public Prosecutions. The last comment I made about the Director of Public Prosecutions was very positive. It related to his support for majority verdicts, which I also support. I would like to make a second positive comment about the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to the matter now before the House. On Stateline on 8 March 2004, in answer to a question from Quentin Dempster, "Director, where do you stand on jury influence by the media? Are jurors so stupid or easily led that fair trials are now virtually impossible in New South Wales because of sensational media coverage in criminal cases?", Mr Cowdrey replied, "No, I don't think that proposition is correct. I think that juries are quite robust and intelligent and they are not given the credit."
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
GOVERNMENT (OPEN MARKET COMPETITION) BILL
Second Reading
Debated resumed from 3 July 2003.
Motion by Mr Graham West agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to provide that:
(1) the question before the House be: "That this bill be now read a second time", and
(2) the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and the honourable member for Bligh be permitted to speak again in relation to the committee's report on the bill. 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13837
Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [10.35 p.m.]: I remind the House that the aim of the Government (Open Market Competition) Bill is simple. The bill, which has gone through the Legislative Council, will provide open and transparent government. It is clear from the Public Accounts Committee response, which we will hear about this morning, that the Government is not prepared to embrace these principles. Secrecy creates an environment for maladministration and corruption. Access to government information is a basic democratic right that enables the New South Wales public to scrutinise the Government and make it accountable. New South Wales citizens have a right to know the costs, who is paying, who benefits, and whether the arrangements are in their best interests.
Under this bill all signed government contracts will be required to be put on public display for at least two weeks after signing. The rationale is that automatic public access to information permits effective and efficient use of public funds, particularly through inhibiting maladministration and corruption. Under this bill, when a public authority signs a contract for the provision of goods and/or services, the contract and associated tendering documents will be made freely available for public inspection for at least two weeks at the authority's head office and posted on its Internet site. If such a site is not available, it will be posted on the Government's central site.
I remind the House of the merits of, and the need for, the bill. Openness, transparency, accountability, and public participation—principles that are mouthed frequently but not adhered to—produce better government and strengthen democracy. The clear public interest is that there should be fuller public accountability of the use of public funds. The Government (Open Market Competition) Bill will eliminate to the fullest extent possible avenues for avoiding or delaying public access to information, unless there is a genuine reason for non- disclosure. The bill also gives power to the Attorney General to investigate and report on the activities of the body funded by a grant, similar to a performance review and performance audit. The release of contracts will allow the New South Wales public to know whether the contractual arrangements are in the best public interests. I believe that the cost of such an approach is a small price to pay compared with the cost of a public system that operates without public openness, accountability, transparency or participation.
The Public Accounts Committee findings and its dismissal of the principles of public scrutiny and transparency as a democratic initiative are an indictment of this Government. The Government buried this bill for 15 months in a committee. That committee went on an international travel tour, which included a total of five destinations: London, Edinburgh, Boston, New York and Washington. But it has failed to signal any action towards recommendations to improve scrutiny, accountability and process. Instead, it has come up with recommendations that are inadequate and weak. The Public Accounts Committee says it supports the principles of public disclosure. As I said, it is easy to mouth such principles, but it is action we are looking for. The committee said it is "mindful of the additional cost and administrative burden that may be incurred." There is the excuse.
The committee suggested a review of the Premier's Memorandum 2000-01 but these are voluntary guidelines and they have been developed for government agencies for the disclosure of public contracts. However, they do not provide automatic right of access to information, and government agencies regularly find loopholes to avoid disclosure. There is no need for the review that has been recommended by the committee. Agencies already refused to disclose this information. They have been allowed to get away with secrecy because there is no enforcement. Even the process by which the committee reviewed the bill demonstrates a biased tendency towards vested interests. In my submission to the committee I expressed my concern that the committee's newspaper advertisement targeted New South Wales Government contractors, the very body likely to benefit from restricted scrutiny.
The one place the committee should have visited, but did not, was New Zealand. I mentioned this time and again. Let me take the New Zealand example. We can look at New Zealand for leadership and for principle in so many areas, particularly this one. The public interest test should at all times override any other interests favouring the withholding of allegedly commercially sensitive information. It is not sufficient for organisations to assert that information is sensitive; these claims should be independently oversighted. Commercial-in- confidence claims should be treated with caution. As New Zealand has experienced, strong freedom of information legislation indicates that such claims are typically overstated.
I ask the House why the New South Wales public cannot expect similar accountability to that operating in New Zealand. New Zealand has led the way in the provision of government information. The New Zealand Freedom of Information Act came into force in 1982. It was reviewed and widened in 1987, and it was reviewed again in 1998 with no amendments. In November 2001 the Chief Ombudsman of New Zealand, Sir Brian 13838 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
Elwood, addressed the Open Government Forum, which was organised by Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, who took carriage of this bill in the Legislative Council, and he praised the success of the New Zealand legislation. He concluded that the cumulative outcome of the legislation is a more accountable public sector and a more informed public.
Surely that should be the goal of every Westminster Parliament: a more accountable public sector and a better informed public. He said there had been no disasters in balancing the competing policy objectives of access to official information while providing grounds to withhold information when good reason was established. The need for reform of freedom of information legislation remains urgent, and this bill would be an important step forward. The New South Wales public expects a change in the culture of secrecy that exploits commercial-in-confidence exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act to deny access to important public information about the use of taxpayer funds—that is, public funds, not our funds, not government funds, not the funds of the political party that happens to be in office at the moment, but public funds.
The onus of proof under the existing system is wrong. This bill would turn the presumption around so that information is made available unless there is a good reason under the Act to withhold it. The current administrative framework in New South Wales has failed to provide the level of disclosure reasonably expected by citizens in a modern western democracy. The Government negotiates major contracts but the community has no opportunity to analyse these decisions. We are talking about looking at the decisions after they have been made, having them on public display for two weeks after the contracts have been signed. The bill seeks to guarantee access to public information unless those wanting to maintain secrecy can prove there is public benefit in doing so.
In my capacity as Lord Mayor of Sydney I have made changes to increase public access to information at the city council. I recently presented a lord mayoral minute that outlined a policy that will continue to develop and expand best practice standards of public transparency and accountability in relation to the city tendering and contractual arrangements. More specifically, my intention is to minimise the number of documents withheld from the public, limit the length of time documents are withheld, clearly and publicly articulate the reasons for withholding, minimise the extent of confidential reports to council, minimise the number of closed meetings of council, and enhance public access to public documents. Open, transparent government is a basic democratic right, particularly in a western democracy. There is a worldwide trend towards more open government, strongly supported by public demand for greater accountability and in 2004 I believe that the New South Wales Government should respond to it.
Mr MATT BROWN (Kiama) [10.44 a.m.]: I am pleased, on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, to speak to the Government (Open Market Competition) Bill. This is a private member's bill introduced by the honourable member for Bligh, which the Legislative Assembly referred to the committee for consideration and report. In broad terms, as discussed by the honourable member, the bill proposes two undertakings: the first concerns publication of and access to government contracts; and the second concerns the audit of government grant recipients. The committee undertook an extensive inquiry into the bill. It received a total of 49 submissions and held three days of public hearings. The bill was the subject of considerable debate and discussion by the committee.
However, the preparation of the report took some time. The committee would have liked to have the report tabled earlier than was the case. The director of the committee, who had carriage of this matter, left the committee earlier this year and there have been some staff shortages on the committee as well as a rigorous workload in relation to other inquiries, such as the Infringement Processing Bureau and the funding of fire services, to mention but two major reports of the Public Accounts Committee this year. The honourable member for Bligh said that the Government has attempted to bury this process in the committee report. I take umbrage at that suggestion. The Public Accounts Committee [PAC] has retained its strong history of working in a bipartisan form. The committee has members from every party—three government and three non-government members.
The committee report that I had the pleasure of tabling was a bipartisan report. There are no minority reports and there were no dissenting comments from any committee member. As I said, it is a bipartisan committee and separate from any arm of government. I am pleased that the committee was able to resolve the inquiry into this bill in that way. The committee was very much in favour of public disclosure. It is a principle and a process that all members of the PAC were very keen to see promoted, but the committee did not think the bill was necessarily the appropriate way to achieve that. The committee certainly understood the honourable member's concern for public disclosure, transparency, and accountability. They are serious issues and the PAC takes them very seriously. 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13839
However, as I said, the PAC did not consider that the bill was the right mechanism to achieve that end. Greater costs and burdens would fall upon agencies and those costs would have to be met from taxpayer dollars. We are talking about extra moneys being used by agencies for little or no public benefit, and not in delivering front-line services for the constituents we represent. The PAC wanted a balanced approach to public disclosure. I also note the view expressed by the Ombudsman in his submission, that the intent of the bill appears to be directed to contracts involving a commitment of significant public moneys, such as the cross-city tunnel. For that reason, imposing a minimum threshold for disclosure would be appropriate, but the bill does not contain a threshold. As it stands, the bill proposes wider application with disclosure rules for even the smallest of government contracts.
One could imagine having to disclose a $50 school lawn-mowing contract, and the bureaucracy involved every time a school entered into a new $50 contract or changed its milk vendor in order to fill a fridge in a particular agency. Indeed, most submissions to the committee indicated that the bill would need a threshold to proceed; otherwise, even the smallest of contracts, already subjected to adequate accounting practices, would be subject to the same compliance regimes as contracts in excess of $100,000. The PAC was of the view that public moneys could be better spent than by disclosing $50 contracts in the same way as agencies would disclose contracts worth more than $100,000.
However, if a threshold is an appropriate trigger for the enactment of the bill, a more salient question might be the nature of agencies' compliance with Premier's Memorandum 2000-11, which requires public disclosure of documents relating to contracts of more than $100,000. In this regard the committee has indicated support for reviews to be undertaken by the Audit Office in 2004-05 to establish a baseline of agency compliance with the provisions of the memorandum. That is a serious recommendation.
The committee wants public agencies to be held to account and to be transparent to ensure that the public is well aware of the significant financial commitments that agencies are entering into. There should be a threshold of, for example, $100,000, as stated in the Premier's memorandum, and the Auditor-General should undertake a compliance review. The committee's report takes into account the bill's potential impact on agencies in respect of all government contracts, and it suggests the need for a balanced, cost-effective approach to public disclosure. However, its concerns about the bill are compounded by its linkage of public disclosure requirements in relation to contracts with a second requirement, that is, the auditing of government grants by the Auditor- General.
The first part of the bill deals with contracts and the second part deals with audits of government grant recipients' accounts by the Auditor-General. The bill proposes that audit requirements will potentially apply to all recipients of State and local government grants, including non-government organisations and individuals. These proposals have been variously described in submission by agencies and the non-government sector as heavy-handed. My local Meals-on-Wheels groups and local cricket clubs already feel the strain of accountability and compliance and they already have independent audits of their accounts. I can understand their concern about having the Auditor-General of the State bringing in his troops to undertake an audit. They believe that is a bit heavy-handed.
The committee notes that most organisational grants recipients are incorporated associations and, as such, are subject to external financial audit anyway. The committee is also concerned about privacy in respect of individuals who receive government grants, for example lottery winners and recipients of drought assistance or victims' compensation. Why should a lottery winner's accounts be subject to an Auditor-General's review? Why should people receiving drought assistance be required to open up their bank accounts to such an audit? Why should a victim of crime who has been given just compensation then have that compensation audited? The bill goes too far.
Paragraph 4.43 of the committee's report refers to the Auditor-General auditing the accounts of grant recipients. The committee received evidence from Mr Gary Moore, who runs the Council of Social Service of NSW [NCOSS]. The honourable member for Bligh might like to acknowledge the committee's wide-ranging advertising seeking submissions. It was not directed solely at contractors, and the bulk of the submissions came from non-contractor bodies such as NCOSS. Mr Moore's evidence was very sound and well thought out. NCOSS submitted that the involvement of the Auditor-General in non-government organisation audits was superfluous. Many agencies commented that most grant recipients are incorporated associations and are already subject to external audit. Agencies also remarked that the compliance focus should be on the processes used by the agencies distributing grants; that is, the Auditor-General should ensure that those agencies are managing the grant process correctly. The grant recipients should not necessarily have the Auditor-General examine their 13840 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004 books. NCOSS indicated that difficulties with financial audit requirements could be experienced by small organisations that have no paid staff and receive only a low level of funding.
The committee believes that the audit provisions are adequate to deal with the payment of government grants, that they can be and are in the process of being strengthened, and that the primary onus should be on agencies to administer their grant processes effectively. I thank all those who worked on this report, including former Committee Manager David Monk and Jackie Ohlin, who has recently joined the committee staff. The committee members and staff are strong supporters of and believers in public accountability and transparency. The committee took the issue seriously and it understood the honourable member for Bligh's concerns. That is why it has treated her bill with all the respect it deserves. I am pleased to support the Public Account Committee's report on the Government (Open Market Competition) Bill.
Mr JOHN TURNER (Myall Lakes) [10.56 a.m.]: I speak on behalf of the Opposition, which will not support the Government (Open Market Competition) Bill. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee I listened with interest to the chairman's contribution. He clearly set out the way in which the committee approached the bill referred to it by the Parliament, its fair consideration of it, and the bipartisanship involved. As the chairman said, the committee comprises three Government members, one member of The Nationals, one member of the Liberal Party and one Independent member. As such, it is obvious that producing a report in that way reflects the committee's overall views and, regrettably for the honourable member for Bligh—who I believe is sponsoring the bill for the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans in another place—the committee cannot support the bill.
The bill provides that all contracts be published on the Internet or some other central government site. It also provides for the audit of all grants made by the Government in relation to any individual or organisation. The committee carefully considered the legislation and invited submissions. It received 49 submissions from a variety of people, held public hearings and heard a large amount of evidence from a wide cross-section of the community. Witnesses included representatives from the Australian Council on Infrastructure Development, the Audit Office, the Roads and Traffic Authority, the State Contracts Board, the Council of Social Service of NSW, the Australian Information Industries Association, the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW, Transparency International and so on. The committee also had the matter examined by a wide range of people from various backgrounds. Like the majority of people who appeared before the committee, its members believe this legislation is not warranted.
Premier's Memorandum 2000-11 provides that contracts of more than $100,000 must be disclosed. The bill contains certain provisions as to what it is mandatory to disclose in contracts worth more than $500. I will explain that more clearly in a moment. I want to highlight what the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee said: regrettably, the bill is let down by the way it is framed. If the members with the carriage of the bill had heeded some of the advice that was given earlier and made the bill more realistic, perhaps it might be viewed in a different way. I am not sure; it would have to be discussed. However, to make it mandatory that all contracts should go on the Internet is pure madness and absolutely unreasonable.
If a local school runs out of paper for its photocopying machine, under this bill it would have to post on the Internet the contract it had with the local newsagency for the ream of paper. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee referred to the $50 lawn mowing contract. It is plain silly to think that such a contract should go on the Internet. If the members with the carriage of the bill had given some consideration to the cost implications and impracticalities of that, the bill may have been regarded differently, as I said. In its submission to the Public Accounts Committee in relation to the cost implications of complying with the contract provisions of the bill, the Premier's Department said that compliance would not be possible without the expenditure of significant time and government resources. The department went on to say:
… the cost to the Government of implementing the Bill would be "considerable" and that the Bill would be likely to impact upon agency resources in the following areas:
• information technology infrastructure (increasing bandwidth, upgrading hardware and software);
• upgrading information management systems;
• development and dissemination of written policies;
• allocation of additional office space and personnel to enable public inspection of documents; and,
• training and employment of personnel to identify and certified the contents of contract data for public listing. 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13841
The honourable member for Bligh might say we have to pay a price for transparency, but there is also a price for commonsense. I am sure that the taxpayers of this State, who are already grossly overtaxed by the Carr Labor Government on everything they do , would not want to pay out more money to cover the additional costs associated with putting this information on the Internet. The committee also noted that the current disclosure policy of the Government, set out in the Premier's memorandum 2000-11, covers a broader range of contracts under the threshold of $100,000 than that intended in the bill—for example, construction infrastructure, property, goods and services and information technology. Premier's Memorandum 2000-11, which was issued on 27 April 2000, says, inter alia:
Agencies must ensure that:
For all contracts above $100,000 (or where government transfers ownership of property over the value of $100, 000) a summary of the main items of the contract listed in Schedule 1 is routinely released within 90 days of award of the contract.
The memorandum further noted:
For contracts under $100,000 Schedule 1 items need only be released upon request.
So the memorandum covers contracts above and below $100,000. It then notes:
For contracts over $5 million involving private sector financing, land swaps, asset transfers and similar arrangements a summary of the main items of the contract listed in Schedule 1 and 2 is routinely released within 90 days of award of the contract.
That comprehensive document covers the matters that have been raised. The schedule sets out fairly exhaustive details about what has to be disclosed. I would submit that the memorandum covers the general concerns of those who want transparency in government matters. I return to the ridiculous situation of having to put minute contracts on the Internet and into the public domain. The second part of the bill refers to the auditing of grants. Again, with respect to the members of both Houses who sponsored the bill, they do not appear to understand the grants system or to have thought it through. In my electorate the Bulahdelah Cricket Club received a $500 grant a year or so ago for cricket pitch covers. The club members are a well-meaning group of people who are dedicated to sponsoring cricket within Bulahdelah. They look after young people and they bring them up through the ranks. The last thing the club wants is to have the Auditor-General knock on its door to audit the $500 that it was granted for its cricket covers. That situation is reflected in a thousand grants across the board.
The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee referred to lottery wins. Evidence was given to the committee suggesting that the Auditor-General can, and may in fact be obliged to, look at lottery wins, victims of crime compensation payments and the like. Again, I would have thought that with a little forethought, a better bill could have perhaps been brought before us. However, the Public Accounts Committee of this Parliament looked at the bill warts and all. In my view, and in the view of many others within the Parliament, including the members of the Public Accounts Committee, the bill, unfortunately, does not come up to scratch.
I cannot countenance well-meaning groups who receive government grants—organisations such as Meals On Wheels and support groups for handicapped people—having to shoulder this extra load. They are subject to an audit process in any event because of the way they are constituted. Surely the Auditor-General is above auditing the $200 or $500 grants to small groups. In fact, he could not do it. It would be a physical impossibility for the Auditor-General's office to do that sort of work across the whole of New South Wales; it would just not be feasible.
The Opposition cannot support the bill. In a bipartisan way—and, I suppose, in a parochial way—we commend the Public Accounts Committee for its examination of this bill. Being a member of the committee that undertook the examination I know how searching it was. I join with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in thanking the staff of the committee and those who gave evidence before it for their assistance. As I said, those who appeared before the committee represented wide-ranging groups with varied interests, and I believe their evidence adequately reflected the community's views in relation to the bill. We not only have the community's views but we also have the bipartisan, across-the-board views of members of this Parliament who represent cities, regional centres and country areas. However, the majority view, if not the unanimous view, of those who appeared before the committee was that they could not support this bill.
Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote) [11.07 a.m.]: As the vice-chairman of the Public Accounts Committee I join other members of the committee in supporting its recommendations. The committee carried out extensive referencing after the bill was referred to it by the House. I do not support the bill. I do not intend to 13842 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004 go over the issues outlined by the previous two speakers as I support what they said. When I first read the bill my immediate instinctive reaction was to support it. I believed that there would not be a problem with it. Transparency is a fundamental principle that we must maintain and strive to continuously improve. Being a former public sector union employee and, indeed, a former public sector employee, I am mindful of that principle. A transparent process is an absolute and continual objective, and that objective must be on the record and upfront.
As I said, when I first read the bill I liked its aims and looked at ways of supporting it. As a new parliamentarian, being on the Public Accounts Committee and researching the proposals in the bill was an interesting exercise for me. I was pleased to find the existing level of integrity to be quite high. The compliance rate with measures relating to the threshold of $100,000 in Premier's Memorandum of 2000-11 is absolute. The committee received many submissions on the need for a threshold, and even Transparency International agreed with that view. Few submissions or witnesses believed they should comment definitively on what the threshold should be. However, local government regarded the current $100,000 threshold as being too low. Mr Hilzinger said:
For quite a while the threshold has been $100,000. It has not been adjusted for many years. In some cases we consider that to be too low. What can you get for $100,000? You could not build a public dunny for $100,000 nowadays.
Some witnesses gave indicative thresholds, which were all in similar amounts. Others suggested that the threshold should not necessarily be broadband. The Independent Commission Against Corruption referred to agency-specific thresholds, pointing out that a small agency with a budget of $200,000 would regard a contract of $50,000, or one-quarter of its budget, as significant. Therefore, the commission argued that a threshold of $100,000 is not meaningful for small agencies. That argument has some merit. The committee also discussed the administrative practicalities of lodging successful tender documents. The representative of one company involved in commerce told the committee that during the tender process for the purchase of a new boat, they were able to attend the warehouse to examine the boats available. Therefore, the tender documents can be physical objects such as boats or hospital beds as opposed to being merely documents. They stated that they could, however, solve the problem by using digital imagery because a significant part of the tender process may involve physical objects.
The committee found that industry opinion is mixed. The committee heard differing evidence from two directors in the same division of a large finance company that works with the State Government. The initial reaction of the first director was that tender documents should not be made public because that would give away the intellectual property of the company. However, the other director said that the tender documents should be made public because to do so would give the company a commercial advantage over its competitors, who may be reluctant to make available all tender documents, preferring instead to submit summaries rather than details. Taking into account all those matters, I am confident that the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee are sound and can deal with the issues raised in the bill.
Various speakers have referred to the ability of the Auditor-General to follow the dollar with respect to grants made to various agencies. Although I accept that the Auditor General could not examine every grant, he should have the power to investigate grants to those agencies he is concerned about. Even though he may not undertake service audits of every agency, he audits agencies of concern to him, in the same way as the Public Accounts Committee does not inquire into every report of the Auditor-General. However, the committee has the power to investigate whether non-government organisations spend their grants appropriately.
Some organisations have expressed concern that, despite their high integrity, the Auditor-General may use heavy-handed tactics. Those organisations suggest that they manage their grants appropriately and the fact that they received the grants in the first place is an indication that they are doing the right thing. They regard the way in which they spend their grants as their business and if the Government did not trust in them to do the right thing, they should not have been given grants in the first place. Other organisations feel that the measures already in place are satisfactory. Even the Salvation Army submitted that grant recipients should not have to bear the costs of an audit. The Council of Social Service of New South Wales said that it is already dealing with the costs of current compliance and to further extend compliance would erode the efficient services it and similar organisations provide. Like my colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee I am unable to support the bill.
Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [11.16 a.m.]: I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which spent some time considering the bill. At the commencement of the inquiry the members of the committee made it clear that the committee had an open mind about the bill. All committee members are committed to open 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13843 government and to ensuring that the maximum amount of information is available to the citizens of New South Wales. However, we found some fundamental flaws in the bill in its present form that were difficult to modify. Evidence before the inquiry was fairly convincing. When the honourable member for Heathcote was speaking, the honourable member for Bligh interjected and said that we are talking about public money, and that is true. Legislation that does not have thresholds or limits on the size of contracts to be investigated would result in massive costs to the parties that would have to comply with it. It was agreed that that cost would be high in both personnel and equipment. The Government is willing to bear the cost of being open and transparent, but within reason. To make tenders reasonably accessible, the costs must also be reasonable.
The committee also had some difficulty with the time periods specified in the bill and whether the two- week period was sufficient. Considerable concerns were expressed about third party audits. Organisations already complain about the amount of paperwork they have to fill out to justify the money they have been granted. Extensive discussions took place about whether the committee should recommend amendments to the bill. We came to the conclusion that we did not have the resources to recommend amendments to make the bill practical for utilisation by the people of New South Wales. The committee recommended that the Auditor- General review compliance with the Premier's memorandum 2000-11.
To ensure appropriate accountability in the public sector and in forming the opinion that the bill is not practical, the committee held extensive discussions with other States about their experiences. The honourable member for Bligh referred to the New Zealand experience. Although the committee did not travel to New Zealand, it considered the New Zealand legislation and the impact similar legislation would have on New South Wales. That was a fairly well considered and worthwhile part of our deliberations. Again, the legislation could not be effectively implemented without too great a cost to the New South Wales taxpayers.
The honourable member for Bligh said the City of Sydney council was looking at introducing something similar to this legislation. I noted on the Internet that on 15 November the honourable member submitted a mayor's note to council suggesting that the general manager review council's tendering and contracts, and consider the principles and intent of the Government (Open Market Competition) Bill. I note, also that the general manager must review the bill to see whether its provisions are practical for the city council. The Public Accounts Committee reviewed the bill to see whether it was practical for implementation in New South Wales.
The committee spent a lot of time considering the bill. The process was lengthy but necessary because we faced a number of resource issues. More important, we wanted to do a good job. The committee concluded that it was better to pursue, through existing mechanisms, accountability to New South Wales taxpayers for the expenditure of their money rather than cost taxpayers' services by spending more money than is justified on the accountability measures in this legislation. So I endorse the comments of my fellow committee members and reject this bill.
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [11.21 a.m.]: I apologise to the House for not being present during earlier contributions to the debate. However, given the discussions we had in the Public Accounts Committee, I assume that previous speakers have commented on why the committee came to its decision. The committee's decision was unanimous, as I am sure has already been outlined. However, I place on record that, although my colleagues and I do not support the bill, my support for the recommendations was given on the basis that every skerrick of transparency and accountability in terms of the total sector accounts must be maintained by the Government. That was part of my decision.
Regrettably, in many areas the Government has failed to maintain transparency and accountability in the presentation of the public accounts, and I shall give some examples of that. In outlining these examples, I suppose my message is that I fully supported the position adopted by the committee because the bill lacks practicality in terms of implementation, and it lacks certainty in terms of the reasonable information from which taxpayers would benefit. For those reasons I joined with my colleagues in unanimously supporting the committee's position on this bill. However, I draw the attention of honourable members to some examples of independent third party bodies that have regularly accused the Government of a lack of transparency and accountability. First, I draw the attention of honourable members to the Auditor-General's performance audit report entitled "Freedom of Information: Ministry of Transport, Premier's Department, Department of Education and Training", which was released in August last year. The Auditor-General referred specifically to freedom of information issues and said:
FOI coordinators and their staff were supportive of the legislation. However, the agencies examined can do considerably more to fully achieve the intentions of the Act. 13844 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
The Auditor-General continued:
We believe there is value in making further improvements to address the following issues:
• processing fees being charged in some cases and not others even though a similar amount of work had been undertaken
• little documented evidence of the extent of searching which had been undertaken to locate documents, making subsequent reviews more difficult
• supporting reasons for refusing access to information not always been provided to applicants
• involvement of CEOs or Ministerial staff prior to some determinations being finalised, which opens the possibility for perception of interference and may affect an agency's capacity to conduct an unbiased internal review
• no routine or formal analysis of reviews of decisions to determine whether changes in practice are required
• timeframes not being achieved
I take this opportunity to commend the honourable member for Bligh for introducing what she believes is an important bill. I stress that the Government, in many instances, has not maintained transparency and accountability in relation to providing information to taxpayers, members of Parliament and members of the public who need detailed information regarding the total sector accounts. I place on record that my support for the unanimous decision of the Public Accounts Committee in no way detracts from my serious concerns about lack of accountability and transparency in many areas of the Government's reporting. I have outlined one example of freedom of information requests and what the Auditor-General said on that occasion. The second example relates to the Auditor-General's performance audit report entitled "Judging Performance from Annual Reports: Review of Eight Agencies' Annual Reports", which was tabled in October last year. On page 5 of the report the Auditor-General explored opportunities for improvement, and said:
Based on our findings, we believe that agencies could improve the transparency and accountability of their annual reports by:
• publishing a comprehensive suite of performance measures in the annual reports …
• integrating financial and non-financial information to show how resources and strategies influence results
• providing benchmark comparisons
• setting targets
The list continues. The Auditor-General recommended that the Government:
… progress amendments to the annual reporting legislation and regulations in line with the proposals outlined by NSW Treasury in its 1998 document … progress the introduction of legislative requirements for independent validation of performance information reported by agencies, as recommended in our 2000 performance audit.
That is a second substantive example of the Government's secrecy and lack of transparency and accountability in many areas. The final example relates to the Auditor-General's report entitled "Financial Audits—Volume Three 2003", which was also tabled in October 2003. In reporting on a compliance review of chief executive officer contracts, the Auditor-General said:
We identified issues of concern with nine of the 16 Chief Executive Officers' contracts we reviewed. Some CEOs did not have performance agreements, other agreements lacked the required accountability criteria and the performance of some CEOs had not been formally appraised.
In addition, one CEO worked for almost 12 months without a contract or a performance agreement. Another CEO worked 20 months under a contract prepared for a former position.
A compliance review of employer responsibilities regarding superannuation revealed that since the Auditor- General's previous review in 2001 agencies had continued to have various problems with employee and employer contributions. Again I reiterate my position in relation to supporting the unanimous decision of my colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee in finding serious flaws in the practicality of implementing the Government (Open Market Competition) Bill. I am sure my colleagues have already placed on record the specific details and reasons why we came to this unanimous conclusion. However, I do not want to let this opportunity pass without highlighting that in many instances, regrettably, the Government lacks accountability and transparency in relation to providing adequate information to taxpayers, members of Parliament and other interested stakeholders. I take this opportunity to place on record that my position on this bill in no way reflects my serious concerns about the way the Government does business.
Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [11.28 a.m.], in reply: I listened and listened and listened because I wanted to know why the Public Accounts Committee went to London, Edinburgh, Boston, New York and Washington and what it learnt in those places. I listened but I did not hear one word about London, Edinburgh, Boston, New York or Washington. However, what I did hear from the honourable member for Kiama were lame excuses; it was all too much trouble. He then trivialised the important principles of the bill and sought to exaggerate how difficult it would be to implement them. 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13845
I thought that the defence of the honourable member for Kiama was very weak. The honourable member for Myall Lakes gave the same lame excuses—it was all too much trouble, it was going to cost too much and it really was not warranted. The honourable member for Heathcote made a much more thoughtful contribution. At least he thought about standards and discussed some of the concerns that have been expressed by various people who made submissions, but he also thought that it was all too difficult. The Government has to play a leadership role. I thought that the points made by the honourable member for Heathcote were more reasoned.
The honourable member for Monaro thought there were fundamental flaws in the bill. He said he could not support the bill in its present form and he was concerned about the costs I believe he would support a bill that addressed the fundamental flaws he described. My office will now have to prepare a bill that addresses all the issues raised by honourable members so they have no excuses in the future. The most valuable contribution was the one made by the honourable member for Willoughby. She has real concerns about secrecy, lack of transparency and accountability. I look forward to her strong support for an amended bill in the future. She referred to a number of reports that the Auditor-General produced outlining serious concerns about freedom of information, annual reporting and financial auditing.
As T. S. Eliot would say, I return to where I began. Honourable members might see things differently when I introduce an amended bill. I again refer to that principled State across the ocean—New Zealand. Today honourable members said that legislation such as this would cause too much trouble and it would result in too much cost. The New Zealand experience shows that those claims are typically overstated. Whenever someone makes changes to improve the system there is always a Chicken Little who says the sky is going to fall in. I remind honourable members that Brian Elwood, Chief Ombudsman in New Zealand, said the sky did not fall in.
New Zealand now has a more accountable public sector and a more informed public—goals that both the Government and Opposition would want to achieve. Brian Elwood said there have been no disasters in balancing the competing policy objectives of access to official information and providing grounds to withhold that information when good reason is established. I will have a thoughtful look at honourable members' contributions in Hansard and come back with an amended bill that I am sure they will all be able to support. At the conclusion of this parliamentary term we will have a rigorous system in New South Wales that is similar to the New Zealand system.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 6
Mr Barr Mrs Fardell Ms Moore Mr Oakeshott Tellers, Mr Draper Mr Torbay
Noes, 43
Ms Allan Mr Greene Mr Orkopoulos Mr Amery Ms Hay Mr Pearce Ms Andrews Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Ms Beamer Mr Iemma Dr Refshauge Mr Black Ms Judge Mr Sartor Mr Brown Ms Keneally Mr Shearan Ms Burney Mr Lynch Mr Tripodi Miss Burton Mr McBride Mr Watkins Mr Campbell Mr McLeay Mr West Mr Corrigan Ms Meagher Mr Whan Mr Crittenden Ms Megarrity Mr Yeadon Ms D'Amore Mr Mills Mr Debus Mr Morris Tellers, Mr Gaudry Mr Newell Mr Ashton Mr Gibson Ms Nori Mr Martin
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived. 13846 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
SMALL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [11.42 a.m.]: I move:
That this House accepts and adopts the 10 key recommendations from Australian Business Ltd to help improve small business opportunities in New South Wales.
It should be an accepted principal of this House that the Parliament supports business growth in New South Wales. It should also be a broadly accepted principal that one of our key purposes is to create employment. I hope it would be a key principle and a high priority of this House to do both, that is, support business growth and create employment in regional and rural New South Wales. I have moved this motion because there is concern in rural and regional New South Wales that business opportunities outside metropolitan Sydney will be lost unless greater effort is made by the Government to improve the business environment in rural and regional areas.
Recently I was told that the Department of Regional Development is currently advertising for a public relations position on a salary of $145,000. Part of the job description, in rough terms, is to minimise any bad media for the Government. I understand that this public relations department has five staff members and a budget of more than $1 million. I compare that situation to the actions of the Department of Regional Development in addressing the desperate needs of employers in rural and regional areas. In my electorate the Department of Regional Development has removed business enterprise centre funding of $50,000. What is the Government doing to support business growth and employment in rural and regional areas?
Australian Business Ltd [ABL] is a well-established New South Wales member-based organisation and business services provider with more than 14,000 members. It represents a range of sectors, both large and small enterprises, and provides an extensive business network to both regional and urban centres across New South Wales. In February 2002 ABL commissioned a broad-based survey to identify the immediate priorities of business in the lead-up to the 2003 New South Wales election. This survey, combined with insights gained from the work of ABLs independent think-tank and research arm, the Australian Business Foundation, has contributed to the development of the recommendations for action by the New South Wales Government. Whilst that document was produced in the lead-up to the 2003 New South Wales election it was an action plan for government, whoever won, in the subsequent four years. Therefore, it is still significant and relevant.
The survey identified what businesses want and need from the New South Wales Government. The key requirements are an environment supporting long-term economic growth and policies that aid business compliance with legislation and regulations. The 10 key critical business priorities are: first, better access to an appropriately skilled work force; second, to reduce the burden on workplace compliance regimes; third, to stem the rising cost of insurance premiums; fourth, to review stamp duty on insurance premiums; fifth, to maintain a reliable utility infrastructure; sixth, to improve transport infrastructure; seventh, to reduce payroll tax; eighth, to ensure environmental and economic sustainability; ninth, to reduce crime; and tenth, to streamline regulations for environmental and urban planning.
Growing businesses and markets—such as those on the mid North Coast—increased job opportunities and rising living standards depend on innovation and greater productivity. I hope that all honourable members agree that productivity and innovation increase the value of goods and services produced throughout New South Wales. It should be obvious that innovation boosts productivity, which in turn influences investment. Investment expands output by businesses and consequently creates jobs. This cycle includes export and import replacement, which in turn stimulates demand for more productivity and innovation. A skilled work force with the flexibility to apply its knowledge and learning is central to productivity and innovation.
The 10 priorities identified in the survey each contribute to a business climate that fosters this cycle of innovation, an increase in productivity and an expansion of output. Such a business climate will unleash entrepreneurial skills of people and companies to create new products, services and markets. Action taken to implement these priorities should result in a competitive State tax system with lower taxes and efficient government spending; a user-friendly workplace, a compliance and regulatory system; adequate physical and knowledge infrastructure; and support for inward investment to boost the State's ability to perform in high value-added sectors. I could talk about a range of issues surrounding the top 10 priorities, but I will pick out a couple that are of interest.
One such issue is industrial relations, which is relevant at the moment with the recent Federal election and as industrial issues are talked about at that level on a daily basis. Even the Federal Labor Opposition is 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13847 talking about accepting workplace agreements and having flexible workplaces. Data published yesterday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] once again confirms the need for more flexible workplaces. The ABS ranked the range of industry sectors in the Australian economy and workplaces. Its findings highlight the fact that those receiving the highest full-time average weekly earnings are those who are least covered only by an award. On the other hand, those listed in the highest number of people covered only by an award—such as employees in retail, trade, accommodation, cafes and restaurants—receive the lowest average weekly earnings for full-time workers.
That should indicate to governments—local, State and Federal, regardless of their political persuasion—that the way of the future is to provide flexible workplaces, particularly in regional and rural areas. Those areas have a high percentage of what might be called blue-collar employment, compared with the cities. Once again I make this point in regard to industrial relations: I believe it is crazy that New South Wales has a double-up scheme. We have two sets of awards, two sets of unfair dismissal laws and two Industrial Relations Commissions—State and Federal. It does not make sense from the point of view of workers and trying to support them to be tying up business innovation and productivity in workplace compliance and award conditions.
I also make the point that outside the top 10 issues are some emerging regional-specific issues. One is the need for State-based regional infrastructure funding. We hear plenty of talk at the Federal level of the possible future sale of Telstra and where that money could potentially end up. One possibility is investment in infrastructure through Commonwealth funding. There is also a strong need for infrastructure funding at a State level. On the mid North Coast, for example, we have significant business, such as a commercial wharf that is pulling in all sorts of partners, except the State Government, which appears to be unwilling to invest $300,000 as part of a partnership in the overall program. Why? There really is not an avenue of funding, whether it be through the Ministry for Regional Development or through Treasury, to support that basic infrastructure requirement for Port Macquarie.
We hear plenty of talk about CityRail but no talk about country rail and the need for investment in improved rail lines and bridges in regional and rural areas. We hear no talk about State Government involvement in improving things such as airport upgrading. A whole range of infrastructure needs require funding, but there does not appear to be a funding pool at the State level. I refer also to emerging home-based businesses in regional areas, particularly in growth areas such as the North Coast. A lot of people choose the sea change lifestyle option where from one up to five employees are working either in a very small operation away from home or at home. Of particular interest are the emerging home-based businesses in high-growth areas. I hope that not only the State Government but also local government and the Federal Government recognise this growth and provide tax and compliance incentives to allow for a more competitive business environment than the one that currently exists in regional and rural areas.
Mr DAVID CAMPBELL (Keira—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Illawarra, and Minister for Small Business) [11.52 a.m.]: I move the following amendment to the motion:
That the motion be amended by leaving out the words "accepts and adopts the ten key recommendations from" with a view to inserting instead:
"acknowledges the New South Wales Government's small business programs and the business priorities of".
The amended motion would then read as follows:
That this House acknowledges the New South Wales Government's small business programs and the business priorities of Australian Business Ltd to help improve small business opportunities in New South Wales.
The Carr Labor Government has worked hard with the business community to build a more competitive economy, create new jobs, and attract more investment. This Government has cut payroll tax to 6 per cent, compared with the last Coalition Government's high of 8 per cent, exempted apprentices and trainees from payroll tax, and lifted the tax-free threshold from $550,000 to $600,000. This Government has ensured that more than 90 per cent of businesses in New South Wales pay no payroll tax because their payrolls are less than $600,000 a year. It has also halved the rate of stamp duty on general insurance policies from 11.5 per cent to 5 per cent, the lowest in Australia. It has abolished all State taxes on bank accounts and credit cards.
This Government introduced civil liability reforms in June 2002 to help reduce public liability and professional indemnity claims costs, and New South Wales also took the lead in calling on other States and Territories to adopt similar reforms. We have created opportunities for businesses to reduce their workers 13848 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004 compensation premium through the Premium Discount Scheme. Most importantly, we have helped to create a climate of confidence in which businesses can grow and make long-term decisions. I am pleased at the number of businesses relocating to New South Wales from interstate, including Kellogg's whose $13 million expansion of its Central Coast facility and the closure of its Queensland arm created 120 jobs; Byford Equipment which moved from Strathmerton in Victoria to Moama, creating 120 jobs; and Scone Concrete Industries, which has been established in the Hunter by the Victorian parent company Violet Town Concrete Industries. Five new jobs will be created there. Ride Motorcycles, which previously operated in Queensland, is now a principal motorcycle dealer in the Tamworth region. Four jobs will be created in that company. Euro Laminated Designs, a plywood company, which recently moved from Western Australia to Northern New South Wales, has created 20 new regional jobs. Allied Timber Products is moving from Queensland to Bathurst to establish a sawmill and timber treatment operation. The relocation of those business will result in an investment of $12 million in the State and 26 jobs will be created by 2006-07.
In the past financial year, business investment in New South Wales rose by 10 per cent to $26 billion. Looking towards the future, the New South Wales Government is continuing to attract firms to set up and expand in New South Wales by cutting red tape, reducing taxes, and lowering business costs to help make business even more competitive. For instance, as a result of the recent mini-budget, businesses with land valued between $500,000 and $1 million will get a land tax cut of between 21 per cent and 31 per cent. In addition, the Carr Government's microeconomic reforms continue to reduce the cost of doing business by delivering real reductions in government charges.
In the eight years to June 2003, businesses in New South Wales have seen average real reductions in electricity charges of up to 17 per cent; port charges of 31 per cent; water charges of 44 per cent; and freight rail charges of 44 per cent. Small businesses in New South Wales now pay 20 per cent less for electricity than South Australian small businesses, 18 per cent less than Victorian small businesses and 6 per cent less than small businesses in Queensland. These reductions have improved business competitiveness, allowed new jobs to be created, and improved the overall economy of New South Wales. In addition, the New South Wales Government has a broad range of initiatives for promoting business and investment growth in New South Wales.
Our track record speaks for itself. In 2003-04, the Government attracted 144 major investment projects across the State worth more than $1.26 billion; facilitated 127 projects worth $876 million of investment in regional New South Wales; and, through State development programs, created or retained 5,908 jobs including an additional 4,402 jobs in regional New South Wales. The New South Wales Government is committed to delivering quality to services specially targeted at small businesses. Our new Stepping Up Program—a commitment of $2.6 million over 4 years—gives small business owners the opportunity to be more innovative and grow, including access to an experienced business mentor and small group workshops to help them acquire new skills.
The Government plans to support 1,500 business people during the next four years as part of this initiative. We have expanded the New Export Opportunities Program—now a $1.3 million a year initiative—to assist even more small to medium-size firms with high export potential to identify strategies for accessing overseas markets and sustainably growing their exports. Our Business Clusters Program helps groups of businesses move from informal alliances to functioning commercial entities. I recently expanded the Home Based Business Program, which provides support to help businesses based at home, or operating from a home address, including assistance with marketing and business planning. The Government has committed $190,000 to the program in 2004-05, an increase of $100,000 over previous years.
The Government is also helping innovative businesses in New South Wales succeed and grow. As part of the Australian Technology Showcase, we are helping innovative firms build the skills and understanding they need to sell their product to the world. A program involving overseas missions, exhibition events and introductions to international business delegations currently has nearly 400 members throughout the State. New South Wales companies involved in the program have achieved more than $530 million in additional sales, exports, and investment—attributed, in part, to their involvement in the program. We are also supporting innovation advisory centres to provide a first point of call for inventors and small business innovators. Outreach services are provided in regional locations, from centres in the Hunter, Wollongong, Sydney and Chatswood. In 2003-04, this program provided more than 1,000 services for people and businesses with innovative ideas.
The New South Wales Government is also a principal sponsor of Australian Showcase Week, which was held in Sydney last September, as well as CeBIT Australia 2005, Australia's leading international 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13849 information and communications technology exhibition, to be held in Sydney in May 2005. It also supported this year's CeBIT. Signed by the Premier in June 2004, the Australia New Zealand Biotech Alliance is a major step forward in promoting Australia's $12 billion biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries to the world. The alliance builds on the earlier AustralianBiotechAlliance, which was established by New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria in June 2003. Under this new alliance, we are working together to market the combined strengths of Australia and New Zealand in biotechnology in the international arena, to reduce unnecessary duplication of infrastructure and effort, and to support the exchange of talent and collaborative research.
New South Wales is currently the base for 80 per cent of pharmaceutical companies in Australia and about 40 per cent of Australia's biotechnology companies. The alliance will help to ensure that New South Wales continues to capitalise on its leading edge in the biotech sector. Free trade agreements provide significant trade and investment opportunities for our exporters, our service providers, and our investors in overseas markets. In addition to existing agreements with New Zealand and Singapore, new free trade agreements with the United States of America and Thailand are expected to come into force in January. Once they are in force, the New South Wales Government encourages New South Wales exporters to take advantage of the new opportunities under these agreements for gaining improved access to the United States and Thai markets, particularly for our farmers, manufacturers, and service industries.
New South Wales is keen to see improved market access for farmers, particularly beef and dairy industries; manufacturers, particularly wine, iron, steel and medical equipment exports; the services sector, including Australian providers of professional services and electronic commerce; and Australian companies wishing to work with local overseas firms in winning procurement contracts. It is also keen to see improved certainty for investors, based on free trade agreement provisions for the protection and promotion of investment. Looking towards the future, there is the potential for further agreements with China, Malaysia and other ASEAN nations. This is in addition to the already concluded trade and economic framework with Japan. The New South Wales Government already has a number of programs to help New South Wales exporters.
Key initiatives include a range of trade missions and market visits to help New South Wales exporters access new overseas markets for their goods and services. It recently conducted a very successful trade mission to China. A New South Wales market visit was also conducted last month to Germany and the United Arab Emirates. Without any doubt, a number of the issues raised by Australian Business Limited are being addressed by the Carr Labor Government, which has a commitment to ensuring a strong economy that allows small business to thrive in this market-driven environment. My contribution demonstrates the Government's commitment in these areas, and the amendment should be supported.
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [12.02 p.m.]: This motion was placed on the notice paper in May 2003. However, the 10 points raised by Australian Business Limited [ABL] are still in its business priorities for 2004 and are yet to be addressed by the Government.
Mr David Campbell: Rubbish!
Mr ANDREW FRASER: The Minister's amendment, which acknowledges the New South Wales Government's small business program and its priorities, is good because we will now be able to acknowledge that it has done absolutely nothing. We will acknowledge that the Government has spent $1 million on public relations. It is advertising a vacant position with a salary of $145,000 a year, which is more than most small business in rural New South Wales make in net profit. That huge salary will be paid to someone to minimise bad media for the Government. It is a disgrace that the Minister has moved this amendment knowing that that advertisement has been published.
The Minister's contribution today proves the old adage that there are statistics, statistics and damn lies. This Minister and this Government are experts in that field. I have a State Chamber of Commerce document referring to red tape. Does the Minister speak to the chamber or read its documentation and the ABL documents detailing the genuine concerns of small business in New South Wales? No, he does not. A survey was sent to many businesses in New South Wales, and more than 600 responded. Commenting on the survey, Margy Osmond states:
This section highlighted how serious the compliance burden is for many businesses with more than a third of almost 600 respondents saying they would be willing to forgo a reduction in business taxes in return for lower compliance costs.
The document continues: 13850 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
Much of the red tape burden falls to the business owner, especially for small businesses with less than 20 employees.
This is particularly true for human resource (HR) issues where 74% of the businesses we surveyed said the owner dealt with HR issues (similar to last year). Slightly more business owners did the payroll themselves in 2004, in comparison to last year's survey (48% versus 45%).
The Minister should carefully examine the payroll tax issues highlighted in this report. He should not blow his own trumpet and use statistics to make himself feel good. He should read this report, which indicates that of the businesses surveyed, 60 per cent spent more than two hours in two weeks on payroll tax and about 10 per cent spent between 10 and 15 hours a week complying with the payroll tax regulations that this Government has imposed on small business. The report goes on to refer to New South Wales awards and states that 50 per cent of businesses spend up to four hours a week complying with the Government's regulations. Occupational health and safety is one of the greatest bugbears for small business in New South Wales. The chamber's report states:
Our 2003 survey showed that 44% of firms had not done anything about occupational health and safety in the two week period preceding the survey.
However, in 2004, 25 per cent had to deal with occupational health and safety issues. That is the Government's fault. The Government is using a stick and sending out ex-union employees to small businesses in regional New South Wales. The Minister should know what Mr Wong is doing in Coffs Harbour—it has been detailed in the media. He goes onto a building site and imposes a $200 fine because a worker is eating his lunch while sitting on an esky rather than in a properly constructed workroom.
Mr David Campbell: I doubt that.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: The Minister doubts it, but he has not checked. He should ring Mr Wong and find out about the heavy-handed tactics he is using with businesses on the North Coast. He should come to my electorate and I will invite business houses to tell him about their problems with payroll tax, occupational health and safety, and awards. I challenge him to do that and to look them in the eye and repeat what he has said today. He is a disgrace! [Time expired.]
Ms PAM ALLAN (Wentworthville) [12.07 p.m.]: The New South Wales Government strongly values its relationship with the business community. The Government has worked closely with the business community to improve business competitiveness across the State and to create a climate of confidence in which businesses can grow and plan for the future. The Minister for Small Business has outlined the Government's many achievements, but I wish to reinforce that it has slashed payroll tax to 6 per cent, down from the Coalition's high of 8 per cent, and lifted the tax-free threshold for payroll tax from $550,000 to $600,000. More than 90 per cent of businesses in New South Wales now pay no payroll tax because their payrolls are less than $600,000 a year.
The Government has also exempted apprentices and trainees from payroll tax, halved the rate of stamp duty on general insurance policies, from 11.5 per cent to 5 per cent—the lowest in Australia—and abolished all State taxes on bank accounts and credit cards. Ours is the only State in Australia to do so. The Government is continuing to work with companies across the State to help them identify new opportunities for creating additional jobs, attracting more investment and growing their exports in overseas markets. Its commitment to helping business grow is nothing new. In my electorate of Wentworthville the Carr Government has worked closely with a number of small firms to help them grow their business. It has provided development assistance to 15 companies. The success stories have been tremendous.
Colpro Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd, a manufacturer based in Pendle Hill, is a good example. Using cutting edge technology, Colpro specialises in building high-performance silencers, high-quality acoustic and exhaust systems and thermal systems for the marine, mining, and transport industries. Participation in events sponsored by the New South Wales Government has helped this company identify new opportunities for business and export growth. Recently, Colpro won the "advanced manufacturing technology" category in the Western Sydney Industry Awards 2004, and was highly commended in the "import replacement" category. I personally congratulate Colpro on its wins and on its performance to date.
Another success story in my electorate is ACO Polycrete Pty Limited, based in Northmead. Assisted under the Government's New Export Opportunities Program, the company is now a world leader in modular line drainage systems and pits. Participation in New South Wales Government trade missions to Thailand and New Caledonia has helped the company identify export opportunities, and it is now negotiating and preparing quotes for businesses there. The Government has also provided strong support for home-based business. Since 2001 we have provided programs and seminars to 1,100 home-based operators across the State to help them develop and 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13851 expand their businesses. In 2003-004 this included programs in Parramatta to help home-based firms in the area increase their skills in business planning and marketing. Let us not underestimate the popularity of these awards and the acknowledgement that the Department of Small Business has managed to engender in the community, and particularly businesses in the Western Sydney region.
In Wentworthville we have had a number of outstanding successes. I was at the awards when Colleen Bernard of Phone-A-Gift-Basket, based in Wentworthville, who participated in the Government's Home-Based Business Program on marketing, took out the Cumberland Business of the Year award. According to Colleen, the initiative of the Government's Home-Based Business Program on marketing helped her to focus on the weaker points of the business. She also acknowledged that it had enabled her to make better use of her funds. Here is a woman, a very typical representative of residents in my electorate of Wentworthville, who has managed to create from a home-based business the most outstanding small business opportunity in the whole of the Parramatta area.
So congratulations again to Colleen on a wonderful effort. Her business, Phone-A-Gift-Basket, has since been credited by the Micro Business Navigator—a benchmarking tool designed to give recognition to business systems and processes—as the first "5 Star" micro-business in New South Wales. This business has also been accepted into the New Export Development Program with Austrade. Colleen now plans to gain more local strategic alliances and export into the European and Asian markets. This could lead to even further growth in her business. There are many other examples of these types of success stories. I think the comments from the member for Coffs Harbour reflect a negativity that is totally unjustified in the current debate.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.12 p.m.]: This is a simple motion that has great validity. It is a great pity that the Minister for Small Business, a representative of the Carr Labor Government, has sought to play political games with what is essentially a motion that simply highlights the needs of small business in New South Wales. Under this Minister, small business owners have been treated as second-rate citizens. We know that these priorities have now been in place for New South Wales business for more than a year; we know that the Carr Government has done absolutely nothing to address the issues that have been raised on behalf of small business and that, in the meantime, the Government has devastated small business and the encouragement of small business through the destruction of business enterprise centres across New South Wales.
Business enterprise centres were a crucial part of small business working with other small business to ensure that expertise that is developed is passed on. Unfortunately, it does not fit within the constrictions the Labor Government likes to work with. The Government likes to be omnipotent when it comes to telling a business, small business particularly, what it can and cannot do. In our local area on the peninsular the Warringah Business Enterprise Centre was run very effectively and very sensibly; it had numerous members who regularly met and gave their time freely to support and encourage new small business. I had a lot to do with that business enterprise centre over many years, and I put on record again that this Government has destroyed a major avenue for encouraging new business on the peninsular. As a result, people who now want to establish a new business are having all sorts of problems gaining the sort of assistance they need.
Each and every one of the 10 points raised by Australian Business deserves sensible and detailed consideration and support. It is fascinating that one of the issues raised by Australian Business relates to awards. Two or three weeks ago the honourable member for Port Macquarie asked the Premier whether he would address differences between Federal and State awards. In my 13 years in the Parliament I have never seen the Premier bounce out of his seat with such a spring in his step to pronounce that if there was one thing that he was never going to stop it was the award system in New South Wales. I think he even said that Labor—since, I think it was, 1891, or whatever it was; Labor has been around too long—has been a pivotal part of their philosophical base.
I point out that Australian Bureau of Statistics data issued on 8 December—it is very current—indicates that where there are awards such as in the accommodation, cafe and restaurant industries, the average weekly full-time income is $732.10, and in the retail trade, where 31.5 per cent of workers are covered by awards, it is $688.20. But where there are no awards—where there are workplace agreements between employers and employees—the average weekly income is $1,556.50 for mining, and for electricity, gas and water supply employees it is $1,238.60. In finance and insurance—which have only somewhere between 1.7 and 4.7 per cent of the total workforce covered by the awards—the figure is $1,167.40.
In other words, the short message—especially for the Minister for Small Business, who is laughing about this—is that by sticking so strictly to the awards system and fighting against workplace agreements the 13852 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
Government is holding back the wages of workers in New South Wales. That is a shame, but it is also a pitiful reflection on this Government's capacity to move with the times. The motion simply asks the Government to seriously start to support small business through the various recommendations that small business has made through Australian Business. We back that absolutely, and the Government should start paying more attention to the needs of small business.
Mr ROBERT OAKESHOTT (Port Macquarie) [12.17 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Minister, the honourable member for Wentworthville, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, and the honourable member for Wakehurst for their contributions to the debate. Whilst I will speak to the amendment I certainly will not support it. I raise three issues that have come out of this debate. One is that payroll tax has been talked about as one of the great wins for the New South Wales Government; it has slashed payroll tax from the days of the Coalition government. That may be so, but the reality from a business and an employer's point of view is that payroll tax in New South Wales is higher than in any other State. It is a pretty simple equation.
Payroll tax is a direct tax on employment, so the more one employs, the more one pays. Businesses, particularly in rural and regional areas, grow and grow and then get to a threshold and stop, for one simple reason: payroll tax kicks in and it starts to become a burden on their employing people. If one of the principles of this House is that we should be creating jobs and creating employment, we need to do more about payroll tax. One suggestion is that we consider making payroll tax uniform across Australia: get all the States to roll in their payroll taxes and deal with them under company tax.
The Government should consider and promote this creative and positive idea. Instead, the Government crowed about the so-called slashing of payroll tax to a certain level, although New South Wales still has the highest payroll tax in Australia. Much more can be done to prevent the current loss of employment opportunities in Australia. The second point, which has already been made, relates to industrial relations, which was the subject of a question more than a month ago. We have a-once-in-a-generation opportunity to do something about improving our industrial relations laws. New South Wales has the crazy situation of having two sets of unfair dismissal laws, two industrial relations commissions, and two sets of awards and conditions. Employers and employees shift between the two systems, depending on which system suits them best. This is a frustrating environment for everyone and it involves significant compliance and plenty of paperwork.
I encourage the Government to look to the future and provide a more flexible workplace. I urge it to streamline the industrial relations system, WorkCover, and occupational health and safety issues. The Government should support a uniform system of industrial relations across Australia. The retention of a State- based award system does not protect workers. Indeed, data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] released only yesterday strongly supports such an approach. Industry sectors with the highest rate of award-only conditions pay their workers the least. It is a complete contradiction for the Labor Government to suggest that it supports workers by supporting an award. That has been blown out of the water. Support for workers means supporting a flexible workplace environment, as clearly shown by the ABS data. I encourage the Government to consider what I have proposed and to work towards improving on it.
The third point, which I am surprised has not yet been raised, is something the Government could take on board to help employers, that is, to knock the workplace fatalities legislation on the head. This legislation is scaring employers throughout rural and regional areas. In principle, all honourable members and those in most workplaces would support action being taken against rogue employers, in the same way they would support action against rogue citizens and rogue drivers. However, the Government seeks to introduce specific legislation that will fall not within the Crimes Act but within the Occupational Health and Safety Act because it will be easier to get to employers. This measure reverses the onus of proof, rather than following the fundamental principle of democracy in the western world that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The workplace fatalities legislation will be a huge burden on business and employment in regional and rural New South Wales. The Minister and the Government could do much more to assist business in rural and regional areas, yet we continue to hear the same rhetoric. I hope the Government takes on board the three proposals I have put.
Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.
The House divided. 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13853
Ayes, 45
Ms Allan Ms Hay Mr Pearce Mr Amery Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Ms Andrews Mr Hunter Mr Price Ms Beamer Mr Iemma Dr Refshauge Mr Black Ms Judge Mr Sartor Mr Brown Ms Keneally Mr Shearan Ms Burney Mr Lynch Mr Tripodi Miss Burton Mr McBride Mr Watkins Mr Campbell Mr McLeay Mr West Mr Corrigan Ms Meagher Mr Whan Mr Crittenden Ms Megarrity Mr Yeadon Ms D'Amore Mr Mills Mr Debus Mr Morris Mr Gaudry Mr Newell Tellers, Mr Gibson Ms Nori Mr Ashton Mr Greene Mr Orkopoulos Mr Martin
Noes, 33
Mr Aplin Mrs Hopwood Mr Slack-Smith Mr Armstrong Mr Humpherson Mr Souris Mr Barr Mr Kerr Mr Stoner Ms Berejiklian Mr Merton Mr Tink Mr Cansdell Mr Oakeshott Mr Torbay Mr Constance Mr O'Farrell Mr J. H. Turner Mr Debnam Mr Page Mr R. W. Turner Mr Draper Mr Piccoli Mrs Fardell Mr Pringle Tellers, Mr Fraser Mr Richardson Mr George Mrs Hancock Mr Roberts Mr Maguire Mr Hazzard Ms Seaton
Pairs
Mrs Paluzzano Mr Hartcher Ms Saliba Mrs Skinner
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—That the motion as amended be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 45
Ms Allan Ms Hay Mr Pearce Mr Amery Mr Hickey Mrs Perry Ms Andrews Mr Hunter Mr Price Ms Beamer Mr Iemma Dr Refshauge Mr Black Ms Judge Mr Sartor Mr Brown Ms Keneally Mr Shearan Ms Burney Mr Lynch Mr Tripodi Miss Burton Mr McBride Mr Watkins Mr Campbell Mr McLeay Mr West Mr Corrigan Ms Meagher Mr Whan Mr Crittenden Ms Megarrity Mr Yeadon Ms D'Amore Mr Mills Mr Debus Mr Morris Mr Gaudry Mr Newell Tellers, Mr Gibson Ms Nori Mr Ashton Mr Greene Mr Orkopoulos Mr Martin 13854 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
Noes, 33
Mr Aplin Mrs Hopwood Mr Slack-Smith Mr Armstrong Mr Humpherson Mr Souris Mr Barr Mr Kerr Mr Stoner Ms Berejiklian Mr Merton Mr Tink Mr Cansdell Mr Oakeshott Mr Torbay Mr Constance Mr O'Farrell Mr J. H. Turner Mr Debnam Mr Page Mr R. W. Turner Mr Draper Mr Piccoli Mrs Fardell Mr Pringle Mr Fraser Mr Richardson Tellers, Mrs Hancock Mr Roberts Mr George Mr Hazzard Ms Seaton Mr Maguire
Pairs
Mrs Paluzzano Mr Hartcher Ms Saliba Mrs Skinner
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion as amended agreed to.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Withdrawal of Business
General Business Notice of Motion (General Notice) No. 4 withdrawn by Mr Steve Cansdell.
BALGOWLAH NORTH PUBLIC SCHOOL
Mr DAVID BARR (Manly) [12.37 p.m.]: I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that Balgowlah North Public School has 10 demountables and only six permanent classrooms.
(2) notes that the school is still awaiting delivery of an eleventh demountable, forcing year six classes to be held in the school hall and the after school care building.
(3) notes that a demountable was evacuated on 14 May 2003 due to external leaking.
(4) calls on the Government to immediately address the school's need for better and safer student and staff accommodation.
I gave notice of this motion on 20 May 2003 in response to the appalling situation at Balgowlah North Public School and the sad state of the building fabric at the school. The significant problems at the school have not been rectified during the intervening period. A number of articles about the plight of the school appeared in the local paper and the Daily Telegraph. I held meetings with representatives from the Minister's office, the director of property services, and the school principal and assistant principal to try to nut through the issue. A commitment was given to undertake a facilities review of the school's needs and a demographic review of enrolments, and an consultative assets plan would be developed.
The school was allocated $300,000 for an administration block but there has never been any consultation as to how that money would be spent. The local community thought it was not a good way to spend the money when the classrooms are in so much need. As a consequence, the $300,000 was allocated to be used by the school in any way it saw fit. An amount of $50,000 of that went straightaway into fixing the electrical problems, so the money was whittled away from the outset. The draft facilities review and the final report of May 2004 starkly illustrate how far behind other schools the facilities at Balgowlah North Public School are.
The school is what is called a 14-core primary school: it can have from 11 to 17 classes. A 14-core primary school has what is called a primary school facility standard. According to that standard this school would require a total of 1,425 square metres. It has 440. The average classroom size in the school is little under 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13855
57 square metres; the smallest one is a little bigger than 50 square metres. The primary school facility standard requires a main teaching space of at least 60 square metres, but coupled with that there has to be a practical activity area, a home-base storage, personal effects storage and withdrawal area—a total of 95 square metres. This school has an average size of 56 square metres.
There are no practical activities areas or withdrawal spaces in any of these rooms. The school has two home-base stores and two personal effects storages when it should have one for each classroom. There are eight demountable classrooms on site and seven permanent classrooms. There is a demountable library, a demountable staffroom, a demountable administration building that the community purchased because there were no adequate facilities for staff, and currently the administration building has no toilet facilities. Since 1998 the school has been waiting for another demountable to be fully updated.
Why was $50,000 redirected from the allocated upgrade program to the electricity supply and why was it necessary to upgrade the electricity supply twice in five years? Why was it not sufficiently upgraded the first time round? Why did the school have so much difficulty getting maintenance work completed to fix the problems rather than enduring the bandaid solutions that occurred along the way? Why is the work on properties always reactionary rather than proactive? The school has faced a variety of problems and a slow response to deal with those problems. The problems have been fixed on a piecemeal basis and the school still has not been given a coherent plan as to how it will be developed and, more important, when. The facilities reveal clearly the shortcomings of the school, and the school needs work to commence to fix the problems.
The required area for the library is 215 square metres; the school uses a demountable. The administration block should be 142 square metres; the area at the school is 84 square metres. There should be a covered outdoor learning area of 140 square metres; there is none. The staff area should be 67 square metres; the school does not have a proper staff facility. The canteen should be 54 square metres; there are 22.25 square metres. The storage area should be 39 square metres; there are 4.29 square metres. The school is struggling with the facilities it has. Notwithstanding that, it is doing remarkably well. That shows there is more to a school than bricks and mortar—but bricks and mortar make a big difference to the quality of the learning environment.
Notwithstanding all the difficulties the school faces, it is doing outstandingly well in integrating with the community, in rallying support from the community and in the performance of the students. For example, 80 per cent of students in years 3 to 5 are in the top performance band for literacy, according to the basic skills tests this year; 90 per cent of students are in the top two bands for writing assessment programs. The basic skills tests numeracy results are at a level approximately three times the State average. In the University of New South Wales writing competition the school achieved 21 credits, 12 distinctions and two high distinctions. One boy took out first place with a perfect score and won a medal. In maths there were 23 credits and 10 distinctions. In English there were 25 credits, nine distinctions and two high distinctions.
The school also does extremely well in public speaking. It has taken out more awards than any other school in the area. Dance students took first place at the Sydney North Dance Festival. The band performs regular concerts at the school and currently the school has more special needs students integrated into its mainstream classes than any other school in the northern beaches region. That shows it is a terrific school. Next year it will have more than 400 students, but the Government is letting it down because it is not providing the students with the kinds of facilities they deserve. The local community has provided facilities for the students. Those facilities include a computer room, a computer office, a brick sports storeroom, covered walkways, half of the school hall, an administration building, an amphitheatre, cricket nets and lighting. The local community has rallied around this terrific school and provided all sorts of things the Government should be providing.
The Government should certainly be kicking in more. It should be doing something about the number of demountable classrooms and it should be moving to bring the school up to scratch in the way indicated by the facilities review. The school is so far short of what it is entitled to that it is unconscionable. It is the duty of the Government to move quickly to fix the school so it can do justice to the students and the local school community and be an even better school than it is now. The Government should be censured for the slow response to the problems at this school. Much more should be done and it should be done quickly. I call on the Government to move quickly to give the school a clear idea when work will take place so this terrific learning environment can be made even better.
Mr BRYCE GAUDRY (Newcastle—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.47 p.m.]: I move:
That the motion be amended by leaving all words after "That" with a view to inserting instead: 13856 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
"this House notes:
(1) the State Government has provided funding for 332 new and redeveloped schools since coming to office in 1995.
(2) the Government's $1.2 billion School Improvement Program, which will deliver further significant improvements in this third term of office.
(3) the Department of Education and Training has undertaken a facilities review of Balgowlah North Public School; and
(4) the upgrading of the school will be considered in a future capital works program."
First I pay tribute to the honourable member for Manly. There is no doubt that with his background as a teacher in the TAFE system he has a clear understanding of both public education and its needs. I was most interested to hear him say that bricks and mortar alone do not make a school. There is no doubt about that, but the provision of adequate and expertly designed facilities are an important part of the education process. I was also pleased about the tremendous outcomes being achieved at Balgowlah North Public School. I compliment the honourable member for bringing those forward. I also compliment the parents, teachers and community of Balgowlah North Public School for the work that is being done at the school.
A facilities review of the Balgowlah North Public School has been conducted, as the honourable member for Manly acknowledged, and a draft facilities report was presented to the school community in late 2003. Recommendations made by the school community were incorporated into the final facilities review report, which was forwarded to the principal on 17 May 2004. Funding for capital improvements at the school will be considered as part of a future capital works program. There are currently 10 demountables at Balgowlah North Public School and seven permanent classrooms. Enrolments at the school have gradually increased from 220 in 1997 to 388 in 2004. The honourable member for Manly gave an update on the number of students. Following a review of student enrolments undertaken in November 2004, Balgowlah North Public School is entitled to an additional demountable. The department is currently making arrangements for a demountable to be delivered to the school for the 2005 school year.
Mr Brad Hazzard: What about some fair dinkum buildings?
Mr BRYCE GAUDRY: Let me debunk some of the myths about demountables that are being perpetuated by members opposite. Demountables enable us to meet accommodation needs in schools as enrolments increase—as is the case with Balgowlah North Public School—to meet emergency needs as a result of fires or natural disasters and to meet needs arising from capital works or maintenance projects in schools. I am pleased to advise honourable members opposite that funding of nearly $70,000 has been provided to aircondition the seven demountables on site as part of the 2004-05 air-cooling program. Airconditioning has been installed as a result of our election commitment, and demountables with airconditioning are becoming the most popular classrooms in schools. They are the rooms that teachers and students want to work and learn in. There are examples of teachers praising demountable classrooms. On 1 December the Illawarra Mercury reported:
Albion Park High School Year 11 students and English teacher Barbara Clayton enjoy a cooler demountable classroom thanks to a program to install air conditioning.
Ms Clayton, the English teacher, said:
This is beautiful. They [her Year 11 English class] were so pleased to be able to come to this room, into the cool, today.
Airconditioned demountables provide an excellent facility for teaching. Since 1995 the Government has airconditioned nearly 800 schools in the hottest parts of the State and spent more than $73 million on airconditioning throughout the State. The honourable member for Wakehurst should contrast that with the record of the previous Coalition Government, which managed to aircondition only 167 schools in its seven years of office. Tuesday's announcement of the Program for International Student Assessment results shows the achievements of our 15-year-olds are second only to Finland. The Government is working hard to ensure we continue to have a world-class education system. Since coming to office we have redeveloped 332 schools throughout New South Wales and committed $462.5 million to deliver smaller classes sizes in the crucial early years of schooling.
Members might ask: What is the relevance of that? The Government is responsible for the development of education across the whole of New South Wales, and Balgowlah North Public School is being addressed within that context. We are spending $184 million on maintenance, more than double the amount the Coalition 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13857 spent in its last year of office. We will also spend nearly $800 million over the next four years to give students and teachers access to state-of-the-art technology. Once again, I thank the honourable member for Manly for raising the matter of Balgowlah North Public School. I know that he takes a great interest in schools in his electorate. He has clearly demonstrated the tremendous educational outcomes of that school, and we will pay close consideration to its future needs. I am sure the Government has taken into account the list referred to by the honourable member for Manly in its review of the needs of the school. I commend the amendment to the House.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.54 p.m.]: It is shameful that a member of the Left faction of the Labor Party has defended the failure by the Carr Government for the past 10 years to seriously support public education in New South Wales. Unfortunately, Balgowlah North Public School is now reduced to proffering a begging bowl to get its facilities upgraded. As the honourable member for Manly said, the community has campaigned for years for an upgrade of the school facilities, but there has been no response from the Government to the community or to the honourable member for Manly. The motion of the honourable member for Manly will have the backing of the Coalition. It is time the Government seriously addressed public education and the problems at Balgowlah North Public School. The honourable member for Manly has set out the wonderful achievements of the children, staff and community at the school. The programs conducted at the school have had successful outcomes. The recent University of New South Wales competition resulted in fine results for the school. In writing the school achieved 21 credits, 12 distinctions and two high distinctions.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: Their basic skills test results are three times the State average.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD: They have had excellent results in the basic skills test. Returning to the University of New South Wales competition results, in maths the school achieved 23 credits and 10 distinctions and in English 25 credits, 10 distinctions and two high distinctions. In addition, the public speaking students are doing very well. Despite the Carr Government's failure to support an upgrade of the school's infrastructure, the school community is doing what communities do well, that is, ensuring that their young people have all the benefits of a supportive, loving and nurturing environment. Although the students are doing well, they do not deserve to be treated like second-rate citizens. That is what the Government is doing.
As the honourable member for Manly observed, the only improvements to the school in recent years have been those that have come from the community itself. The school needed an administration block, a basic requirement set down in the department's own guidelines. How did the school get it? The community had to raise $22,000 for an administration block: the school had to buy its own administration block. That is public education, compliments of the Premier. Do the teachers have a toilet in the administration block? They do not, because the Government will not provide one. What about the rest of the school facilities? Next year the school will have 16 classrooms, the majority of which are demountables. There are seven permanent classrooms and nine demountables. It is shameful that two years ago it was established that $300,000 had to be spent on minor capital works just to get the school up to basics. Two years later that funding has not been forthcoming.
The department, under the control of the Carr Labor Government, has pulled out funds piecemeal to undertake minor but important work. But it will not undertake the major infrastructure renewal. The Carr Government has used the money on tasks that are the responsibility of governments in any event. The boys' infant toilets had to be reconstructed to be made suitable for little children. Little children deserve decent toilets at school. One minute they are at home in a nurturing and loving family environment, but the next minute they are at school without adequate toilet facilities. In a mangy little effort the Government pulled $36,000 out of the promised $300,000. It then plucked another $50,000 off the Christmas tree to do some electricity supply work. It then had the hide to pull out $40,000 to connect the administration building. It has been a piecemeal effort by the Government.
A complete facilities review that was recently undertaken by the department has highlighted the failure of the Government to do the right thing by the school. The review acknowledges that there should be 1,425 square metres of learning area in this school. The school barely gets over the 400 square metres mark. It has 440.81 square metres; it is about 1,000 square metres short. The school is supposed to have 215 square metres of library. What has it got? Nil. It is supposed to have a covered outdoor learning area. It has not got one. Government members should be ashamed of themselves for not backing this motion. They should join the Coalition and say to the Government, "Give these kids and the community a fair go." They should stop laughing about this matter, because those children deserve to have money spent on their school.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [12.59 p.m.]: When Henry Parkes introduced the Public Instruction Act in this Chamber in 1880 he committed the people who sat in 13858 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004 this Parliament, and those who sit in it today, to free, compulsory and secular education for all children in New South Wales. Public education was meant to deliver what Henry Parkes established all those years ago and it is meant to continue to deliver it today. Yet what we have at Balgowlah North Public School—a school I visited in late 2002 where I saw first-hand the results of strong leadership, success and enrolment growth—is a failure by the Government of the day to provide parents and the school community with the resources they need and deserve and that Henry Parkes's Public Instruction Act was meant to deliver—that is, resources to enable them to continue to provide that free, compulsory and secular education.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Routine of Business: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Roads, and Minister for Housing) [1.00 p.m.]: I move:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to provide for the following routine of business at this sitting:
(1) No notices to be called for motions for urgent consideration;
(2) Following the conclusion of question time, the House consider the matter of public importance postponed from 8 December 2004, Christmas felicitations and private members' statements.
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL (Ku-ring-gai—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [1.01 p.m.]: Currently we have on the notice paper 607 private members' notices, including one in the name of the honourable member for Manly which was the subject of debate only a moment ago. Once again honourable members have witnessed the Government's attempt to rearrange the day to suit itself. The parents of students at Balgowlah North Public School know that what is more important than classrooms for students is the Minister's desire to deliver Christmas felicitations so he can gather more votes on the other side of the House to replace Bob Carr as Premier sometime next year.
The way in which the business of the House has been managed this week is simply a disgrace. On Tuesday night the House rose at 8.30 p.m. Last night, while the press party was in progress, a number of speeches were made on the budget. Today we have had yet another rearrangement of government business simply to suit the whims of the bloke who happens to be Leader of the House—a bloke who is trying to do to this place what he did to the New South Wales rail system during six years as Minister for Transport. That is typical of the Minister's inability to manage this Chamber. This has been a wasted week for most of us, including the honourable member for Manly, the honourable member for Albury, the honourable member for Wakehurst and other Independents who have been endeavouring to raise issues on behalf of their communities in this the last week of Parliament. What we are seeing yet again is another rearrangement of government business.
[Interruption]
If the honourable member for East Hills wants to watch Federal Parliament on television while this House is sitting he is abrogating his responsibilities to his constituents. He wants to watch Federal Parliament and he is not interested in what is happening in this Chamber. Is he proud of the fact that public school students are going without adequate space in their classrooms, public schoolteachers are being put under enormous pressure, parents are obliged to fork out money from their own pockets at schools such as Balgowlah North Public School and Killara Primary School and, more importantly, at primary schools in Labor electorates for the education of their children, in direct contravention of the Public Instruction Act of 1880 and the Reform Act introduced by Terry Metherell?
I remember when members of the Labor Party were defenders of public education and when they stood up for teachers in this House. This Government is not interested in a reasonable motion that was moved by the honourable member for Manly—a motion that I am happy to support. In debate on the motion relating to Balgowlah North Public School the Minister got to his feet with a smirk on his face and proceeded to talk about Albion Street Public School and airconditioning. He gave honourable members a science lesson and said that if on a hot day we were to go into an airconditioned building, the area inside Albion Street classrooms would be cooler.
[Interruption] 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13859
With all due respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, that is terrific for the parents and students of Albion Street Public School, but it does not address the issues that have been raised by the honourable member for Manly in relation to Balgowlah North Public School. I ask Government members to forget about parties for a moment, if they are able to do so, and to focus on the way in which this place is meant to function. Individual members are supposed to represent their communities. That is what the honourable member for Manly was trying to do, supported by the honourable member for Wakehurst. This week the Leader of the House seems to be more interested in the machinations of this place, in ensuring that we have free air and that when the press party is on we do not have a repeat of what happened earlier in the year in relation to the honourable member for Murray-Darling. The Leader of the House is rearranging the business of the House on a whim. He has done so in an attempt to get Bob Carr on his plane earlier so that he can ponce around the Pompadour Centre in France rather than worry about Balgowlah North Public School.
[Interruption]
I inform the honourable member for Wakehurst that the Premier is not going to New Zealand; he is going to Europe to visit the L'Ecole du Public of France—the public school of France—which no doubt is in better condition than the public school at Balgowlah North. It is about time New South Wales had a Premier who spent time in this State, who visited schools like Balgowlah North Public School, which I visited and to which the honourable member for Manly is no doubt a frequent visitor, as I am sure is the honourable member for Wakehurst. We need a Premier who knows what is happening and who understands the needs of public education in this State. We do not need the sort of speech that was delivered by the Parliamentary Secretary who stated that 330 schools have been improved under this Government.
That is of no benefit to the remaining 1,800 schools in this State, including a school where there will be nine demountable classrooms next year. Over the past six years the teachers, parents and children have done so well at that school that enrolments have gone through the roof. The Government should reward that school for the fine job it has done in delivering public education. The State Government should be in partnership with and support local schools and the students and parents at those schools. That is what the honourable member for Manly is trying to do. Farewell, sayonara, Bob. Get a ticket to France, enjoy your visit, but come back and look at the facilities in this State. [Time expired.]
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 44
Ms Allan Mr Hickey Mr Pearce Mr Amery Mr Hunter Mrs Perry Ms Beamer Mr Iemma Mr Price Mr Black Ms Judge Dr Refshauge Mr Brown Ms Keneally Mr Sartor Ms Burney Mr Lynch Mr Scully Miss Burton Mr McBride Mr Shearan Mr Campbell Mr McLeay Mr Tripodi Mr Corrigan Ms Meagher Mr Watkins Mr Crittenden Ms Megarrity Mr West Mr Debus Mr Mills Mr Whan Mr Gaudry Mr Morris Mr Yeadon Mr Gibson Mr Newell Tellers, Mr Greene Ms Nori Mr Ashton Ms Hay Mr Orkopoulos Mr Martin
Noes, 30
Mr Aplin Mrs Hopwood Mr Souris Mr Armstrong Mr Humpherson Mr Stoner Mr Barr Mr Kerr Mr Tink Ms Berejiklian Mr Merton Mr Torbay Mr Cansdell Ms Moore Mr J. H. Turner Mr Constance Mr Oakeshott Mr R. W. Turner Mr Debnam Mr O'Farrell Mr Draper Mr Page Mr Fraser Mr Piccoli Tellers, Mrs Hancock Mr Richardson Mr George Mr Hazzard Mr Roberts Mr Maguire 13860 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
Pairs
Mrs Paluzzan Mr Hartcher Ms Saliba Mrs Skinner
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
[Madam Acting Speaker (Ms Marie Andrews), left the chair at 1.15 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]
HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
Ministerial Statement
Dr ANDREW REFSHAUGE (Marrickville—Deputy Premier, Minister for Education and Training, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) [2.15 p.m.]: Tomorrow is Human Rights Day, a day on which we should all take time out to remember the millions of people who can only dream of the freedoms that we share. Human Rights Day 2004 is dedicated to human rights education. It is appropriate then to congratulate one of our own high school principals who has been recognised for her exceptional work in this area. Dorothy Hoddinott, principal of Holroyd High School in Sydney's west, has been nominated and shortlisted for the Human Rights Medal tomorrow.
Over the past 10 years Dorothy Hoddinott has transformed Holroyd High School, helping hundreds of children who have come to Australia as refugees. In fact, 50 per cent of her students are refugees: children who have lost family members under cruel dictatorships, children who have escaped war-torn countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia, and children who have spent many months in Australian detention centres such as Woomera. Some of those students have astonishing survival stories. As Dorothy said, many have lived hand to mouth for years. Because of Dorothy's work, Holroyd High School has become the centre of hope for many of these and other students.
She has established a special fund to help young female asylum seekers and refugees cover their education costs. She has provided extensive counselling for refugee students. She has set up an intensive English class, and she has helped many students overcome traumatic experiences, finish school and adjust to our way of life. Dorothy is one of those people who does not just talk about human rights; she has made it a reality for hundreds of children. The Human Rights Medal recognises outstanding contributions of organisations and individuals like Dorothy in Australia. While the final recipient of the medal will not be known until tomorrow, we should all congratulate Dorothy, who joins us in the gallery today, for all the work that she has done— another example of the commitment and dedication in our public schools every day.
Mrs JILLIAN SKINNER (North Shore) [2.21 p.m.]: On behalf of the Coalition I have pleasure in congratulating Dorothy Hoddinott on her nomination for the Human Rights Medal. I join the Minister in congratulating her on the work that she is doing on behalf of refugees at Holroyd High School and, in particular, young women. I note that through her efforts special entitlements have been extended to the students so that such benefits do not end when they reach the age of 18 but continue until they finish their schooling. That is an important measure to encourage young women, who in many cases have been through traumatic experiences, to complete their education. Again, the Coalition congratulates Ms Hoddinott on her tremendous work, and extends its best wishes to her in the ongoing awards process.
NSW OMBUDSMAN
Reports
Mr Speaker announced the receipt, pursuant to section 43 of the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993, of the report entitled, "Reviewable Deaths—Annual Report 2003-2004."
Mr Speaker announced the receipt, pursuant to section 32AA of the Ombudsman Act 1974, of the special report entitled, "Improving Outcomes for Children at Risk of Harm—A Case Study" dated December 2004.
Ordered to be printed. 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13861
DEPARTMENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Report
Mr Speaker tabled the annual report for the Department of Legislative Assembly for the year ended 30 June 2004.
Ordered to be printed.
UNPROCLAIMED LEGISLATION
Mr SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I table a list detailing all legislation unproclaimed 90 days after assent as at 9 December 2004.
PETITIONS
St George and Sutherland Community College Funding
Petitions requesting the restoration of funding to the St George and Sutherland Community College, received from Mr Barry Collier, Mr Paul McLeay and Ms Alison Megarrity.
Autism Spectrum Disorder
Petition requesting additional support for children affected by Autism Spectrum Disorder in all educational settings in New South Wales government schools, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.
Mount Austin High School Assembly Hall
Petition requesting funding for the provision of an assembly hall at Mount Austin High School, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.
Colo High School Airconditioning
Petition requesting the installation of airconditioning in all classrooms and the library of Colo High School, received from Mr Steven Pringle.
Gaming Machine Tax
Petitions opposing the decision to increase poker machine tax, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood, Mr Malcolm Kerr and Mr Steven Pringle.
Taralga Windfarm Proposal
Petition opposing the proposed windfarm development in the Taralga district, received from Mr Kim Yeadon.
Old Northern and New Line Roads Strategic Route Development Study
Petition requesting funding for implementation of the Old Northern and New Line roads strategic route development study, received from Mr Steven Pringle.
Forster-Tuncurry Cycleways
Petition requesting the building of cycleways in the Forster-Tuncurry area, received from Mr John Turner.
Breast Screening Funding
Petitions requesting effective breast screening for women and maintenance of funding to BreastScreen NSW, received from Mr Steve Cansdell and Mrs Judy Hopwood. 13862 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
Yass District Hospital
Petition opposing the downgrading of existing services at Yass District Hospital, received from Ms Katrina Hodgkinson.
Greater Murray and Southern Area Health Services Merger
Petition opposing the merger of the Greater Murray and Southern Area Health Services, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.
Broadmeadow to Newcastle Rail Services
Petition opposing the proposed closure of the railway line from Broadmeadow to Newcastle, received from Mr Jeff Hunter.
Country Rail Booking Offices
Petition opposing the closure of country rail booking offices, received from Mr Daryl Maguire.
Murwillumbah to Casino Rail Service
Petition requesting the retention of the Countrylink rail service from Murwillumbah to Casino, received from Mr Neville Newell.
CountryLink Rail Services
Petition opposing the abolition of CountryLink rail services and their replacement with bus services in rural and regional New South Wales, received from Mr John Turner.
Adult Training, Learning and Support Program
Petition opposing proposed changes to the Adult Training, Learning and Support Program, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.
Water Carting Restrictions
Petition opposing the decision by Sydney Water Corporation to restrict the operating times for water carters and not allow Sunday cartage, received from Mr Steven Pringle.
Hawkesbury Electorate Sewerage
Petition praying that funding be provided to construct a reticulated sewerage system for Glossodia, Freeman's Reach and Wilberforce, received from Mr Steven Pringle.
Lismore Fire Service
Petition requesting the provision of a permanently staffed fire service in Lismore, received from Mr Thomas George.
Sullage Removal Subsidy
Petition requesting that the subsidy for sullage removal be extended to residents in the Hawkesbury local government area, received from Mr Steven Pringle.
Business Enterprise Centres
Petition requesting the reinstatement and funding of business enterprise centres, received from Mr Steve Cansdell.
Hawkesbury-Nepean River System Weed Harvester
Petition requesting the purchase of a weed harvester for the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system, received from Mr Steven Pringle. 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13863
Water-Access-Only Property Policy
Petition requesting a review of the water-access-only property policy, received from Mrs Judy Hopwood.
COMMITTEE ON THE OFFICE OF THE VALUER-GENERAL
Report
Mr Richard Torbay, on behalf of the Chairman, tabled the report entitled "Report on the First General Meeting with the Valuer-General", dated December 2004.
Ordered to be printed.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
______
CAMDEN AND CAMPBELLTOWN HOSPITALS HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION INVESTIGATIONS
Mr JOHN BROGDEN: My question without notice is directed to the Premier. Given that this week marks 12 months since his Government released the Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC] investigation into Camden and Campbelltown hospitals and promised to "make things right", why are Peter Bentley, whose wife died from an undiagnosed infection; Faye Lee, whose husband died of a heart attack; and Sarah Flegg, whose daughter was born with cerebral palsy—all out of Campbelltown hospital—still waiting for the truth?
Mr BOB CARR: The case of Mrs Maree Bentley was referred by the special commission of inquiry for further investigation by the Health Care Complaints Commission [HCCC]. I am advised that the HCCC is currently seeking the peer review advice of independent doctors about the care provided to Mrs Bentley. The case of the care received at Campbelltown and Liverpool hospitals by Sarah Flegg was investigated by the HCCC as part of the original Macarthur investigation. The case was considered by Bret Walker's special commission of inquiry and not referred to the HCCC for further investigation. I am advised that Bret Walker referred one doctor to the New South Wales Medical Board for performance assessment. The HCCC has reviewed its assessment decision upon request and has written to Ms Flegg advising that it will not be again investigating the incident.
Mr John Brogden: Not good enough.
Mr BOB CARR: That was a decision made by the HCCC, the reformed HCCC. That was its decision. It is an independent body. Is Bret Walker wrong? Is the HCCC wrong? That is an allegation honourable members can make. In respect of Gregory Lee, the special commission of inquiry did not refer the case back to the HCCC for further investigation. I am advised that the Coroner on 13 August 2004 found that the recording of the cause of death was adequate.
KOKODA TRACK MEMORIAL WALKWAY VANDALISM
Ms VIRGINIA JUDGE: I direct my question to the Premier. What is the Government's response to community concerns about recent attacks on the Kokoda Track Memorial Walkway at Concord, and related matters?
Mr BOB CARR: I found the vandalism against the Kokoda Track Memorial Walkway, the beautiful memorial many members of this House would be familiar with, as atrocious. Who commits vandalism against a memorial of this type? It beggars the imagination. The vandalism was disgraceful and serious. I recently had representations from former New South Wales RSL President Rusty Priest, who is with us in the gallery today. He came to see me about the vandalism and briefed me on a proposed $200,000 upgrade of this beautiful memorial, subject as it has been to this disgraceful vandalism. The upgrade would entail surveillance cameras, upgrades to the existing memorial stations and connections to security monitoring systems. Rusty told me that RSL sub-branches had raised $110,000 towards the project but they needed help with the gap. Members will be pleased to hear that the Government will contribute the remaining $86,000 that is needed to complete the project. This amount is in addition to grants we have provided between 2001 and 2004 totalling $100,000. 13864 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
I can advise honourable members that next April I will be hosting at Government House a reception to honour the ninetieth anniversary of Anzac Day. We will do so in a special way. We will arrange for some high school students who, as a result of the new curriculum, are learning about the military tradition in Australian history in detail for the first time, to meet some of the veterans. I remind the House that the Government made it compulsory for year 9 and year 10 students to study Australia's involvement in the First World War, the Second World War the and the Vietnam war. Next year the curriculum will include particular emphasis on the New Guinea campaigns. I also remind members of the year 11 and year 12 Modern History course, which will be further strengthened from next year with compulsory study of soldiers' lives on the Western Front in the First World War. We want these young Australians who are studying these subjects to come face-to-face with some of the veterans of World War II.
I want to quickly make some relevant suggestions for Christmas shopping by members of the House. I apologise to those members opposite who have not received my Christmas gift yet, but it is on its way. Santa has a lot of wrapping to do. Firstly, I suggest this excellent book by Peter FitzSimons, which I was honoured to launch, called Kokoda.
Mr Barry O'Farrell: The Monash book.
Mr BOB CARR: I will consider that. If you have any other requests, you might send them in. I launched this terrific book. It is very readable and has been on the Age and Sydney Morning Herald bestseller list for weeks. It is crammed with rich anecdotes and observations of the lives of the men and the conditions under which they fought. I strongly recommend it. A less obvious choice is this book, Kokoda Commander, which I also launched. Apparently there was only one Australian general from World War II who was not knighted. The story of Tubby Allen is a very compelling one. He was the commander of the forces in Kokoda.
Mr Anthony Roberts: A good general.
Mr BOB CARR: Apparently a very good general. I share your assessment, although you are far more knowledgeable about these matters than I. I mean that as a compliment. I am not arguing. This is the season of goodwill. This man deserves to be ranked with Monash, Blamey and Morshead.
Mr Milton Orkopoulos: And Roberts.
Mr BOB CARR: Like Monash the honourable member is a citizen soldier and might be called on in future conflicts. After commanding our troops on the Kokoda Trail, Tubby Allen was neglected. No representations could persuade the Menzies Government to give him a knighthood. This excellent biography tells the story of his life and his leadership. His family were present when I was honoured to launch the book. There were tears in their eyes at the acknowledgement that Tubby Allen received. The third book I recommend is Paul Ham's book called Kokoda. It is wonderful that this part of the Australian military story is now being told so comprehensively. Its author is the Australian representative of London's Sunday Times who was awed by the Kokoda legend when he read about it as a school cadet.
We honour the survivors of Kokoda. We reflect on the great work that is now being done to record in full for future generations their sacrifices. Rusty, I assure you, we will protect that memorial at Concord. The member for Strathfield and member for Drummoyne have undertaken to supervise this project and let me know how it is going. Who knows, they might even organise a posse of people to monitor the memorial so that it is not subject to any more of this disgraceful vandalism. It is very good that a new generation has in these fine books a further record of the crucial role that generation played in the saving of Australia and how we must be forever in their debt. For these books I make a serious bid—a Premier's promotion—that they be under every Christmas tree this Christmas.
RURAL HOSPITAL BEDS
Mr ANDREW STONER: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Why is country New South Wales not getting any of the recently announced extra 200 hospital beds when his waiting lists forces people like Taree woman Sharon Rose, who required major surgery, to pay $4,000 on her credit card for an operation in a private hospital because to wait for a public bed made coping with full-time work near impossible?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The announcement made the other day involved 200 beds. 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13865
Mr ANDREW STONER: Where?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: In our metropolitan hospitals.
Mr John Brogden: What about Taree?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I will refer to our rural hospitals. The announcement made the other day related to the greater metropolitan hospitals. It is part of the Government's plan to add additional capacity to our hospitals to enable them to cope with the ever-increasing demands and pressures placed upon them at a time when the Commonwealth Government is taking money away from our hospitals. We are putting money and additional resources into our hospitals. The announcement related to a traditional practice of opening additional beds over winter to enable hospitals to get over the hump of winter. The Government recognises the efforts of our hospital staff, our nurses and doctors. The announcement related to making those formerly winter beds permanent additions to the stock of overnight acute beds in our hospitals.
That announcement is part of a plan called Sustainable Access, which affects all of the State's hospitals. In particular, our rural-based hospitals are part of Sustainable Access. At this very time they are formulating their Sustainable Access plans for submission to the Government by the end of the year. When those Sustainable Access plans are yielded to the Government they will be matched with a work force development plan and form part of the formulation of the health budget and the Government's wider budget to be announced next year. The Sustainable Access plans are currently being formulated.
Mr Andrew Tink: Point of order: The Minister for Gaming and Racing was using his mobile phone. I ask that he be asked to put it away.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Yesterday I informed the House that I intend to make a major statement in the new session of Parliament about the use of modern technology in the Chamber. In the meantime, I ask members to refrain from using mobile phones in the Chamber because of the disruption caused to other members.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Rural hospitals are part of the Government's wider Sustainable Access plan. The front-line health professionals and administrators of rural hospitals are working on the current proposals. The sustainable access plans are in the process of being formulated for submission to the Government for consideration of additional measures which the Government is always prepared to take. That is notwithstanding the fact that the Opposition, led by the Leader of The Nationals, has not said one word since the signing of the Health Care Agreement, by which New South Wales had $300 million taken from its public hospitals. There was not one word. The Leader of The Nationals has not had one word of support for the efforts of the New South Wales Government to get more funding for the State's public hospitals, because the Commonwealth thinks that that is enough.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Leader of The Nationals to order.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Commonwealth thinks it is enough and took $300 million out, and then the Leader of The Nationals asks a question about raw hospital beds. Sustainable access plans apply to rural hospitals and I would be more than happy to update the House at a future time on the progress of those plans.
MOTOR VEHICLE THIRD PARTY INSURANCE PREMIUMS
Mr GEOFF CORRIGAN: My question without notice is directed to be Premier. What is the latest information on green slips?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Murrumbidgee to order.
Mr BOB CARR: The simple answer is that the price of a compulsory third-party green slip has fallen for the third time in 12 months. From 1 January 2005 AAMI is again cutting the best price green slip, meaning the best price premium for a Sydney vehicle is now $296, plus GST, the sort of green slip that would have cost $397 before the third party insurance reforms. That is a saving of $101, or one quarter. That is a huge help to New South Wales families. When you adjust the figures to the rate of average weekly earnings, the savings are even more significant. Before that reform the cheapest green slip cost 50 per cent of average weekly earnings. With the latest reduction, a green slip now costs 30 per cent of average weekly earnings—from half to less than a third of a weekly pay packet. In fact, green slip premiums are now cheaper for the majority of Sydney 13866 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004 motorists than when the compulsory third-party scheme was first set up in 1988, and the savings are not confined to Sydney.
The latest price reduction is also good news for drivers on the Central Coast and Newcastle, who pay less than Sydney drivers. Their best price green slips have fallen to $243. In country New South Wales they are just $233 and for experienced drivers over the age of 55 they are just $206. Our reforms have brought green slips prices down and kept them down. At the same time, people with serious injuries as a result of car accidents are getting more compensation, and legal costs have been slashed. Under the new scheme, the average payment to the seriously injured is $379,100 up from $369,500, while legal costs are down 60 per cent. We asked the House to support a package of third-party reforms. We said we would cut red tape, and we did; we said we would cut lawyers fees, and we did; we said we would increase compensation payouts to the seriously injured, and we did. It has all happened. People are receiving those benefits. And we said we would cut the cost of green slips, and we did.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Myall Lakes to order.
Mr BOB CARR: Reform delivered in full. Thank you!
CENTRAL COAST AMBULANCE SERVICES
Mr BARRY O'FARRELL: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Why, when there are closer ambulance stations at Toukley and Doyalson, did it take three calls to 000 before an ambulance, dispatched from Gosford, attended an emergency at Budgewoi Post Office, requiring the local chemist, Richard Coomb, and a nurse to perform CPR for 25 minutes to keep an elderly man alive?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I will obtain a report.
REPORT OF INQUIRY INTO PENRITH RUGBY LEAGUES CLUB LTD
Mr PAUL McLEAY: My question is directed to the Minister for Gaming and Racing. What is the latest information on the Temby report?
Mr GRANT McBRIDE: Last night the Director of Liquor and Gaming, Ken Brown, received a report by Ian Temby, QC, into allegations of corrupt or improper conduct by Penrith Panthers and its chief executive officer, Roger Cowan. The director, in turn, has conveyed the Temby report to me. The inquiry's terms of reference included allegations surrounding the aborted March 2002 club board elections, and voting rights in general. Other matters subject to the inquiry included the remuneration package of Mr Cowan, and the financial dealings between the club and his family company, Phyro Holdings. The inquiry also focused on whether, since 1994, Penrith Panthers was run to a large extent for the benefit of Mr Cowan and his close associates. While the report does concede that Mr Cowan cares about the club, it also contains many serious criticisms. The report found that Mr Cowan is motivated in part by, "a desire to do as he pleases without being accountable".
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come to order.
Mr GRANT McBRIDE: The report noted that:
Because of [Mr Cowan's] obsessive drive for secrecy, his attitude to accountability is one which caused grave problems, and largely led to the current Inquiry.
The report also found:
The club has, to an extent, been run for the benefit of Cowan and Phyro Holdings Pty Ltd since at least June 1994.
For example, Phyro rendered accounts to the club worth nearly $3 million in one year. The report also notes that:
A very unsatisfactory position has arisen because nobody has kept a close eye on Cowan over a number of years now, and because, in a number of respects, document trails cannot now be followed in a confident fashion.
The Temby report also found that:
The job of prudentially supervising the wide range of Cowan's activities has proven to be quite beyond the Board. Most members did not even try. Those that did were got rid of in October, 2002. Cowan played a major role in their defeat, which was also a defeat for accountability. 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13867
The Temby report found:
The very large extent to which information was withheld from directors is attributable to Cowan and his secrecy and could not be justified on the basis of the very limited confidentiality provisions contained in three Phyro contracts.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lane Cove to order.
Mr GRANT McBRIDE: The report stated further:
It is clear that Cowan got his way in blocking proper information flows because of his strength of personality and, on the Board's side, a lack of vigour in asserting controls. Recent Panthers history showed that Cowan played a key role in getting rid of those directors who sought to control him.
They are findings that any honourable member of this Chamber would view with discomfort. Whilst Panthers was able to gain a Supreme Court ruling preventing the report from making a statement of finding, conclusion, or opinion that there had been corrupt—or other improper conduct—by any person, I assure the House that the report is now being considered by the Director of Liquor and Gaming, who has the power to take further action if appropriate. Improper practices will not be tolerated, not by the Government and not by club members.
The Temby report shows the type of unhealthy practices that have developed in parts of the New South Wales clubs industry, bringing discredit on the vast majority of decent clubs—I repeat: bringing discredit on the vast majority of decent clubs—and highlighting the need for reform in the clubs industry and in club practice and governance. That is why we will continue to work closely with ClubsNSW, the clubs industry task force, and the Special Ministerial Advisory Group of club chief executive officers to reform the industry. This will ensure a positive future for clubs across New South Wales. Club members, the true owners of these community assets, can, and will, have confidence that club funds are being used for the benefit of the community and club members, and not for the enrichment of individuals. I seek leave to table the report entitled "Inquiry in Relation to Penrith Rugby League Club Limited", dated December 2004.
Leave granted.
Report tabled.
MOREE RAIL SERVICES
Mr IAN SLACK-SMITH: My question without notice is to the Premier. Why are rail commuters, including the elderly and people with disabilities, still being shoved on a bus three days a week at Werris Creek for the five-hour journey to Moree, more than six months after an accident involving the Xplorer train at Baan Baa?
Mr BOB CARR: I do not know, but I will find out and report to the House.
MINING INDUSTRY
Mr JOHN PRICE: I direct my question to the Premier. What is the latest information on mining and related matters in New South Wales?
Mr BOB CARR: I cannot put it any more simply: The New South Wales mining industry is booming, encouraged by the sound policies of this Government and its Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Mineral Resources will come to order. I call the honourable member for Coffs Harbour to order.
Mr BOB CARR: The figures speak for themselves. Gold production is up 40 per cent on the March quarter figure. Honourable members should remember the legislation the Government introduced in this House during its first term to get Newcrest's Cadia and Ridgeway goldmines under way. The legislation was controversial and we had to fight for it in the upper House and ward off critics. However, 800 jobs have now been secured; given the increase in gold production, they are very secure.
Four new goldmines are in the pipeline: Adelong, Cadia East, Cowal Gold, and Tomingley Gold. Together they are worth $556 million and they are set to create another 400 jobs in regional New South Wales. Seven out of every ten mineral dollars earned in New South Wales come from coal. 13868 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
The industry employs almost 10,000 people, most of them in rural and regional New South Wales. Exports are 7.2 per cent higher than they were last year. Again, a supportive government is a large part of the explanation for that increase. The Hunter region is doing especially well. The Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics' September quarter mineral statistics indicate a 12 per cent rise in steaming coal export earnings to $1.5 billion. I will share with the House five of the great success stories in the Hunter. First, Rio Tinto Coal Australia plans to recruit 150 full-time workers at its Hunter Valley operation and Mount Thorley Warkworth mines.
Mr Craig Knowles: Good news!
Mr BOB CARR: This is good news; these are jobs for our people. I would expect a flush of pride. Where is the honourable member's patriotism? Second, New South Wales-based Centennial Coal—Australia's largest independent coal producer—will recommence mining at its Mannering Colliery, near Wyee at the southern end of Lake Macquarie, providing some 200 jobs. Third, Southland Colliery, near Cessnock, closed in March following a devastating fire. Negotiations are under way for its potential sale to China's largest-listed coal miner, Yanzhou Coal Mining Co. Limited. That has raised hopes that some or all of its 220 workers might be re-employed.
Fourth, last month I met in Mumbai with Mr Sumit Kumar Khetan, the President of Gujarat NRE Coke Ltd, which is one of India's largest private coke producers. The company expressed interest in obtaining secure, longer-term coal supplies by perhaps purchasing or leasing a New South Wales mine. I am happy to say that the firm has now purchased the Bellpac No. 1 Colliery near Wollongong, which has the potential to supply one million tonnes of export-quality coal to the Indian energy market, and could create 60 jobs.
Fifth, honourable members will be interested to hear that the Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources has this morning given development consent for the extension of the Hunter Valley Coal Corporation's Mount Owen coalmine near Singleton. The ink is still drying on the document; he signed it before breakfast. This follows a recommendation from an independent commission of inquiry that that project should get the green light. This expansion will generate at least $2.5 billion in export revenue over 21 years. It will contribute at least $50 million to the economy in capital spending and it will feed $170 million a year into the Hunter Valley economy through spending on goods and services. Best of all, it will secure 260 jobs for Hunter families. They will be good jobs—well-paid, secure, and in unionised workplaces. All told, there are 31 new or expanding coal projects at various stages of development in New South Wales.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wyong will come to order. The honourable member Heathcote will come to order. The honourable member for Camden will come to order.
Mr BOB CARR: Together they are worth more than $2 billion of potential investment and promise more than 2,800 jobs.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Murrumbidgee to order for the second time.
Mr BOB CARR: In fact, overall the mining industry lodged 133 exploration licence applications between January and June 2004 and has been granted another 83.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member for Wyong will come to order.
Mr BOB CARR: It is clear that this industry has never seen better days. There is a mining boom in New South Wales.
WAGGA WAGGA POWER STATION
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: I direct my question to the Minister for Energy and Utilities. Given his support for slugging electricity consumers with a new levy after stripping almost $6 billion in dividends from energy companies, what is he doing to expedite the construction of the $200 million power station in Wagga Wagga to prevent blackouts for businesses and residents?
Mr FRANK SARTOR: I welcome this question, although I thought the honourable member was not of an age that he would be suffering from Alzheimer's disease. 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13869
Mrs Judy Hopwood: Point of order: I take offence, as all honourable members should, to the Ministers reference to Alzheimer's disease. It is a total disgrace and an insult to everyone who suffers from the disease.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: To the point of order: My reference is merely to the fact that—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! In the interests of all concerned the Minister should simply withdraw.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: I am happy to do so. The issue is the Opposition's lack of memory when it comes to dividends. I refer honourable members to the Coalition's various policies on dividends.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for South Coast to order.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: The Coalition's 1992-92 budget document states:
Dividends represented a return on State Government equity combined with corporate taxes, equivalents are a key element in the Government's policy of creating a commercial operating environment for Government businesses.
Of course, during that financial year the Greiner Government increased dividends by 71 per cent and the following year by 54 per cent. Then we had the contribution of the former Minister for Finance—Mr $50 million. Who is that? It is, of course, the honourable member for Upper Hunter, who said at the time:
Everyone must realise that the Government's ability to employ people in health, education and law enforcement requires dividends from government trading enterprises.
The Government makes no apology for its dividend policy.
The money has to come from somewhere.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lane Cove to order for the second time.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: He then boasted that the dividend proceeds from government trading enterprises had increased from $129 million in the last year of the Labor Government in 1988 to approximately $1 billion. In their last five years in office, honourable members opposite took $1.4 billion out of the electricity industry and more than $400 million out of Sydney Water.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Willoughby to order.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: After adjustment for inflation, this Government's dividends are roughly the same as those taken by honourable members opposite. They conveniently forget that. Even the shadow Minister—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible conversation in the Chamber. The Chair and Hansard are having difficulty hearing the Minister. I am reluctant to have members ejected from the Chamber. However, all members who have been called to order are now deemed to be on three calls. I would like to ensure that the last question time this session finishes on a proper note without further calls to order or, indeed, more severe action.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: Just to reiterate—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Lane Cove to order for the third time.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: $1.4 billion from energy companies in the past five years, close to half a billion dollars out of Sydney Water alone in dividends, yet they talk about how this Government is taking dividends. The simple fact is that lately the Auditor-General, Bob Sendt, has been making a lot of comments about infrastructure, and on 28 October John Laws asked him, "Is too much money being pulled out of these agencies in the form of dividends?" Bob Sendt's answer was, "Not to date." So the Auditor-General, who has been talking without fear or favour about his view of this issue, does not believe we are taking too much. Everyone who follows this matter carefully knows, in fact, that the Government only takes dividends after taxes and profits and after the allocation to capital works and so on. 13870 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
Taking Energy Australia for the past five years, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal [IPART] has approved $1.1 billion in capital expenditure. Energy Australia had only that much allocated to it by the pricing tribunal and it spent $1.6 billion—$500 million more than the Government allowed it for capital expenditure. So this is a myth, this is a lie and this is the convenient mantra that this mob—who have very convenient memories and are abject hypocrites—are perpetrating.
Mr Craig Knowles: They are not nice people.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: They are not nice people. The fact is that in the past five years this Government spent more than $4 billion on energy infrastructure. In the coming five years we will spend $6.2 billion, a huge increase. Now we have released a green paper that addresses our medium-term to long-term energy needs. We are responding and we are staying ahead of the game to ensure that we have security of supply in the longer term. At the same time—the honourable member for Wagga Wagga may not understand this—we are addressing the efficiency of the system and the efficiency of demand, like most developed countries are doing. You augment supply and you improve your efficiency, as you do with water. You augment supply and you promote conservation and energy
Mr Daryl Maguire: Point of order: The question related to the power station in Wagga Wagga. It is about augmenting the system; it is about providing electricity for the grid in New South Wales. The question is: What is the Government doing about it?
Mr FRANK SARTOR: Give me a chance! I am working up to the answer.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Baulkham Hills to order.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: The honourable member also commented about demand management. The simple fact is that it is just as appropriate to invest in demand management as it is to invest in augmenting supply. In fact, often the rates of return are greater. IPART has been recommending it for the past three years. If it means that from the price we allocate 1¢ a day to demand management and can manage to make home appliances more efficient and promote more efficient buildings and a reduction in greenhouse energy consumption, that is a good thing.
We have issued a green paper, and I strongly suggest that members read it because we are looking to the community and industry in the marketplace to comment on it. We are seeking the most efficient investment for New South Wales in terms of technical feasibility, economic feasibility and environmental effectiveness. We are seeking the optimal investment and at the right time we will be augmenting supply—but not in an ad hoc fashion. At the same time we are addressing the efficiency of the system, because this Government is the first in Australia to address a greenhouse trading scheme.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the honourable member for Upper Hunter to order.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: What are these people doing with energy policy? Why is the Federal Government not ratifying Kyoto? Because the Federal Government does not make policy; Washington makes policy for the Federal Government. Recently, Russia ratified Kyoto. That now means that all the developed countries that sign up to Kyoto are bound to it, which therefore means there will evolve a significant international carbon trading system. We need one in Australia as well. We need to ratify Kyoto, and who is stopping it? Your mob are.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will address the Chair.
Mr FRANK SARTOR: Again we have a failure of the Opposition to influence the Federal Government, which has produced a very weak paper on energy. It is not addressing greenhouse and it is not addressing supply. That is where you should be addressing your comments to. We are moving forward; we are ahead of the other States, and this State will secure supply.
POLICE STATION UPGRADES
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Police. What is the latest information on improvements to New South Wales police stations and cells?
Mr JOHN WATKINS: Honourable members would be aware of the Government's ongoing plan to improve the standard of police accommodation. We are currently building new police stations at Redfern, Chatswood, Armidale, Griffith, St Marys and Muswellbrook. I thank the tolerance and co-operation of the local 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13871 members and their communities for the assistance they have given in the process, particularly Coalition members. In addition to those major police stations that have been funded from this year's budget, we have identified a further 27 police stations across New South Wales that need to be upgraded. We did an audit, we identified the top 27, and we are working through the worst of them first.
The 27 police stations we have identified for future upgrade are Campsie, Fairfield, Lismore, Dubbo, Orange, Wagga Wagga, Burwood, Coffs Harbour, Bowral, Granville, Cronulla, Warilla, Leichhardt, Wyong, Richmond, Windsor, Corrimal, Revesby, Port Kembla, Parkes, Macksville, Tenterfield, Ermington, Quakers Hill, Liverpool, Gunnedah, Moree and Camden. These police stations have been identified after an audit process that has included the Police Association at every step of the way. We have taken the association's advice as to which are the worst police stations in New South Wales. In the 2004-05 budget we set aside $700,000 to start planning for those 27 stations. From 1 July next year $40 million a year will be available to work on the stations, but we have determined the top six highest priority stations. I have announced them recently in Parliament: Dubbo, Orange, Campsie, Fairfield, Lismore and Wagga Wagga. The House will note how well country New South Wales is doing out of this plan.
Today I am pleased to announce that we will spend an extra $8 million on cell upgrades and renovations at 29 other police stations. Some of the cells I have seen in police stations—and local members have seen them as well—are simply not up to scratch; some are falling apart, and some are unusable. Substandard cells present more than just a safety issue for police: if police cannot use the cells, they have to transport prisoners elsewhere. That means that rather than the police doing what we want them to do—getting out and solving crime and catching crooks—they are often taken away from that to transport prisoners. We have to avoid that situation as far as possible, and by upgrading cells we lessen that likelihood. We must ensure that police drag in the crooks and that the cells are used for the purpose for which they were designed. That is why we will spend $5 million on upgrading 29 police cell complexes across New South Wales as part of our new cell improvement program.
At the same time 13 of those locations will receive station upgrades worth $3 million. These 13 stations will receive improvements including customer service upgrades, storage and security enhancements, provision of disabled access, upgraded interview rooms and office accommodation, and improved staff amenities. The police stations to receive cell and station upgrades are Maitland, Cooma, Cootamundra, Corowa, Junee, Narrandera, Nowra, Temora, Tumut, Broken Hill, Murwillumbah, Condobolin and Wilcannia. Honourable members will again notice the country emphasis in that list. This is a real commitment to country policing in New South Wales.
The police stations that will receive cell upgrades include Cowra, Eden, Wentworth, Boggabilla, Mungindi, Coonabarabran, Kyogle, Gundagai, Hay, Leeton, Mullumbimby, Narrabri, Sutherland, Tumbarumba, Wee Waa and West Wyalong. Again, the provision of cell upgrades shows our absolute commitment to country New South Wales. Police across New South Wales, city and country, do an excellent job. The latest crime statistics show that they have continued to reduce crime across New South Wales. Not one crime category went up in the past 24 months; all categories remained stable or fell. These capital improvements to city and country police stations will ensure that police have quality accommodation that matches the outstanding work they do every day.
Questions without notice concluded.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Routine of Business: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Roads, and Minister for Housing) [3.22 p.m.]: I move:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow for the remainder of the sitting:
(2) quorums and divisions to be called;
(2) Government business to be called on at any time, including during the taking of private members' statements.
A number of bills are currently being debated in the Legislative Council, some of which will be amended, and it will be necessary for them to come back before this House today. I would prefer to have those bills dealt with this afternoon and for us not to come back tomorrow. Suspending standing and sessional orders will enable us to 13872 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004 interpose Government business during private members'' statements and deal with those bills. I commend the motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
VIRGIN ATLANTIC AIRWAYS SYDNEY SERVICES
Ministerial Statement
Ms SANDRA NORI (Port Jackson—Minister for Tourism and Sport and Recreation, and Minister for Women) [3.23 p.m.]: Yesterday Virgin Atlantic Airways arrived in Sydney on its first daily service between London, Hong Kong and Sydney. This service out of Hong Kong, together with the additional capacity of Cathay Pacific and Qantas, will add 800 seats per day capacity coming into Sydney. That is a good thing. I congratulate Sir Richard Branson on realising a 20-year ambition to bring an airline service from the United Kingdom to Sydney. Of course, he did it in his Bransonesque way yesterday when he arrived on the tarmac. As a country we expect that within 10 years we will be able to welcome more than one million visitors from the United Kingdom each year. At present the number of visitors is about 400,000, and they spend considerable dollars in Australia.
Yesterday's inaugural Virgin Atlantic flight brought with it about 200 visiting travel industry and mainstream media VIPs from the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. I cannot estimate the value of the images that will be beamed back into the United Kingdom over the next couple of days as they undertake a familiarisation visit of Sydney. It will be a veritable blitz. Through Tourism New South Wales, we have organised for these journalists and VIPs to have a great taste of Sydney through the assistance of the Bridge Climb, Rocks Walking Tours, Taronga Park Zoo, EastSail, Harbour Jet, Let's Go Surfing and SmartVisit Solutions. I thank these organisations for the value they provide and, of course, the opportunity for those attractions but, perhaps more importantly, Sydney generally to be written and spoken about in media outlets in the United Kingdom.
It is estimated that the daily Virgin Atlantic service from London and Hong Kong will bring an economic impact of about $40 million a year. Our London and Hong Kong staff are already working with Virgin Atlantic to ensure that as many people as possible are aware of the great deals available for travellers to Sydney and the huge range of options of what they can do when they get here. Of course, with every new airline that makes its debut into Sydney is its marketing machine, promotion machine and so on, and that is good for Sydney. The good news about Virgin Atlantic is its links to Virgin Blue, although they are separate companies.
As honourable members know, Virgin Blue provide services to Newcastle, Coffs Harbour and Ballina. We have not had an international-domestic co-share arrangement since the collapse of Ansett. Yesterday I took the opportunity to thank Sir Richard for Virgin Blue's commitment to Coffs Harbour and Ballina. I also told him that next time he came here we would have to take him to Broken Hill to see if we can persuade him to provide a service there. I look forward, as does Tourism New South Wales, to continuing to work with Virgin Atlantic. No doubt it has only expansion plans for its United Kingdom-Europe kangaroo route.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [3.26 p.m.]: The Coalition supports the expansion of international services into Sydney with Virgin Atlantic by Richard Branson, with his particularly unique style of promotion. I note that the Minister was at the airport yesterday. Today's paper has a picture of Richard Branson with two lovely, bikini-clad young ladies. Printed on one bikini was "Virgin" and on the other was "Atlantic". The Minister would look terrific in a bikini with "Atlantic" printed on it! I am sure the New South Wales Government supports the expansion of international services. The Premier is a frequent traveller. Indeed, I believe one of his goals in life is to travel on as many international airlines as possible. And he is making a good go of it! The arrival of Virgin Atlantic is another opportunity for him to escape his problems in New South Wales with another jaunt overseas shortly.
DUBBO BY-ELECTION
Matter of Public Importance
Mr PETER BLACK (Murray-Darling) [3.28 p.m.]: I raise as a matter of public importance the Dubbo by-election result and its implications for rural and regional New South Wales. We are here today to report on and to examine the entrails, as it were, of The Nationals following the events of the Dubbo by-election. But 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13873 before we get to that point, I acknowledge at the outset the enormous win by Dawn Fardell. During the campaign both the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of The Nationals campaigned personally and doorknocked Dubbo. I note that in the week before the by-election the Leader of The Nationals said that the by- election would be a "litmus test for the leadership of the Coalition". The final result was comprehensive: Dawn Fardell won the seat outright without going to preferences. She achieved 50.6 per cent of the primary vote. That is a remarkable achievement for any candidate, especially when the seat was once one of the safest Nationals seat in New South Wales.
For the benefit of the House I will go through some of the booths won by Dawn Fardell: Alectown, Churchill Gardens, Dubbo, Dubbo East, Dubbo Grove, Dubbo Hospital, Dubbo North, Dubbo South, Dubbo West, Elong Elong, Orana Heights, Parkes, Parkes East, Parkes Heights, Parkes Hospital, Parkes South, Parkes West, Peak Hill, Trundle, Tullamore, Wellington, Wellington East and Wongarbon. In any circumstances, that was a comprehensive win. I know Tullamore fairly well, because the previous member who represented Tullamore struggled to get $5.6 million for the Tottenham railway line. I am absolutely amazed that The Nationals could fail to win Tullamore. It is a massive loss. The final result, as I see it, was The Nationals 44.02 per cent and Independent 53.47 per cent. Congratulations should go to Dawn Fardell from all on her magnificent victory.
This week there have been some interesting exercises in this House. Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition has been sleepless at night; he has been agitated. He knows he has the Hon. David Clarke from the Families First faction of the Liberal Party on his right and he has Andrew Stoner from the born-again Christians on his left. He knows, as a consequence of the great work carried out by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, the only theoretician in The Nationals, that The Nationals must win five seats if the Coalition is to win the next election.
My good friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is also agitated this week, post the events in Dubbo. I notice he is losing his sense of humour faster than he is losing his waistline. It has been pointed out to me that he has lost 30 kilograms, which is apparently half his personality. Putting all that aside, his agitation is a clear indication from the Liberal Party that it knows it cannot win without The Nationals. My good friend the honourable member for Epping has sprung to attention twice—on Tuesday and again on Wednesday—to defend the Leader of the Nationals by way of a point of order in debate. It is marvellous to see the honourable member for Epping, of all people, defending The Nationals. I will come back to the honourable member for Coffs Harbour and his written advice to his State caucus in a few moments. I repeat that it is his written advice to the State parliamentary caucus of The Nationals that they must win five seats if the Coalition is to win the next election.
Did honourable members hear how he was doorknocking in Dubbo? He would knock on the door and when they came out, "Are you going to vote Nationals?" "We don't know yet." He would say, "If you're not going to vote Nationals, I will come back and light a fire in your backyard." I am sure that went a long way. As has been previously reported to the House, I was at New South Wales Farmers Christmas party last Monday afternoon. The Leader of The Nationals was there, but his office said he was attending an event in Wauchope at the time the shadow Cabinet was asked to go there. Someone said it was rather like Archbishop George Pell missing a conclave of cardinals to attend a tombolo evening. The Daily Telegraph of Wednesday 24 November, a week after the election, reported:
If only the NSW National Party put as much effort into winning back the seat of Dubbo as it did into its Christmas invites.
It went on:
Barely recovered from a thrashing at the hands of Independent Dawn Fardell, leader Andrew Stoner has turned his attention to drowning his sorrows.
First, the parliamentary press gallery got an invite just before lunch yesterday to Christmas drinks with Stoner on December 7. Then just after lunch along came the invite to Christmas lunch with the Nationals on December 17.
The result at Dubbo augurs badly for The Nationals. The Nationals are down to 12 seats in this place. In their former glory under their last great leader, the honourable member for Lachlan, they had 20 seats. In 1999 they had 13 seats but lost one seat in the 2003 election. I will go through the 12 seats. Don Page is with us from Ballina. I think we all agree he is a good bloke, but Larry Anthony is looking around. I understand Lismore was his choice, but if Don Page wanted to stand down from Ballina it would be possible for Country Labor or an Independent to win the seat. 13874 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
Gentleman George has a strong hold on the seat of Lismore. I have respect too for Steve Cansdell from Clarence. From what he says and what he evinces he should not be in The Nationals; he should be in Country Labor. As I said, Andrew Fraser is the theoretician, but Coffs Harbour is very much like Port Macquarie, with all those self-funded retirees moving up there from the North Shore. If they had a choice, as has been noted in one of the newspapers today, that seat would go to the Liberal Party. I think Andrew Stoner is safe; he could hang on to Oxley. John Turner from Myall Lakes has been put on the backbench for whatever reason, but my advice is that Myall Lakes would remain safe for The Nationals.
If you take away Ballina and possibly Coffs Harbour, you could say there are six seats in the long term for The Nationals. Then we come to the traditional country seats. Perhaps Ian Slack-Smith could hold Barwon. I believe he will, as will George Souris in Upper Hunter. That is two of their traditional country seats. Russell Turner from Orange is another good bloke. I have known him for years through local government, but if he stands down, a strong Independent would walk it in. If a strong Independent stands against Russell Turner, I suggest a strong Independent could possibly win the seat. Ian Armstrong's electorate of Lachlan has been abolished. The Nationals got rid of him totally by abolishing his seat. Do not forget that was their submission, to make sure he could not make a comeback. That would be the biggest single reason.
Mr Steve Whan: He is going to Manly, I hear.
Mr PETER BLACK: An exchange of preferences, I hear, with the current member for Manly. I would say Katrina Hodgkinson is fairly safe in Burrinjuck. Then we come to Adrian Piccoli. After his performance today—Australopithecus Murrumbidgee Encephalitis—his only contribution to this Chamber appears to be immaturity, especially with the comments that were just made about bikinis. It was quite disgraceful. The analysis is The Nationals might have six seats on the North Coast and that might well be reduced to four in their traditional areas. Instead of The Nationals we will have the North Coast party. God help us! What a shame that would be: the once great New South Wales Country Party reduced to a North Coast party. That is what we are looking at geographically and that is what we are going to get.
Members of the Liberal Party should look at the Andrew Fraser submission, which suggests The Nationals should stand in seats like Bega. This is coming straight from Andrew Fraser. The Liberal Party might well have won South Coast in the last election and but it lost Camden, so although it came out square it picked up a country seat. It went from four to five, so one could argue the Liberal Party has more justification for standing candidates in rural and regional New South Wales than The Nationals. The honourable member for Albury should look along the Murray River towards my electorate and ask what happened to all those National Party branches. The Federal seat was won by the Liberal Party, with an easy campaign, against a very high- profile Nationals candidate who happened to be a friend of mine from the old days of the Shires Association. This is what Andrew Fraser has to say about The Nationals now. This is the message he conveyed to his fellow members in the State Nationals:
The National Party is not being proactive in developing … strategies that will see us retain our existing seats and regain the lost seats of Dubbo, Northern Tablelands, Tweed— they won Clarence—
or gain seats such as Murray-Darling.
They have no hope of winning Murray-Darling, because they do not have the verve to win it. Andrew Fraser went on:
Currently our only strategy is to send individual members into targeted seats without an agenda and only a title or a mission bestowed on them by the leader with the hope of attracting local media coverage for the National Party.
He went on:
We have only reacted quite properly to issues such as water legislation rather than being proactive and taking our messages and policies to the regions. In fact, our overall approach has been unco-ordinated and unprofessional and therefore unlikely to regain any credence in our heartland.
These statements were made by Andrew Fraser in this building to a meeting of his own party in the years 2001 and 2002. He went on:
Our reputation for being a fiercely independent party which coalesces with the Liberal Party in Parliament to bring much-needed assistance to our electorate has disappeared. 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13875
The result at Dubbo underscores that dramatically. The Nationals have done it to themselves. They have become irrelevant in regional and rural western New South Wales. They have been taken over by a combination of great Independents and Country Labor. In this document Andrew Fraser gives me a little back-handed comment:
Trying to counter baseless claims by Peter Black and arguing with Country Labor will not win us seats which we need to regain government.
He continues:
To win government the Coalition must win 14 seats.
He goes on with the analysis of the current situation. He says that the working majority of Parliament is, therefore, 47 seats—not bad for a fellow counting in sixes! He says:
The total number of Coalition seats is only 32. If The Nationals win 5 it still means the Liberal Party need to win 9.
The Nationals will not win their 5 seats. Does any member of this Chamber seriously believe that The Nationals can win Port Macquarie and Northern Tablelands? Does anyone seriously believe that Tamworth and Dubbo will be lost by the Independents in 2007? Those seats will be held on the rule of incumbency, and Dawn Fardell will get a bigger vote in Dubbo in 2007 than the most outstanding vote she obtained only a few weeks ago. The document I refer to by Andrew Fraser is headed "The National Party's Future". I commend the thrust of this document to the House and to The Nationals. The Nationals are not going to take the advice of the honourable member for Coffs Harbour. I know that he has been effectively ambushed by the Leader of The Nationals. Andrew Stoner was done over in Dubbo; he is a dead duck on the water. [Time expired.]
Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [3.43 p.m.]: It is extraordinary that the honourable member for Murray-Darling would raise this matter of public importance, which is about the implications of the Dubbo by-election, because the Dubbo by-election represents the death of the so-called Country Labor faction. The honourable member for Murray-Darling is a bit too slow to realise that he and his other faction members have been done over by the new Independent faction of the Labor Party. There are three implications arising from the Dubbo by-election: one, the death of the Labor Party in Dubbo; two, the miserable failure of the so-called Country Labor experiment; and, three, the replacement of the failed Country Labor experiment by the oxymoronic Independent party in coalition with the Labor Party.
Before I go to those three specific implications, I wish to examine some of the outcomes and the way in which the Dubbo by-election progressed. This by-election was interesting in that it demonstrated an extraordinary level of co-operation between the Labor Party and what seems to have emerged as the Independent party. The Labor branch members were there on polling day with the bussed-in unionists and apparatchiks in their Dawn Fardell T-shirts. There they were helping in the so-called Independent's campaign office. There were Dawn Fardell posters produced by the Labor Party printer in Sydney. The honourable member for Murray-Darling has been fulsome in his praise. Indeed, in his annual Christmas missive he has written in a positive note on the by-election:
Dawn Fardell won the seat of Dubbo following the death of a good friend Tony McGrane. I would like to believe I had a small role in this result.
Clearly, there has been a huge level of co-operation between the Labor Party and the so-called Independent party. Indeed, the crowing all week by the Labor Government about the outcome of the Dubbo by-election illustrates its keen interest in the outcome, particularly in the election of a so-called Independent. The Premier was also heavily involved, even intervening in the choice of candidate for the Independent party. He rejected Tony McGrane's staffer Chris Kimble, to whom Tony had bequeathed $100,000 for campaign costs. How ironic it is that the candidate chosen by the Labor Party should campaign so overtly on carrying out Tony McGrane's wishes. The Premier then intervened in the timing of the by-election, even offering to delay the poll to fit in with Dawn Fardell's planned trip to Japan. That was a highly questionable action and one that no doubt would attract the interest of the Independent Commission Against Corruption.
There were the regular meetings and regular phone calls between the self-styled leader of the oxymoronic Independents, the honourable member for Northern Tablelands, and the secretary of the State Labor Party, Mark Abib, about how the campaign progressed. I instance also Dawn's first question in this place. Her first words spoken here were a Dorothy Dix question to the Premier. It was done in a gesture of gratitude so the Premier could then turn his vitriol on The Nationals. What about the huge cost of the Independent's campaign 13876 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004 with saturation advertisements on television and radio and in the newspapers! The Labor-style direct mail contained a huge list of names. I know the Independent has claimed that this was paid for by her husband. Again, that would draw the interest of the Election Funding Authority, perhaps via an examination of certain bank accounts. We must also consider Labor's monotonous crowing about the result in Dubbo. Every day in question time they have guffawed and carried on about the election of an Independent. Why? Because that is the result they wanted. Labor wants to install so-called Independents because in seats like Dubbo where a Labor candidate cannot win the next best thing for them is a so-called Independent.
Mr Steve Whan: Anything is better than a Nat.
Mr ANDREW STONER: The honourable member for Monaro just said it—"better than a Nat." They would far rather install a so-called Independent than have a candidate of The Nationals win the seat. Why? So they can keep The Nationals and the Liberals out of government. That is precisely their strategy, and it has been proven here today. They want to keep a Coalition member out. They think they cannot win the seat. They sacrifice the local branch and all of those faithful branch members. They tell them, "No, you can't run. We are not interested in you running. You can't participate in this election. We are not going to run at all. We would rather install a member of the Independent faction of the Labor Party."
Normally, they would run a Labor candidate but they are in such trouble that they did not even bother to field a candidate. The trouble Bob Carr is in has been well documented recently. I refer to a couple of recent newspaper articles, one of which carries the heading in large block letters, "Poll shows Labor in deep slide. Voter backlash on key issues." The body of that article reads in part, "Premier Bob Carr is clinging to his job, with the Government facing a big voter backlash over the state of services." The newspapers are full of it. Another article from a recent copy of the Daily Telegraph, which is headed, "MPs' warning to Carr: fix the chaos", states:
Bob Carr flies into a political crisis today with his Government facing unprecedented public outrage over the collapse of key services.
The article continues:
While the Premier was visiting schools and handing out cricket bats in New Delhi, NSW was reeling from one crisis to another, including:
A TRANSPORT system on the brink of collapse, with the worst train running times and children dumped off buses;
THE suspicious disappearance of the Jeff Shaw blood sample;
THE ongoing code red crisis in our hospitals;
THE handing over of Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre to Corrective Services after revelations inmates were running the Centre; and
NEWSPOLL, confirming the collapse in support for the Carr Government.
Mr Carr—who returns today after leading a business mission to India—has come under attack from his own Labor colleagues who have accused the Premier of having misguided priorities.
Did Government members accuse him of that? The article continues:
"While he is enjoying the curry and pappadams, Rome's burning," one Labor backbencher yesterday told The Daily Telegraph.
Mr Carr's party is becoming increasingly more nervous of being punished by voters at the next State election.
"Every backbencher is smart enough to assess the response of constituents—
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! I remind the Leader of The Nationals that precedent requires that quotations be brief and that they be relevant to the subject of the debate. I ask the Leader of The Nationals to refrain from reading a lengthy quotation from a Sydney newspaper onto the record.
Mr ANDREW STONER: Clearly, this was in the context of why Labor would judge it necessary not even to field a candidate in a key seat such as Dubbo. I apologise. The article is too long. There are too many failures. The article contains a huge list of the Labor Party's failures in New South Wales. I will move on to the Christmas missive from the honourable member for Murray-Darling to his friends, which states: 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13877
Politically, 2004 was not a good year for someone of my persuasion with the Federal Coalition [read Nationals] winning handsomely in western New South Wales. The preceding council election produced the lowest vote for Labor since the 1890s.
It is little wonder that Bob Carr and the Labor Party have been absolutely desperate for a diversion and have tried to use the Dubbo by-election result to hide from the damning indictment from the public on their own pathetic performance. The honourable member for Murray-Darling, not being the brightest crayon in the box, has fallen for his leader's strategy. He failed to realise that this motion actually highlights the fact that his leader made a deliberate decision to opt for a new Labor faction, the so-called independent faction. This undoubtedly was because of the failed experiment of the Country Labor faction, of which he is a member. They have shut him out. It is all over for the Labor Party in the bush!
Let us look at Country Labor's results in Dubbo: in 1995, 28 per cent; in 2003, 15 per cent; in 2004, zero per cent. This motion is all about the extinction of the Labor Party in the bush at the hands of the Coalition between the Independents and the Australian Labor Party head office. What a sad day for the once-great Labor Party with its proud tradition in the bush. What an insult to the miners and the shearers who were indeed the genesis of the Australian Labor Party. It is little wonder the honourable member for Murray-Darling laments in this now famous document:
I could not conclude without mentioning my astonishment when "our" State Government, without consultation, announced that the Far West Area Health Service would be subsumed into Dubbo.
It is obvious what he thinks about his head office and about this Sydney-centric Labor Government. The implications of the Dubbo by-election are threefold: firstly, the death of the Australian Labor Party in Dubbo, from a 28 per cent result in 1995 down to zero, zilch, zip, nada, nothing in 2004; secondly, the drawing of the curtains on the failed Country Labor experiment—Labor has realised that its marketing gimmick had crashed and burned—and, thirdly, the Country Labor faction has been rejected and replaced by a new faction, the so- called independents.
As I have said, that is an oxymoron because they are not independent. They campaign in one another's seats, they caucus, they produce joint media releases, they file into the Chamber to give notices of motions, one after the other. In every respect they are a party and there is nothing independent about them. They weigh into partisan politics regularly—on the opposite side of the Chamber only—in attacking The Nationals and the Liberal Party, but never their mates in the Labor Party. They are not independent in any way, shape or form. As they say in the classics, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.
[Interruption]
They are a party, a party that is in coalition with the Labor Party. We saw it in the campaign for Dubbo, the massive level of resources, the booth workers, the material, the old Labor Party direct mail with the changed letterhead. It was all there. It is a party in coalition with the Labor Party. Why not come clean and admit that they are not independent? Why not stop pulling the wool over the eyes of voters in New South Wales? Why not stop the sham? If they are a party why not be upfront and register as a party, and in that way be honest with the voters of New South Wales. At the moment there is gross dishonesty in this State. We have people who purport to be Independents, who act like a party and who are in a demonstrable coalition with the Labor Party.
In that respect they are a party in every way, except when it comes to policies and accountability. They have none of either—no policies, no accountability—they just sidle up to the Labor Party. What those opposite are too thick to realise is that they are getting done over and replaced by them. I must send Christmas felicitations to the honourable member for Murray-Darling for bringing on this matter of public importance and allowing a true analysis of the outcome of the Dubbo by-election. I think it was a critical strategic mistake by him, but I thank him for it.
Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [3.58 p.m.]: I can hardly keep the expression of delight off my face at the response from the Leader of The Nationals—15 minutes and not one sign that he has understood the message that the voters in Dubbo gave to the failing Nationals. What an absolute delight for a Country Labor member heading off for Christmas, to hear that sort of thing. For a Nationals leader scorned, what a disgrace it was to hear him firing off all those appalling accusations about the Independents in Dubbo. He said some quite incredible things. He suggested that the ICAC should look into things, with no basis at all in fact. I suppose it follows hot on the heels of the contribution yesterday from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in which he accused the honourable member of campaigning on the memory of Tony McGrane!
I congratulate the honourable member for Dubbo on her election to this place; it is a wonderful achievement. I acknowledge the point made by the Leader of The Nationals that it is far better to have an 13878 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
Independent member rather than a Nationals member, because The Nationals have consistently demonstrated that they take country voters for granted. The Nationals penchant for doing that is the reason that rural New South Wales now accepts that members of Country Labor and Independents are the only people willing to stand up for them. They now know that there is no difference between The Nationals and the Liberals, except when it comes to defending The Nationals in this place. Today's edition of the Daily Telegraph contains an article by Simon Benson in which he observantly points out with regard to the Leader of The Nationals:
His general, John Brogden, not so subtly turned his back on him and began chatting to Liberal colleague Barry O'Farrell.
He did that rather than support The Nationals in their hour of despair. The Nationals have persisted with their no-solution approach to country New South Wales. That was demonstrated again today in their leader's 15- minute spiel. He offered many excuses and said it was everyone else's fault that The Nationals cannot win a seat in rural New South Wales. It is everyone else's fault that they failed to pick up a seat that was theirs for so long and a safe Labor seat. I plead with the Leader of The Nationals not to let anything change him. Country Labor loves him the way he is. I confess that in the Country Labor caucus meeting this morning I moved a motion of confidence in the Leader of The Nationals.
The motion was seconded, but unfortunately the chairman ruled it out of order. I do not understand why. I felt it was an important motion because we all know that today was probably his last performance in that role. If his colleagues had someone else who could do the job, he would have been rolled already. I have been appalled by the speculation in the newspapers that his position might be challenged. Honourable members opposite should be doing their best to resist. The Leader of The Nationals certainly has the confidence of honourable members on this side of the House, despite some of the things that the honourable member for Murray-Darling might have said. Sometimes he is a bit uncharitable about these things.
I have seen the looks on the faces of honourable members opposite as they watch The Nationals in action. Liberal Party members, particularly backbench members, are wondering about the fairness of only 50 per cent of their members being able to occupy the front bench when 60 per cent of Nationals members can do so despite their constantly declining numbers. The rumblings are increasing. They want to know why a Nationals member should automatically take the Deputy Leader's position, given that the party's performance is so poor. The rumblings behind the scenes are being reflected in a lack of confidence in the Leader of The Nationals.
The main point is that The Nationals fail to offer solutions for country New South Wales. Like John Brogden and the Liberals, they are negative. They come into this place and whinge and whine, and they have no policies. When the going got tough for the Leader of The Nationals he harked back to Joh Bjelke-Petersen and that old chestnut, daylight saving. He repeated the proposition that people would have to suffer more sunlight at the hotter end of the day and would be robbed of early morning cool, as if daylight saving somehow changes the weather. We know it is about the clock, and it is ticking on the Leader of The Nationals. I make one more heartfelt plea to members of The Nationals: Keep your confidence in him. [Time expired.]
Mr IAN ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [5.03 p.m.]: I think this will be the last debate before Christmas. I take this opportunity to congratulate the new member for Dubbo, Mrs Fardell, on her election. It is no mean achievement to come into this place—sometimes to face horrors. However, it is a wonderful honour to represent people in the oldest working Parliament in the Commonwealth.
[Interruption]
I will ignore some of the comments coming from the Government benches. We should keep things a little sensible and inject some facts into this interesting debate. The bottom line is that nothing has changed since the Dubbo by-election—the numbers are the same as they were before. An Independent held the seat of Dubbo. Honourable members have had rushes of blood to the head and are behaving as though there has been a natural disaster. Government members do not appreciate that more than subtle changes are occurring in the dynamics of the politics of this Parliament as we head towards the 2007 election—which is about 28 months away. We have a cabal of Independents. Indeed, we had Independents in this place from 1991 to 1995 and, effectively, a hung Parliament. I was the Deputy Premier for a considerable amount of that time. Nearly every sitting day we had to negotiate with the Independents, who were often absurd—although sometimes they were sensible. If any honourable member opposite thinks that this group of Independents are sitting in this place for the money and glory of being a politician, he or she should think again. What do they think will happen if neither the Labor Party nor the Coalition has a majority and that cabal of misfits has the balance of power? Honourable members opposite should think about that and plan for it. 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13879
[Interruption]
It will take more than Christmas decorations. Honourable members opposite will think that all their Christmases have come at once. I assure them that it is not easy. I believe that democracy is the best system of government. It might have many flaws, but it is the best alternative. The fundamental essence of democracy is that the party that attracts the majority of votes governs. That must happen. I will not for one moment see a party that has the majority of seats governed by a minority. It does not work and it has not worked in Italy for 40-odd governments. If this cabal of misfits, dropouts and so on, who call themselves Independents, get the balance of power, God help New South Wales. That is not democracy. That is my first warning about the Australian Labor Party's romance with the Independents. Honourable members opposite did not have the guts or the capacity to win the Dubbo by-election. They had to be the puppeteers.
Where did the money come from for all those corflutes? Were they printed locally? No. Where did the funds come from for this extensive Independent campaign? I have no business inquiring into, and do not intend to talk about, honourable members' personal wealth. However, it costs a lot of money to get into politics. We all have a limit on how much we are prepared to spend on the gamble of winning. The new member has spent an extraordinary amount of money as an individual without party support to enter politics. It is probably one of the most expensive campaigns financed by an individual candidate. When the register is revealed indicating the source of the money I hope it includes who paid for the television and newspaper advertisements, the corflutes, the travel expenses, the telephone calls and the transportation of people such as the honourable member for Manly to help out on polling day. I sincerely hope that nothing untoward has happened. [Time expired.]
Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [5.08 p.m.]: The speech we heard from the Leader of The Nationals was probably the longest resignation speech I have heard in this Parliament. I am surprised he did not give it under the famous tree on the Domain. It is said that winners are grinners in politics, and I can see that the new honourable member for Dubbo has been trying not to grin too much. However, honourable members on this side of the Chamber are grinning. The Nationals said that they had not lost the seat; they just failed to win it—the old Billy Snedden sort of line. A week or two before the election I thought that The Nationals would reclaim the seat. After all, we all know that Tony McGrane did a great job and that Gerald Ponsonby Peacocke held that seat for a couple of decades. I certainly thought The Nationals would win. They must have thought they would win because they absented themselves from this place and disappeared to campaign in Dubbo.
Over the past few weeks every question that was asked by a Nationals member commenced with a reference to Dubbo. They moved motions relating to Dubbo and spoke about hospitals, police, water and all those sorts of things. Obviously there is a need to replace the current Leader of The Nationals—a need that has been established over the past few weeks. I wish to make an important point about the speech that was made earlier by the honourable member for Murrumbidgee. There are either six or seven Nationals on the Opposition front bench—a number that will probably diminish in the future. However, not a lot of talent is to be found among those leaders, former leaders and hopeful leaders. There are some nice blokes on the Opposition backbench with whom I get on.
Mr Peter Debnam: Name them.
Mr ALAN ASHTON: Ian Slack-Smith, Russell Turner and Thomas George are all good blokes.
Mr Ian Slack-Smith: Point of order: The honourable member is misleading the House.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! There is no point of order.
Mr ALAN ASHTON: I apologise if I misled the House and I withdraw that statement.
Mr Thomas George: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance. The three members picked out by the honourable member for East Hills were all Nationals.
Mr ALAN ASHTON: That is what I said. If the honourable member for Lismore had listened he would have been aware that I said there were a lot of Nationals on the front bench but that they were not exactly top quality. There are some better members on the backbench. The Nationals do not have enough members in Parliament. Those members on the backbench do not carry batons in their knapsacks as do most of the members on the front bench; they do not have the ability to do the job. The Leader of The Nationals talked about unionists and about Australian Labor Party supporters helping out in the Dubbo electorate. I certainly was not one of 13880 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004 them. I stayed at home expecting that The Nationals would hold the seat. No-one asked me to go to Dubbo and do any work.
In the weeks leading up to the election every house in Dubbo was doorknocked by The Nationals and the vote for Dawn Fardell, the Independent candidate, went up. Every time a Nationals member knocked on a door somewhere her vote skyrocketed. So they are welcome to go back and do that again. The National vote at the last Federal election—I admit the Labor vote could have been better—was the lowest since 1955. I cannot remember the last time The Nationals had a lower vote than that as I had not been born. It is time for The Nationals to reclaim that old great party. Billy Hughes said that he would never join The Nationals—or the Country Party as it was called in those days—because a man had to draw a line somewhere.
People like Sir Joh Bjelke-Peterson did not terrorise members of the Labor Party but we certainly hated him. Black Jack McEwen not only terrorised the Labor Party; he terrorised the Liberals. That is what The Nationals have failed to do. Not one of them is able to frighten the Liberal Party. The Nationals are seen as a country franchise of the Liberal Party. They sold out to the Liberal Party, which is why their vote is going down. They have to embrace issues such as Telstra. Honourable members might remember the great debacle relating to Telstra. The Liberals had to rewrite amendments for The Nationals—amendments that were moved by the honourable member for Lismore—because they did not want to be embarrassed. The Nationals must return to their old values if they want to survive in this Parliament.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI (Murrumbidgee) [4.13 p.m.]: I am happy to speak in debate on this matter of public importance. It is important that we discuss the future of country New South Wales not just in light of the Dubbo by-election but in light of a lot of things that have happened in the past 10 years—economically, socially and politically. I take this opportunity to congratulate Dawn Fardell on her victory in Dubbo. I am the first to admit that I handed out how-to-vote cards for The Nationals candidate and I am as disappointed as anybody that they did not win that seat. As the honourable member for Lachlan said earlier, it is an honour for members to represent any electorate in this Parliament. I wish anyone who is smart enough to be elected to the New South Wales Parliament good luck. I extend my best wishes to the honourable member for Dubbo.
The most important thing to emerge from the Dubbo by-election relates to the Labor Party. Prior to the by-election a survey conducted by Newspoll showed that Labor Party primary votes were significantly down. If there were a 5 or 6 per cent swing, three members in this Chamber—the honourable member for Camden, the honourable member for Murray-Darling and the honourable member for Monaro—would no longer be here. That survey showed a 14 per cent swing against Labor. The day after the by-election the Sunday Telegraph conducted another poll for the seat of Camden and four other electorates, and that poll showed a 14 per cent swing against Labor.
The Labor Party did not have a candidate in the Dubbo by-election because the 1999 election resulted in a 28 per cent vote to Labor, the 2003 election resulted in a 15 per cent vote to Labor, and if it had had a candidate in the Dubbo by-election he or she would have received only 6 or 7 per cent of the vote—an obvious swing against Labor. Dawn might still have won, but that is beside the point. It would have just reinforced the polls. I understand why Labor did not have a candidate in the Dubbo by-election but by not having one its vote was zero. Labor can take nothing out of the Dubbo by-election. The aim of the Coalition is to defeat Labor at the next election. The vast majority of my constituents—I am reluctant to speak about constituents in other electorates but I think I can speak on behalf of constituents in Port Macquarie, Dubbo, Northern Tablelands, Tamworth, Manly and in all the Coalition-held seats—want to see a change of government. If we had conducted a poll on the day of the election 80 per cent of constituents would have voted in favour of a change of government. So constituents are in the mood for a change.
Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr John Mills): Order! There is too much interjection from Government members.
Mr Steve Whan: You still lost. You are still in Opposition.
Mr ADRIAN PICCOLI: We were in Opposition the day before the Dubbo by-election and we are still in opposition. Congratulations to the genius from Monaro! Labor can take nothing out of the Dubbo by-election. Constituents are in the mood for a change. The honourable member for Murray-Darling said in his Christmas letter to me:
Politically, 2004 was not a good year for someone of my persuasion … 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13881
I am not sure what is his persuasion, nor do I think he is sure. In relation to the local government elections he said that the vote for Labor was the lowest since 1890. If that was Labor's worst vote since 1890 it is in serious trouble. That was the true outcome of the Dubbo by-election.
Mr PETER BLACK (Murray-Darling) [4.18 p.m.], in reply: I thank the Leader of The Nationals, the honourable member for Monaro, the honourable member for Lachlan, the honourable member for East Hills, and the honourable member for Murrumbidgee for participating in this debate. We saw an extraordinary performance from the Leader of The Nationals—a defence that was not a defence. He spent much of his time talking about strategy. He talked about the Government's strategy but he did not talk about The Nationals' strategy. The facts are that The Nationals threw everything they had at the Dubbo by-election, and they spent more than $250,000 trying to win back the seat. The honourable member for Lachlan, who simply had more wisdom than any other member opposite who spoke in the debate, said the immortal words, "Nothing has changed." That is precisely the point.
I salute the honourable member for Lachlan for saying that. Nothing has changed. Nothing changed because The Nationals did not win the seat. Nothing has changed because the Liberals now know they cannot count on The Nationals to help them win government in 2007. Nothing has changed since the honourable member for Coffs Harbour said The Nationals will have to win five seats for the Coalition to win government. I have been around for a few years and I have been through a few losses—and a few wins, too.
Mr Greg Aplin: Too many!
Mr PETER BLACK: I do not necessarily want to win again. Winning should not be compulsory. The point is that the Liberals know that The Nationals cannot win, and that is the problem. The Liberals are doing a better job in the bush than The Nationals. At the 2003 State election the Liberals won one seat—South Coast. The Nationals went from 13 seats down to 12, and they could not win back what was once their safest seat— Dubbo. The Nationals were done over in Dubbo, and the Leader of The Nationals seems to have lost rationality or reason. He said, "We were out of touch." Goodness gracious me!
Who had the best tactics? Labor did not stand a candidate because it knew it could not win the seat. The Nationals threw everything at the by-election and they did not win it. If it is a question of tactics, who had the best tactics? The Labor Party and Country Labor had the best tactics. Incidentally, we have a healthy branch in Dubbo, led by people such as Allan Smith, who is the mayor of Dubbo, and Joe Knagge, a past Labor candidate for Parliament. The Dubbo branch is alive and well.
We chose not to stand a candidate in Dubbo, and the tactic worked. When the Leader of The Nationals talks about strategy and tactics I simply say that not only The Nationals but also the Leader of the Nationals are out of touch with their members. He is out of touch with his members if he thinks he can get away with this. He tried to confuse the results in the Dubbo by-election with the Federal election, as we just heard from the honourable member for Murrumbidgee. The voters of Dubbo were discerning. I acknowledge the vote received by The Nationals in Dubbo at the Federal election. It is there in black and white, it is in the ballot box, and it has been counted. But it is a vastly different vote to the Dubbo by-election vote.
Members opposite, especially the Leader of The Nationals, cannot confuse a Federal election result with a by-election result. It has been shown that the Coalition must win Dubbo if The Nationals are to win five seats in 2007. The Leader of The Nationals referred to the extension of Country Labor in the bush. Country Labor holds eight seats, which is not bad. The Independents hold four seats, which is not bad. Incidentally, for the benefit of The Nationals, counting the number of Country Labor seats requires two hands; eight plus four equals two times six, which is 12. We are not becoming extinct in the bush at all. Labor has not lost a country seat, except South Coast at the last State election. We have held our seats. Labor did not win the seat of Dubbo, which was nominated by the honourable member for Coffs Harbour as essential to a Coalition victory in the next State election.
Honourable members should bear in mind that the honourable member for Coffs Harbour submitted to The Nationals caucus in this place that they had to win Dubbo. I support his view. To put it simply, the Liberals cannot win Dubbo by themselves. I repeat: It is no wonder the Leader of the Opposition is not sleeping at night, and it is no wonder the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Epping, and other heavies in the Liberal Party are not concerned about this matter.
I refer again to the former Leader of The Nationals, the honourable member for Lachlan. I strongly urge members opposite to listen to him. Some time ago the Leader of The Nationals asked me why I appeared to 13882 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004 be getting along with the honourable member for Lachlan, or vice versa. I thought it should have been fairly obvious that we are getting along because he talks sense. That is the point. The honourable member for Lachlan knows where the bickies are. His contribution this afternoon was infinitely more cogent than that of the Leader of The Nationals. Members opposite should have listened to him speak about coming to this place and what is expected of people in this place. He spoke about the Independents. Incidentally, I do not necessarily share his view on Independents at all.
The late Tony McGrane was a personal friend of mine. I first met him in 1980 when he was the shire president at Gilgandra and I was the fairly new Mayor of Broken Hill. I had a lot of time for Tony McGrane. Any member of this Chamber who says he did not get many things for Dubbo is foolish. One could say the same thing about Port Macquarie, Northern Tablelands, and Tamworth. No doubt that will continue in Dubbo. The bottom line is that the Independents are delivering for their seats. It is nonsense for members opposite to pretend that some members of this House are not truly representing their seats.
Honourable members should cast their minds back to the late Tony McGrane, whose funeral I attended in Dubbo. Also there was a token member of The Nationals and a token Liberal. Let us face it: at the funeral were the Premier, Mr Speaker, six Ministers, and about 30 Government backbenchers. We do not do that for our own at funerals in Sydney. It was an incredible statement about an incredible man who had delivered in various capacities for the electorate, whether it be as the Shire President of Gilgandra, the Mayor of Dubbo or the member for Dubbo. It is nonsense for members opposite to say that Independents do not deliver for their electorates; they do. It can be demonstrated that they have delivered—and that they have delivered very well. It is a pleasure to work with Independents such as the honourable member for Port Macquarie, and I am sure it will be a pleasure to work with the new member for Dubbo. I have no hesitation in saying that it was a pleasure to work with the late Tony McGrane.
Tony McGrane was a neighbour of mine, and we had many interests in common. We worked together for the benefit of the bush, and that is recognised throughout the bush. I challenge The Nationals to gainsay that assertion. I point out, as I did earlier, that the Tottenham railway line is the only grain line that has received funding for upgrading and maintenance. No announcement has been made about any other grain lines. Many other decisions made in the Dubbo district were made after consultation. I thank all those who have participated in this debate, and I wish a Merry Christmas to all, with the possible exception of the Leader of The Nationals.
Discussion concluded.
BILLS RETURNED
The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:
Local Government Amendment (Public-Private Partnerships) Bill
The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council with amendments:
Redfern-Waterloo Authority Bill
Consideration of amendments deferred.
HOME BUILDING AMENDMENT BILL
In Committee
Consideration of the Legislative Council's amendment.
Schedule of the amendment referred to message of 8 December
Page 19, Schedule 3 [11], proposed section 61A (1), lines 25-29. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(1) The Director-General may by notice in writing to the holder of an authority suspend the authority pending a determination by the Director-General of whether to take disciplinary action under this Act against the holder if:
(a) a show cause notice has been served on the holder under section 61, and
(b) the Director-General is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that: 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13883
(i) the holder has engaged in conduct that constitutes grounds for suspension of the authority, and
(ii) it is likely that the holder will continue to engage in that conduct, and
(iii) there is a danger that a person or persons may suffer significant harm, or significant loss or damage, as a result of that conduct unless action is taken urgently.
Legislative Council's amendment agreed to on motion by Mr Carl Scully.
Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.
Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.
REDFERN-WATERLOO AUTHORITY BILL
In Committee
Consideration of the Legislative Council's amendments.
Schedule of amendments referred to in message of 9 December
No. 1 Page 2. Insert after line 6:
3 Objects of Act
The objects of this Act are:
(a) to encourage the development of Redfern-Waterloo into an active, vibrant and sustainable community, and
(b) to promote, support and respect the Aboriginal community in Redfern-Waterloo having regard to the importance of the area to the Aboriginal people, and
(c) to promote the orderly development of Redfern-Waterloo taking into consideration principles of social, economic, ecological and other sustainable development, and
(d) to enable the establishment of public areas in Redfern-Waterloo, and
(e) to promote greater social cohesion and community safety in Redfern-Waterloo.
No. 2 Page 4, clause 11. Insert after line 14:
(4) The Minister is to ensure that there are at least 2 representatives of the Aboriginal community of the Redfern– Waterloo area appointed as members of each advisory committee that has functions involving social, human services or employment issues that affect that community.
No. 3 Pages 13 and 14, clause 28, line 32 on page 13 to line 4 on page 14. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
28 Heritage matters
(1) The provisions of the Heritage Act 1977 do not apply to the carrying out of development in the operational area that is State significant development.
(2) However, an item or part of an item listed on the State Heritage Register is not to be altered or demolished unless:
(a) the Minister has consulted the Heritage Council of New South Wales about the matter and has taken into consideration any advice duly provided by the Council, and
(b) the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary for the sustainable improvement of the operational area.
(3) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to the procedures for consulting the Heritage Council of New South Wales and for the provision of advice by that Council.
No. 4 Page 14, clause 29. Insert after line 31:
(4) If a Minister is not the consent authority for the carrying out of any development to which this section applies, the Minister may, by written notice to the consent authority, act in the place of the consent authority for the 13884 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
purposes of imposing a condition of consent referred to in subsection (2). Any consent that is granted for the development is, by force of this subsection, subject to that condition.
No. 5 Page 14, clause 29. Insert after line 35:
(5) Nothing in this section affects any other contributions that may be required to be made under section 30 or under Division 6 of Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
No. 6 Pages 14 and 15, clause 30, line 36 on page 14 to line 15 on page 15. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
30 Development contributions (other than for affordable housing)
(1) This section applies to development that is State significant development and that is carried out on land within the operational area.
(2) The consent authority may impose, as a condition of development consent in relation to development to which this section applies, a requirement that the applicant pay a levy of the percentage, authorised by a contributions plan referred to in section 31 (1), of the proposed cost of carrying out the development.
(3) Money required to be paid by a condition imposed under this section is to be applied towards the provision, extension or augmentation of public amenities or public services in or in the vicinity of the operational area (or towards recouping the cost of their provision, extension or augmentation). The application of the money is subject to any relevant provisions of the contributions plan referred to in section 31 (1).
(4) A condition imposed under this section is not invalid by reason only that there is no connection between the development the subject of the development consent and the object of expenditure of any money required to be paid by the condition.
(5) A condition under this section that is of a kind allowed by, and determined in accordance with, a contributions plan referred to in section 31 (1) may not be disallowed or amended by the Land and Environment Court on appeal.
(6) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to levies under this section, including:
(a) the means by which the proposed cost of carrying out development is to be estimated or determined, and
(b) the maximum percentage of a levy.
(7) For the purposes of this section, a reference to public amenities or public services includes a reference to open space and the Redfern Railway Station, but does not include a reference to water supply or sewerage services.
(8) This section does not affect the operation of Division 6 of Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. However:
(a) the consent authority cannot impose as a condition of the same development consent a condition under this section as well as a condition under section 94 or any other provision of that Division, and
(b) a contributions plan referred to in section 31 (1) may replace a contributions plan under that Division for the purposes of any condition imposed under section 94 or any other provision of that Division, and
(c) section 31 extends to any money resulting from a condition imposed under section 94 or any other provision of that Division.
No. 7 Page 15, clause 31 (1), line 19. Insert "in relation to development within the operational area" after "sections 29 and 30".
No. 8 Page 15, clause 31. Insert after line 19:
(2) The Minister administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 may prepare and approve a contributions plan, in accordance with Division 6 of Part 4 of that Act, for the purposes of section 29 in relation to State significant development carried out on land referred to in section 29 (1) (b) (being land that was the former Carlton United Brewery site).
(3) The Minister is to consult the Minister administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 before approving a contributions plan for the purposes of section 30.
No. 9 Page 15, clause 31. Insert after line 21: 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13885
(3) The payment into the Fund of money resulting from a contribution referred to in section 29 or 30 does not affect the obligation of the Authority under this Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to apply the money within a reasonable time towards the purpose for which the contribution was required.
No. 10 Page 15. Insert after line 21:
32 Matters affecting the Aboriginal Housing Company and "the Block "
(1) The Minister or a nominee of the Minister is to consult with the Aboriginal Housing Company and other relevant representatives of the Aboriginal community on issues and strategies affecting, or the long-term strategic vision for, the Block (and its immediate area).
(2) In this section: Aboriginal Housing Company means the Aboriginal Housing Company (ACN 001 154 481) incorporated under the Corporations Act 2001 of the Commonwealth.
the Block means the area of land bounded by Eveleigh, Caroline, Louis and Vine Streets, Redfern.
No. 11 Page 17. Insert after line 1:
36 Annual report to include certain matters
The annual report of the Authority required to be prepared under the Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Act 1984 is to include a report as to the outcomes achieved by the Authority during the reporting period.
No. 12 Page 21, clause 45 (3), lines 25-28. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
(3) A regulation is not to be made under this section if it would result in an overall increase to the operational area of more than 5 per cent of the area specified in Schedule 1 on the date of assent to this Act.
No. 13 Page 29, Schedule 3. Insert after line 11:
3.3 Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 No 152
Schedule 2 Statutory bodies
Insert in alphabetical order:
Redfern-Waterloo Authority
Mr FRANK SARTOR (Rockdale—Minister for Energy and Utilities, Minister for Science and Medical Research, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer), and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [4.31 p.m.]: I move:
That the Legislative Council's amendments be agreed to.
Ms CLOVER MOORE (Bligh) [4.31 p.m.]: I expressed concern about this bill when it was debated in this House. The bill gives the Minister unprecedented power to override normal planning controls, going so far as to enable him to take control of other areas at will, cherry pick developer contributions from adjacent areas, approve his own developments, and override the Heritage Act. I have already told honourable members that we need urban renewal in these disadvantaged areas. A lot of work also needs to be done for the socially disadvantaged. However, the bill does not address either urban renewal or social disadvantage. It is not justified, it is not going we achieve social change, it will exclude the local community, and it is nothing more than a grab for land, a grab for development-related cash by the State Government.
I note that the Government has amended the bill to enlarge upon the objects of the Act, which is a positive step. One amendment requires the Minister to consult the Heritage Council and to prepare an annual report. While these amendments might be better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick, they are weak and achieve very little, considering what the bill can still do. Amendments to clause 27 that were moved in the Legislative Council were rejected. The Minister is still the consent authority, but not the proper Minister, the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning.
An amendment to clause 28 was also rejected, so the Heritage Act can still be overridden. An amendment to clause 29 was also rejected, so the Minister can still cherry pick the Carlton and United Breweries site. An amendment to clause 36 was also rejected, so we have these offices being set up with unspecified powers for unspecified actions. Clause 45 will still allow the Minister to annex areas outside the designated area of Redfern-Waterloo, although I understand the clause was amended slightly by the Opposition so he can only annex 5 per cent of other areas at a time. 13886 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
I want to make a few comments about what has happened in this place and in the Legislative Council— comments that I think are important for this Parliament and this Government. The principle of people's involvement in the planning process was established by the Wran Government in 1979 under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. This has been overturned for the people of Redfern and Waterloo. Therefore, it is a sorry day for this Government. This was hard-fought reform after the bulldozing years. Obviously this reform is not supported by State Labor, Liberal or National parties. They voted together on this.
The bill overturns the democratic involvement of people in the planning process, which is the very basis of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. It removes people's rights to address democratically elected planning committees. Indeed, even the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning has been removed from the process. The Heritage Act—another great reform of the Wran years—was the result of strong community action to preserve and reuse the best of our dwindling past. Sydney used to be a great Victorian city, but it is no longer. This has also been rejected by the State Labor, Liberal and National parties.
The bill overturns the principle of orderly planning of the city in consultation with communities. Orderly planning cannot occur when an area is excised from the overall long-term strategic framework of the city. We have ad hoc short-term expediency and it could result in overdevelopment and probably in a waste of public money. The authority is to work with the Redfern-Waterloo Partnership Project, something I have very strongly supported and promoted, although its record of information and consultation with the local community over the past three years has been dismal. I hope the Minister will ensure that will improve.
Despite the Government's protestations to the contrary, there is a Redfern-Waterloo plan. We did not hear about it in this place: we read about it in the Sydney Morning Herald after Cabinet documents were leaked. That plan tells us that the area is to be handed over to developers. The community has been told that soulless and sanitised Chatswood and St Leonards—I apologise to the members who represent those areas—models have been put up as the basis of the future for this area. I really fear the sell-off and development of railway land at Eveleigh Street before the State has developed a transport blueprint for the future.
This land could be needed for heavy rail, bus, or a light rail interchange. With this legislation we are getting a day-by-day government, not a strategic, long-term government looking to the future. This is happening at a time when the rail system is in crisis. We know about it: we read letters to the editor about it day after day. There is a chronic and urgent need for infrastructure planning, and the Eveleigh rail yards site is a crucial part of the future. Decisions about this land are being made not by the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning or the Minister for Transport Services, but by the Minister who is responsible for this newly created authority.
I want to say—and I would think someone like the Chairman would listen with great sympathy—that today we see a democratic government introducing a totalitarian style of legislation. At a rally of Redfern and Waterloo residents on Monday—which was addressed by former Labor South Sydney mayor Tony Pooley and me and attended by Labor councillor Verity Firth—the majority of people there were elderly Russian tenants. It was necessary to have a Russian translator as many of them are non-English speaking. They were in tears because they fear for their homes. They have been thrown out of their homes once before in their lives and they fear that is about to happen again. Indeed, this legislation would enable that to happen. That is their fear. It is a sorry day for democracy and for proper planning process that this legislation, so pathetically amended, has been returned to this House for adoption.
Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [4.39 p.m.]: As the honourable member for Bligh referred to the Opposition, I want to point out that the Opposition had, and still has, some concerns about the bill. However, the overriding need for this whole Redfern and Waterloo area is that change be brought about by social and infrastructure improvement. We have negotiated with the Government to amend certain provisions in the bill. The honourable member for Bligh referred to section 45, which limits the Government's capacity to expand the operational area by 5 per cent. She said "at a time". My interpretation is that it is 5 per cent in total. They are matters that will be tested in due course, if necessary.
We have given the Government the opportunity to try to address some of these longstanding social and infrastructure problems in the area. We trust that the Government will not abuse this opportunity. The Liberals- Nationals want to see local community involvement in the process. We want consultation. We did not believe it was necessary to further amend the bill. We expect the goodwill of the Government to extend to discussion with the people who live in the area and to reflect in particular the concerns of Aboriginal people in the area.
The Opposition required the Government to insert objectives in the bill. Those objectives included the recognition of the significant entitlement and role of Aboriginal people in the area. We were also supportive of 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13887 the amendment the Government moved to ensure that the levies that would be raised are appropriately applied to affordable housing and in the interests of the local community. The Opposition expects the Government to do what needs to be done, but to do so in consultation with the community. The Government must ensure that the community is taken with it and not just steamrolled in the process. We will watch proceedings and, if necessary, take further action to make sure the interests of the people in the area are protected.
Mr FRANK SARTOR (Rockdale—Minister for Energy and Utilities, Minister for Science and Medical Research, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer), and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [4.41 p.m.]: I do not want to labour this bill because we have debated it at length and the upper House had a very lengthy debate on it. I am extremely disappointed with statements and information provided to public tenants in Redfern that their tenancies are in jeopardy and they might be moved out, forcibly removed, or lose their tenancies. There is zero intention that existing public tenants will lose their tenancies. There is zero intention that existing public tenants at Redfern and Waterloo will be moved out of the area. To the extent we may or may not improve the existing public housing in Waterloo—which some have said we should—such a task would have to be the subject of extensive consultation. I believe it is a cheap political shot by a few people to falsely put that position and unnecessarily instil fear in those tenants. It is just not true.
The second untruth I need to correct is the notion that this a cash grab by the Government. As if we would try to redevelop Eveleigh or Waterloo as a cash grab! That assertion is completely untrue. I want to put on the record that there will be some development and redevelopment, and that that will generate money for the betterment of Redfern and Waterloo. This bill is a vehicle that is designed to overcome the weaknesses of the existing system as it has served Redfern and Waterloo. The existing system, which has been in place for many decades, has not worked. The level of dependency and social issues remains chronic and has to be addressed. The Government does not have perfect wisdom, but this is a genuine attempt by it to address the problems in a systemic way.
The next step will be to appoint a board and hire staff. In the new year I want to establish a consultative process, which I believe will be comprehensive, for this authority, particularly in the preparation of a plan. Appropriate advisory committees will be appointed and there will be very significant community involvement. I want to bridge the gap between various agency staff and members of the community in a systemic way that overcomes the deficiencies that have been alleged in respect to the process over the past couple of years. We will address that issue. Then we will prepare the plan. My current thinking is that the plan will be prepared in stages, because I want to address issues in a systematic and orderly fashion, rather than rush through a comprehensive plan and cover everything in one fell swoop. I believe that it will be more appropriate to do the whole project carefully and in stages. The Government is acting in good faith, and the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. The processes we will establish will be no worse and may well be much better, both in consultative and efficiency terms, than the processes presently followed. I commend the amendments.
Motion agreed to.
Legislative Council's amendments agreed to.
Resolution reported from Committee.
Adoption of Report
Mr FRANK SARTOR (Rockdale—Minister for Energy and Utilities, Minister for Science and Medical Research, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health (Cancer), and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts) [4.46 p.m.]: I move:
That the report be now adopted.
Division called for. Standing Order 191 applied.
Noes,
Mr Barr Mrs Fardell Ms Moore Mr Oakeshott Mr Torbay
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Report adopted.
Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution. 13888 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
PARLIAMENTARY ETHICS ADVISER
Appointment
Motion, by leave, by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:
(1) That the appointment of Mr Ian Dickson as Parliamentary Ethics Adviser, as resolved by the House on 11 December 2002, be extended until 22 February 2005.
(2) That a message be sent requesting that the Legislative Council pass a similar motion.
PRINTING OF PAPERS
Motion, by leave, by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:
That the following papers be printed:
Half Yearly Report of Newcastle Port Corporation for the period ended 31 December 2003 Half Yearly Report of Port Kembla Port Corporation for the period ended 31 December 2003 Half Yearly Report of Sydney Ports Corporation for the period ended 31 December 2003 Report of the NSW Nursery Industry Services Committee for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Mental Health Review Tribunal for 2003 Report of the Lake Illawarra Authority for the year ended 31 March 2004 Report of the Animal Research Review Panel for the year ended 30 June 2003 Report of the Department of Lands for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Department of Juvenile Justice for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Murray Valley Citrus Marketing Board for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the New South Wales Food Authority for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the NSW Board of Vocational Education and Training for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Teacher Housing Authority for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Roads and Traffic Authority for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Honeysuckle Development Corporation for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of Landcom for the year ended 30 June 2004 (Volumes 1 and 2). Report of the Attorney General's Department for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Public Trustee for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Chiropractors Registration Board for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Dental Technicians Registration Board for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Institute of Psychiatry for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Nurses Registration Board for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Optical Dispensers Licensing Board for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Optometrists Registration Board for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Osteopaths Registration Board for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Physiotherapists Registration Board for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Podiatrists Registration Board for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Psychologists Registration Board for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Cancer Institute (NSW) for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Ministry for Science and Medical Research for the period 1 December 2003 to 30 June 2004 Report of the Coal Compensation Board for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Department of Mineral Resources for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Mine Subsidence Board for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Sydney Catchment Authority for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Health Care Complaints Commission for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Health Foundation for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Heritage Council and the Heritage Office for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Chipping Norton Lake Authority for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Judicial Commission for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the NSW Cancer Council for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Harness Racing New South Wales for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Administration of Agricultural Statutory Authorities for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Banana Industry Committee for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Board of Veterinary Surgeons for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of NSW Fisheries for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of State Forests for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Rice Marketing Board for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal on the Determination of Fares for Sydney Ferries from 12 December 2004 Report of the Serious Offenders Review Council for 2003. Report of the Office of the Protective Commissioner for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the Law and Justice Foundation for the year ended 30 June 2004 Report of the NSW Aboriginal Housing Office for the year ended 30 June 2004, Volumes 1 and 2. Report of the Department of Housing for the year ended 30 June 2004 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13889
SEASONAL FELICITATIONS
Mr CARL SCULLY (Smithfield—Minister for Roads, and Minister for Housing) [4.56 p.m.]: I move:
That the House take note of Christmas felicitations.
I take this opportunity to thank everyone with whom I have been involved in my role as Leader of the House. Most importantly, I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the working relationship we have developed through the year. I thank the two Whips, Gerard Martin and Alan Ashton, who have done a terrific job in ensuring that the Government has the numbers. I have emphasised to the Whips, and to my colleagues opposite, that it is always important to win the argument. However, if we do not, I want the Whips to have the numbers. They have done a sensational job in ensuring that on those very rare occasions—perhaps when the honourable member for Wakehurst is here, because it is very difficult to win an argument against him—we have the numbers.
Andrew Tink is one of the best actors in the House. In fact, his acting prowess is second only to that of Barry O'Farrell. Christmas must be getting close for me to say something nice about him. Andrew is entertaining and I enjoy working with him. I look forward to the continuation of his National Institute of Dramatic Arts performances and I will miss them during the recess. I send my regards to Barry O'Farrell, who might have a few lessons for Andrew Tink because he is a little bit better as an actor. His feigning of indignation is almost perfect. I am certainly impressed by it. I have enjoyed working with him, Thomas George and Daryl Maguire. They are three good blokes, even though they are Liberals and Nationals. On a personal level they are good. They have been fair dinkum, honest and upfront in their dealings with me and being able to manage the House in a bipartisan manner has been possible because of that.
It must be acknowledged that 95 per cent of what we do is supported by both sides of the House. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether the community realises the level of co-operation in this place. I know that people watch the television news or hear press conferences held by the Leader of the Opposition or the Premier and they get the impression that we are always fighting. That is certainly not the case; this place works well. Only a night or two ago we dealt with 10 bills. I thank the Opposition for that co-operation because this place would not work without that bipartisanship. This is almost making me feel ill.
I also take this opportunity to thank the Hansard staff. I do not think they are paid enough. We appreciate their hard work. I apologise for working through dinner the other night, but we had no choice. I also thank David Draper and the dining room staff, the Parliamentary Library staff, the administration and building services staff and the attendants. They have done an absolutely fantastic job. I understand that Mary Jo Grimaldi, an attendant, is retiring on 17 December. She has been here for 14 years and has done a terrific job. On behalf of everyone, I wish her the very best in retirement. She is very well liked and has displayed great professionalism for a long time.
I also acknowledge the work of the Cabinet Office staff—Leigh Sanderson, Roger Wilkins and Don Colaguiri—who I am sure all honourable members know. I assume that honourable members opposite have access to Parliamentary Counsel; we did when we were in opposition. They protect confidentiality so effectively that the Government has no idea what is being drafted for anyone else. I certainly do not. When we were in Opposition we were very confident that the Government of the day did not know what we were having drafted. It is an honourable group of officers and they work hard. The Government pushes through an enormous amount of legislation and Don Colaguiri and his team in the Parliamentary Counsel's office deserve all the credit we give them. I also thank Graeme Wedderburn, the Premier's Chief of Staff, and Davina Langton. How could I forget Walt Secord and Amanda Lampe? I know honourable members opposite will join me in wishing them all the very best for Christmas.
Mr Milton Orkopoulos: What about Walt, Michael Salmon and Tim?
Mr CARL SCULLY: I have mentioned Walt. They are much loved.
Ms Virginia Judge: What about Carl?
Mr CARL SCULLY: I am happy to acknowledge another Carl. I remind honourable members that this is my speech. I also acknowledge the work done by Russell Grove, Mark Swinson, Les Gönye, Ronda Miller and Greg Kelly and their colleagues. I work closely with them. I must also acknowledge some of my own staff. Chris Bowen is now the Federal member for Prospect. He was one of the most sensational chiefs of staff ever to walk through the doors of this building. Mr Speaker, your former chief of staff, Leanne Shedden—very well trained by your good self—has now moved on to warmer climes in my office as a senior adviser. 13890 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
Mr Milton Orkopoulos: Is it hot in your office?
Mr CARL SCULLY: It is sometimes given all the problems we face. Michael Galderisi is at the back of the Chamber. He will be embarrassed if I mention him in the House, but I must say that he has been terrific.
Mr Andrew Fraser: He is far too good for you!
Mr CARL SCULLY: I have been privileged to have two great staff—Michael and his predecessor, Chris Minns—assisting me in running the House this year. Chris was absolutely terrific and was well regarded and very professional. I thought that Michael had big shoes to fill in taking over his position, but he has done so with aplomb. I thank him for his hard work. I also wish to place on the record my appreciation for the dedication, commitment and hard work of my loyal and highly esteemed driver, Joel Donaghey, whom I could not do without. I wish everyone the very best for the season. We have all worked hard for the benefit of the people of this State as Independents, Opposition members and Government members and I think we all deserve a good break. I hope everyone enjoys their time with friends, family and loved ones, and comes back refreshed to do battle next year on 22 February. I wish you all the very best and Merry Christmas to you all.
Mr SPEAKER: I take this opportunity, as I did last year, to extend my own Christmas felicitations. I place on record my very deep and sincere appreciation to everyone who helps make this House work. Of course, that applies not only to those who are most visible, the members of Parliament, but also those who work behind the scenes and without whom this House would not function. We do not operate only when Parliament is in session; we operate most days of the year. When honourable members are in their electorate offices there are people in this place working very hard to ensure that they are serviced not only in their electorate offices but also in a very appropriate way within the precincts of the Parliament.
Of course, I echo the comments by the Leader of the House in extending thanks to all the very special people who enable this place to operate in the very efficient way it does. I extend my thanks to the attendants, who work here day in and day out. They work tirelessly, regardless of the lateness of the hour. I mention in particular Mary Josephine Grimaldi, known to all of us as Mary Jo. She has announced her retirement effective from 17 December. If my memory serves me correctly, Mary Jo was the first female appointed as an attendant in the lower House. It was a great honour and she has persevered in it—I use those words advisedly—since April 1990, when she took on the position of Attendant Grade 1 with the Legislative Assembly. Mary Jo, on behalf of everyone, I wish you all the very best in your retirement, but we will miss your smiling face. There was a time when I came into this place through the front door; I now enter through the car park. However, when I did, Mary Jo was always there and she was the first face we saw. I would greet her and her response would be a huge smile. That huge smile and her enormous contribution to this Parliament will always be remembered.
I also express my very sincere thanks to the people with whom I work closely. It is a pleasure to do so. I refer to Russell Grove, Mark Swinson, Les Gönye, Ronda Miller and Greg Kelly. They are all very professional people. Some of them have been here for a long time. Their enthusiasm for their job, their professionalism and their skill and the way in which they take very seriously the concerns of all honourable members on both sides of the House and the procedures and processes of Parliament is a great credit to them, and they are to be commended for that. Greg Kelly is a person for whom I have special regard.
Mr Milton Orkopoulos: He's your bouncer!
Mr SPEAKER: As the honourable member for Swansea has just interjected—yet again—a place like this cannot work without appropriate bouncer. As the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms Greg has been called upon perhaps far too often this year to perform his duties and he has done so with great efficiency.
I also thank those people working behind the scenes. I have said on previous occasions that the Hansard staff have the Midas touch. They take our words and make them sound, for the most part, intelligible. Some honourable members are beyond even their great skills. However, they generally take our words and make us sound intelligent. I am sure we have all been very surprised the following day when we read what we think we said and it sounds so good. On many occasions that is not a great credit to us but to the way they have put it together. I sincerely thank them for that. I also thank all the other people who work so hard in this Parliament. If I try to mention all of them I will leave out someone. However, I must mention the staff of the Parliamentary Library, for whom I have a special and high regard; the catering staff, without whom this place could obviously not function; and the cleaners, who are among the first people we greet each morning. They are always very friendly, and often greet us in all sorts of languages. It is good to be multilingual because they are multicultural group. They are also very efficient and take their jobs very seriously. 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13891
I also commend those who are in the works and maintenance staff, the information technology staff and, indeed, everyone working in Parliament, for their very efficient work. I express my thanks not only to the Leader of the House but also to the manager of Opposition business. No matter how heated the debate gets in the Chamber, no matter how difficult the circumstances are, the relationship which exists in enabling us to get on with the job that the people of this State have entrusted us to do is a great credit to both of you gentlemen. From my personal point of view, I thank you sincerely for the way in which you have co-operated, knowing always that you have got to do the best as far as the Government and the Opposition are concerned. But you always do it with the knowledge that the House has to be allowed to function in accordance with the processes, the procedures, and the standing orders of the House.
I also thank the Whips. One of the things I have tried to do is to have in more informal meetings to enable us to agree about processes and procedures without necessarily having to carry out long and protracted debates. The weekly meetings, which I have instituted for Whips and Deputy Whips, have worked. We have been able to raise a lot of issues and the Whips have been able to take matters back to their respective party rooms. We have also had an Independent member there from time to time. I believe these meetings have been of benefit to all members on both sides, and I thank you for your co-operation and assistance in that regard, as well as for the efficiency with which you count the members during divisions.
I want to say thank you to my own staff. I have had some changes of staff during the year, and the Leader of the House has already referred to that. I was very sorry to lose my chief of staff, Leanne Shedden, who was very efficient and performed her tasks with great gusto. That was a great credit to her. She has now taken on another role with the Leader of the House and I wish to all the very best in that role. Hopefully, that role will be yet another stepping stone for her in the continuation of an already illustrious career.
Earlier in the year, my private secretary, Ann Burt, went back to the Department of Education and Training. I want to place on record my appreciation for the work she did for me not only during the time when she was my private secretary but also for the three years she worked for me during my two previous ministries. My executive officer, Nick Davy, started off working as a research assistant and has now been promoted to executive officer. He is doing an outstanding job. I would like to sincerely thank him for the job he is doing. I trust that his talents are recognised by others and that he is recognised for the hard work and the efficient and professional way in which he performs his tasks. No task is too big or too small for Joe Andrade, my personal assistant. He is as enthusiastic today as the very first day I came into this place, when he was already running around trying to help members. Joe, for your enthusiasm and for the degree of dedication and commitment you have given to me personally, I say thank you.
I would like to conclude by wishing all members on both sides of the House all the very best for Christmas and New Year. We have a reasonably long break ahead of us and it will give members time to go back to their electorate offices and their families, and prepare for what I believe may be a very tough year in this place—and it undoubtedly ought to be if we are going to do our jobs properly on behalf of our constituents.
I have left my final comments and thanks to people who are probably the most overlooked among those who work on behalf of members of Parliament, and they are the electorate staff. They work day in and day out; they are the front-line troops. They are often in our electorate offices looking after our constituents at times when we cannot be there. They are the first port of call for constituent complaints and representations, and every opportunity I get I raise the importance of electorate staff and thank them on behalf of all of us for their work, which enables us to get on with our work as elected representatives. I would like to wish all electorate staff far and wide, throughout the 94 electorate offices in the State—including, of course, my own staff, Sandra and Janine—the very best for Christmas and the New Year. I thank them for the role they play and for the help they provide. I hope they will be able to continue their work so we can function as members of Parliament. Without them we would be unable to carry out our work.
Mr ANDREW TINK (Epping) [5.15 p.m.]: Thank you for your kind words in relation to the leadership on both sides of the House. I know you have done the job and I appreciate your personal comments very much. It is not easy; at times it can be extremely heated, but I think there is a general goodwill that comes through between the three of us principally. When things get very tough we can still talk things through. I would particularly like to thank Mary-Jo Grimaldi while she is here and wish her all the best for her retirement; I hope she feels free to come back. Why she would ever do that, I do not know, but I say on behalf of the Coalition that I hope this is not the last we see of her.
I particularly thank Peter Fraser and, through him, all the staff of the Leader of the Opposition and the wider staff who support us in the work we do in the Parliament. I particularly mention the Whips, especially the 13892 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004 two Opposition Whips, Daryl Maguire and Thomas George, who do a difficult job with unfailing courtesy and good humour. How they continue to do that astonishes me; my good humour expires long before theirs does. It is probably just as well they keep their cool and their balance. It is good that they are there, and I think we are all much better off for having people with their personality and temperament doing what is at times a very difficult job.
In general terms I want to endorse what the Leader of the House said about the spirit of bipartisanship and goodwill across the Chamber. I notice that he did indeed thank Walt Secord, Graeme Wedderburn and Amanda Lampe for their work, and after the week we have had I would also like to thank them. We wondered what was going to happen today, and in fact it has been very subdued. I think the final day was really yesterday. I believe that they, rather than the Attorney General, are probably behind the tactics of this week, and I thank them for the very strong finish to the year.
I also thank the staff of the Parliament. I thank the attendants; I have thanked Mary-Jo in particular, and that is only right and proper. I mention also Joe and the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms, who has to do the physical work, so to speak, of throwing us out. We are still waiting for somebody on the Government side to go out. It is not too late. By and large, we are handled with care, and that is something we ought to be thankful for.
I thank the Hansard staff. There are rare occasions when issues arise, and when they do I have always found them excellent in terms of discussing those issues without in any way giving away their role, which is to report properly and faithfully what goes on in here as distinct from what some of us would like to think, after the fact sometimes, had gone on. There is a balance there and there are times when they have to say no. That is quite right and proper. But there have also been times, one relatively recently, when we have had to get something clarified, and that has been done in an extremely professional way. I am very, very grateful for that.
I thank David Draper, who runs probably the most highly regarded catering organisation in the city. This is the premier city in the premier State of the country, and I think David ranks with the best people in his line of work anywhere in Australia. Without taking anything away from the rest of the staff in the dining room and elsewhere under his control, one thing that has always struck me about David is that he is always very hands on. There are times of the day and night when he will deliver room service and remove plates and so on. That is not lost on me. It is leading by personal example, and it is fantastic. I also thank the library staff. At this time it is right and proper to remember the family of Mark D'Arney. I wish them the best for Christmas and hope that things are on the up and up. Obviously it goes without saying that they have the support and best wishes of us all.
I thank also the attendants around the building. Sometimes I think members take the security arrangements for granted. Because we are elected members and represent constituents sometimes we tend, to some extent, to take security for granted. We are in the people business and the natural inclination is for us to meet and greet the nearest person, the nearest difficult constituent and so forth, which is as it should be. However, it is important that other people think about security arrangements. I am certainly guilty of going through security a little grudgingly when I get hauled up or asked questions, but we all need to remember that there is a reason for that. It is not easy for security staff to ask for a person's details, and sometimes we get a bit snippy about it if a new security officer does not know who we are. I am sure security personnel cop it from members of the public also from time to time, but they are keeping the building safe for everybody—not only members but also staff. So I thank them in particular.
Finally, I join Mr Speaker in thanking electorate office staff. They are extremely exposed to front-line work and difficult constituents. From time to time we all have difficult constituents. When we are sitting in this Chamber our electorate staff are often out there on their own. I thank all staff who are in that role. Some members of staff, in addition to the staff of the Leader of the Opposition, are involved in helping all shadow Ministers. It is important to recognise the role that shadow ministerial staff play. Mr Speaker, I wish you and all members of the House a safe and happy Christmas and prosperous New Year. I hope to see everyone back here on 22 February 2005. I am sure that all Coalition members will be here but I am not concerned about Government members.
Mr ANDREW STONER (Oxley—Leader of The Nationals) [5.23 p.m.]: I join with previous speakers to offer felicitations to all in the Parliament. At this time of the year we look forward to being with family and friends over the festive period and recharging our batteries for the year ahead. To members of The Nationals, their spouses and their families, I extend my best personal wishes. I extend my appreciation to my Deputy Leader, the honourable member for Ballina, and to the party Whip, the honourable member for Lismore, for 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13893 their valuable assistance throughout the year. I also express my appreciation for the dedication exhibited by all The Nationals parliamentary team. I refer especially to the honourable member for Burrinjuck, who is preparing for the birth of her second child; in fact, she is somewhat overdue. We wish her the best for a birth this month, hopefully not too close to Christmas Day.
I also extend The Nationals' best wishes to our Coalition colleagues, to the other members in this place and to their staff, both in the Parliament and in electorate offices. As has already been mentioned, they do a terrific job, often in the absence of their members and, in the case of country members, sometimes for quite extended periods. I thank the many people who work hard behind the scenes to keep this Parliament operating smoothly year after year: the parliamentary staff, particularly the Clerks, the Clerk-Assistants, the Serjeant-at- Arms and the attendants. As has already been mentioned, Mary Jo is retiring this year. Jo, as she is fondly known to many of us, has a friendly smile from which people in this Parliament have benefited for many years. I think that is because she is a Kempsey girl. She has that good country spirit, attitude and smile. We will miss her in her retirement but wish her the very best for the years ahead. We hope to see her back in the Parliament from time to time.
I thank the building services manager and his excellent cleaning staff, who are always in early in the morning to ensure that our offices, and indeed the whole Parliament, are spick and span. I thank the accounts section, with all the red tape that it must deal with these days, inspired by the Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal. I thank David Draper and his staff in the food and beverage section; the Procedure Office; and the Hansard reporting staff, who do a fantastic job, often under very trying conditions. Many thanks go also to the security staff of the Parliament, who operate professionally in these times of heightened security risks. I thank the information technology staff, who ensure that we have modern and up-to-date information technology services and equipment, and who walk some of us technophobes through modern systems and procedures. I thank the library staff, who provide great support, especially to Opposition members for the research work they need to undertake.
The Nationals greatly appreciate the prompt and quality work produced by each library staff member. I also extend The Nationals' best wishes to the Speaker's staff and to the staff of the Leader of the House. As is customary, The Nationals will host a Christmas lunch for members and parliamentary staff on 17 December as a token of our appreciation. Felicitations go also to the parliamentary press gallery. Finally, Mr Speaker, I wish you and all honourable members the very best this Christmas. I wish those who are travelling during the Christmas period a safe trip, especially those heading up my way on the North Coast. Be careful at this time of the year.
I specifically mention my staff, Scott McFarlane, Regina McCulla, Tanya Cleary, Kate Gisborne and Claire Gunning, who worked hard to support me throughout the year, and also The Nationals parliamentary stenographer, Jessica Priebe. I thank Peter Comensoli and Phil Corbett for the work they performed during the year. My electorate office staff—Margaret Bateman, Helen Elliott and Patricia Baker—do a terrific job in the Oxley electorate. At this time the thoughts of The Nationals are also with many country families and communities that are doing it tough as a result of the ongoing drought. I wish everybody a safe and happy Christmas.
Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [5.27 p.m.]: I thank honourable members for giving me an opportunity to participate in the Christmas felicitations debate. As Deputy Whip—a position I enjoy in this Parliament—it is appropriate for me to thank some people for the role they play in assisting me. I acknowledge the participation of the 55 members of the Labor Party who make my job a lot easier when I count the numbers with the party Whip, the honourable member for Bathurst. I also thank Mr Speaker, Mr Deputy-Speaker, the Chairman of Committees and the Acting Speakers who play an important role in making this Parliament work.
We cannot have the Speaker sitting in the chair from 10.00 a.m. until 10.00 p.m.; others have to assist him in doing that job and they have to have a fairly good idea of the standing orders. I thank those people for the role they play. I thank the Leader of the House and his staff. Chris Bowen has moved on to the Federal Parliament and Brent Thomas is now doing his job. I thank Gary Sergeant, Michael Galderisi, Chris Minas and Wendy in the office, and all the other people who do the night shift. As honourable members know, Parliament sits very late but sometimes I do not think the electorate or the media give us much credit for it.
I thank the Opposition Whips and acknowledge the role they play. There has to be a great degree of co- operation when I ask Daryl or Thomas, "What are you doing in relation to this issue?" They tell the truth and we work it out. It makes Parliament work better if we know what they are thinking and they know what we are 13894 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004 going to do. That is an important part of making the Parliament work. If we were not able to ask them what was happening, the whole place would be in a shemozzle. This place has to run properly. I also thank the honourable member for Epping, Andrew Tink, Leader of Opposition Business in this place. He is a character and a man whom I respect. I appreciate his passion. We have had a bit of fun in the past few days but a lot of what goes on in this place is just passionate theatre. We believe in it.
Anyone who does not want to spend a lot of time in this Chamber should not be here. It is a great honour to be able to stand at this lectern and speak as a member of Parliament; I am sure that every member shares that enthusiasm. At times I think it is great that Parliament is over for a couple of weeks, I am back at my office, it is not such a long drive into the city and I do not get home so late. But after being in my office for a while I cannot wait to get back into the Chamber to have some fun with my parliamentary colleagues and opponents. I thank the Clerks—Russell, Mark, Ronda and Helen—for the role they play. We often have to seek their advice. We might think we know the standing orders, but they have been here for many more years and they will probably be here long after we have gone. When I was on Bankstown council I found that the aldermen come and go but that officers remain forever.
Mr Brad Hazzard: We are here to make sure they stay here.
Mr ALAN ASHTON: Yes, they are happy to keep supporting us. I thank the staff of the Public Bodies Review Committee, which is chaired by my colleague the honourable member for Swansea and on which I serve with my colleague the honourable member for Charlestown. I thank my parliamentary colleagues who turn up when the honourable member for Bathurst and I want them here—most of the time. I do not read as many books from the library as I should, but if I think a good book has come out, I have only to suggest that the library should purchase it and it often does. I hope everyone takes up the option of using the library.
I conclude by thanking Jo and the other attendants who work in and around the Chamber, and those who keep the place in good condition and do all those sorts of things that may not seem to count every day. As a schoolteacher I learned that it was important to get on with people in the canteen and the front office. It did not matter what happened in the classroom; they were the most important people. I thank my electorate staff— Christine, Joanne, Allan, Myrna and Sue—who do the hard work when we are here. I know that every member would express similar sentiments in relation to electorate staff. When we are in the Parliament we depend a great deal on them. I also thank my family on whom I depend.
I wish everybody all the best for Christmas. I take some pride in the fact that I lead with my chin in this place and I get stuck into debate. The honourable member for Cronulla is nodding his head in agreement. However, I like the idea that I can walk out of this Chamber and have a friendly conversation with other members. That is what parliamentary democracy is all about and that is what separates us from other regimes around the world. Even though that passion and disagreement are meant we are good mates because we try to represent the people of New South Wales to the best of our ability. I wish all members of the Government and the Opposition, and everyone who works in this Parliament, the best for Christmas and the New Year.
Mr IAN ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [5.33 p.m.]: I wish all those staff, members and officers of Parliament who have been mentioned by previous speakers, particularly, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the House and the Leader of The Nationals, a happy Christmas and a prosperous 2005. I thank them for their devotion to duty, for their pride in their jobs and for the way in which they run this magnificent Parliament. Sometimes I do not think it is understood that democracy truly works. The 93 members in this place are a true reflection of the broader community. We have all sorts of educational standards, attitudes and backgrounds, and it is an interesting group of people with which to work. I enjoy it enormously because there is no other forum of which I know in which one can work in such close circumstances with such a cross-section of the community.
A couple of things always permeate this bag of liquorice allsorts. There is a fundamental decency, a sense of achievement and a sense of pride in serving the State and our constituents—something that should always be respected. I extend warm wishes to all members on the basis that they do the job in the way that they see fit. I respect that; it is essential if Parliament is to continue to serve the people of New South Wales effectively. I am aware of a number of members and staff who have suffered family problems this year, be it the loss of family members, family members suffering from an illness, or people who have suffered family break- ups. My heart goes out to them. I hope Christmas brings a time of reconciliation. I extend my best wishes to them. I always respect the fact that the human being is amazingly strong. It is right and proper that we recognise those people. 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13895
On a broader note, I wish to spend a few minutes talking about Christmas itself. Over the past 10 days or so there has been a lot of debate about Christmas decorations in the city and so forth. I reinforce the statement that Christmas is a Christian festival which recognises the origins of Christianity. Over the years it has evolved into a time of celebration that brings people together in friendship, that enables families to reunite and that enables people who might talk to each other only once a year to do so. Anyone who has had any difficulty with a neighbour during the year is able to walk over, shake his hand and say, "Happy Christmas." Families that might have had a dispute over a will or some such thing are able to say, "Happy Christmas." Christmas reunites people.
In my electorate I have people from all religions and backgrounds. It is a happy electorate. I wish every person in my electorate a happy Christmas and prosperous New Year. I make special mention of Clare and Ron, my electorate secretaries. They have been with me for many years and I admit that they probably do 70 per cent of my work as a local member. They know more than I do about fundamental issues, they deal with departments and Ministers and they do it well. I also thank my wife and family for their support during the year. When times are tough families often carry the cross that has to be borne in politics. Sometimes we do not give them sufficient recognition. I thank my family and my erstwhile wife, tough as a rock, but as human as they come. She is a wonderful supporter.
I wish everyone a merry and safe Christmas. In these days of motorcars and swimming pools we often hear about tragic accidents at Christmas. I hope this is a tragedy-free Christmas. This is a great country in which to live. It is no secret that the honourable member for Bathurst and I have just returned from a trip with the natural resources committee to Beijing in China, Madrid in Spain and South Africa. This is a great country but it is only as good as we make it. We have the honour of ensuring that it remains the nicest place in which to live and the best place for our kids. It is a country with a great future. I look forward to participating in debate in this Chamber next year. Happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year to all.
Mr PAUL CRITTENDEN (Wyong) [5.39 p.m.]: As other members have recounted, next week Mary Jo Grimaldi, whom I have always known as Jo, will leave the service of Parliament. She is one of those wonderful people who gives one a bright, cheery smile. Her presence is one of the joys of working in this place. I thank the Hansard reporters, who are otherwise known as the department of good English, David Draper and his catering team, the cleaners and the Parliamentary Library staff. I also want to mention some of the departed staff members from the library, such as Mark D'Arney. We should spare a thought for Mark's daughter Valerie. Christmas this year will be very difficult for her. I might be failing as a member, because I recall reading Fred Daly's book, in which he said that the best way to learn standing orders is to break them. I have been here for some time and I obviously have not broken the standing orders enough because I have had to rely on the expert advice of the Clerks, especially in the past two or three months. I am eternally grateful for their assistance.
I acknowledge all those who comprise the great ship of State that is New South Wales: the nurses, doctors, public hospital staff, teachers, police and so on. I also acknowledge the bureaucrats, who always give effect to government policy and who only act on the Acts and regulations promulgated in this place, such as the bow tie wearing, Jaguar-driving, German-speaking, champagne-quaffing, opera-going, would-be Sir Humphrey Appleby of New South Wales—Roger Wilkins, our Cabinet Secretary. He always gives his best performance, as do other senior officers of the bureaucracy. As the honourable member for Lachlan said, it is a time of Christmas cheer, of peace, joy and goodwill. I hope we are all back here in the new year.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [5.41 p.m.]: I join with my colleagues in extending good wishes to all those involved in the running of Parliament and to our parliamentary colleagues from all political persuasions. The members in this place rely heavily on the Clerks, parliamentary staff, security, catering and all those who serve us so well. As a new member in this place I understood quickly how important those people are in the everyday running of the Parliament. They were helpful in assisting me to find my feet and understand the rules of this place. They go out of their way to serve us and ensure that our every need is met.
I particularly want to mention Josephine Grimaldi, as I call her. She is a delightful lady. I know that many kind things have been said about her. I would like to add to them and thank her for the great assistance she has given us. In the short time I have been an Opposition Whip and the member for Wagga Wagga I have come to appreciate Josephine's dedication and helpfulness. I am always delighted to see her smile. She always says, "Good morning" with a lovely comment. I will miss that. I hope that from time to time, Josephine, you come back and say hello to us because you brighten up our day. I wish you well in your retirement, good health and happiness. 13896 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004
To my parliamentary colleague and Nationals Whip Thomas George, I would like to say that as Whips we do a difficult job, as do the Government Whips Gerard Martin and Alan Ashton. It is sometimes a very difficult job, sometimes a very pleasurable job. It is certainly one of great honour that has been bestowed on us by our colleagues. Thomas, thank you for the support you have given me in carrying out our duties. Andrew Tink, the Leader of Opposition Business, is a great guy to work with—an absolute pleasure. I understand that the Government has nicknamed him "Chainsaw", with good reason. Tinky, thank you for your kind words. It is a delight to work with you. I wish you and your family well in the festive season and the coming new year.
I wish to mention Marilyn Lees, who assists me in my office, Jessica Priebe, Leeah Salmon and the staff in the electorate offices of all members, including my own staff. Brad Hazzard asked that I especially mention Sandra Hutchinson and Noelene Barrell. Electorate staff are very important to us. We rely on them so much. Often they take the brunt of a complaint or a problem. They carry a great load of responsibility while we are here in this place. I thank each and every one of them for the effort, commitment and service they give to the people of New South Wales and to us.
I know that other members would like the opportunity to say a few words this evening. I make special note of people whose family members are ill or have suffered losses this year. I acknowledge that we have suffered two losses in this place this year. I say to those people that I know Christmas will be a difficult time for them. Christmas is a time for coming together, a reflection of the true meaning of Christmas and Jesus Christ. Best wishes to those people, our thoughts are with them. I thank my Nationals and Liberal Party colleagues for their co-operation this year. They have been a delight to work with. At times our demands on them are onerous and we give them short notice. Sometimes, because of the running of the Parliament, we place requirements on them that are perhaps unreasonable. I thank them for their responses. We may have heated words about the business of the House, but we appreciate their co-operation. We are a great team of members throughout New South Wales representing people from rural and city electorates. I thank them for their help. There is nothing else for me to say other than: Merry Christmas and have a safe and peaceful Christmas. To those who are on the roads: Drive carefully and return here next year safe and well rested, because it will be a very exciting year.
Mr MATTHEW MORRIS (Charlestown) [5.47 p.m.]: I join previous speakers in placing on record my warm thanks to all parliamentary staff, without whom we would not survive. I make particular mention of my electorate office staff Bronwyn Williams, Stephanie Herbert and Mark Raper for their support and commitment. Without them my life would be extremely tough. This is a special time of year that has come around awfully quick. That seems to have been the general theme for me, and I am sure for my colleagues, over the past number of years. We should take this time to reflect on the past 12 months. We should think about what has transpired and where we want to go. We should take the opportunity to rest, enjoy the break, refresh ourselves and come back for another busy, exciting year. I wish all my colleagues a healthy, happy and safe Christmas 2004. I look forward to working with all of them in 2005.
Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [5.49 p.m.]: Time is of the essence. I would like to endorse all the thanks that have been given to everyone by members on both sides of the House tonight. Christmas is a special time. I thank my staff at Lismore—Karen, Bronwyn, Julie, Christine and Graham—for their work throughout year. They do a tremendous job.
[Interruption]
They all job share, don't worry. I do not have that many staff, so don't cause an uproar. They do a mighty job. They are like the Hansard team: they make me look good. I really appreciate that. I could not go without paying tribute to the other Whips and the leaders of the House—Andrew Tink on this side of the House and Minister Scully on the other side. Being a Whip, one certainly gets to appreciate the work that goes into making this place run professionally. I appreciate the support I have been given. I thank them all sincerely, and Daryl Maguire, for the tremendous job they have done. We have all tried to support each other and work together to make the place run properly.
We in The Nationals are all country people. I pay tribute to the staff in the office of the Leader of The Nationals and Jessica Priebe, who works for The Nationals. I also pay tribute to the staff of honourable members in the other place, who are based here in Sydney. We work as a team and it is great to be part of that team. I want to also pay tribute to Jo. Sadly, there comes a time in life when one calls it a day. Jo, thank you for what you have done for me. Jo has a daughter who lives in Ballina—
[Interruption] 9 December 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 13897
Everyone is claiming credit, but that is not my seat.
Mr Carl Scully: She votes Labor!
Mr THOMAS GEORGE: I cannot help that. Jo, I wish you all the very best in your retirement and I simply thank you for what you have done. I wish everyone a safe, happy and holy Christmas and trust that we will all be blessed with good health in 2005.
Mr ANDREW FRASER (Coffs Harbour) [5.51 p.m.]: I would like to join with my colleagues in wishing everyone well, not only for Christmas but for the New Year. I hope that everyone has a very happy and relaxing break until we return. I, like the honourable member for Lismore, would like to commence my contribution by saying to you, Jo, that it has been great having you here, with your smiling face. I have appreciated your encouragement at times. It has been my pleasure, when there were issues that I know you felt very strongly about, to have been able to speak on them and support you without naming you in the House. I extend an invitation to you to come back to the North Coast. Stay in Coffs Harbour on your way through. I know you have three children in Sydney and one on the North Coast, but come back to the best part of the North Coast, which is Coffs Harbour. Call in to say "G'day" whenever you are passing through. I look forward to breaking bread with you next Friday at the National Party Christmas Party.
I, too, would like to thank all the people who make this place work, especially the Whips. It can get testy at times, as it did earlier this week when I had a few words to say. I know the Whips worked hard with the Leader of the House to ensure that I was able to put on the record my contribution to debate on the Local Government Amendment (Public-Private Partnerships) Bill. Those things tend to happen around this time of the year. Honourable members are well aware of what the logjams are like. We know that we are coming back tomorrow because the other place keeps to a different timetable than we do. To those in Hansard, I know I speak too quickly at times, but I have great trust in your judgment in deciphering what I have said and ensuring that names are correctly spelt. I, probably more than other members, have contact with Hansard. They contact me to ask, "Who was that? What did you say?" I really do appreciate the job you do. I congratulate all the attendants on a job well done. I know that sometimes yours is a thankless task. Whilst we are here for a purpose, and are probably paid a little better than you are, you sit in this Chamber for long hours and ensure that our needs are well catered for.
The two leaders of the House do a great job under sometimes very trying conditions and I thank them. I thank Mr Speaker, Mr Deputy-Speaker and the Acting-Speakers. I would like a tape of yesterday's infamous debate. It is the first time I have ever seen the Acting-Speaker on his feet, making everyone sit down, then taking points of order and finally ruling. The funny thing is, it did not even make it into print in the newspapers. Despite all the energy we expended in the debate, it did not even rate a line in today's newspapers. I regard it as one of the better debates. I would say to the Serjeant-at-Arms, who has escorted me from this place on some occasions, that I hold no grudge. I wish him well for the festive season and for the coming year. I commend David Draper and his staff for the great job they do. My best wishes go to the staff in our leader's office and to all my colleagues. The staff do a fantastic job with limited resources and I really do appreciate the assistance they have given me and all The Nationals. I thank Jessica Priebe, our stenographer on the 12th floor, for the excellent work she does.
The library staff and the printing staff are fantastic, and when we need something we get it. One hears the odd complaint around this place about things not arriving on time and what have you, but we are all in the same boat. We are all asking for things to be done quickly! I would especially like to thank my wife and my family. Country members are away from home for long periods and when the fence gets busted, the bull gets out on the road, or a wild storm causes $14,000 worth of damage to the family home, your wife and children are left to organise what has to be organised.
Mr DEPUTY-SPEAKER: You forgot to mention the river pump failing.
Mr ANDREW FRASER: Exactly! The bore pump, Mr Deputy-Speaker, as you know full well. We are not in the same situation as our city cousins, many of whom can get home overnight. We have to organise those things at the end of a telephone, normally in the middle of a very busy schedule. It is extremely difficult for our families, who have to bear the brunt while we are doing what we do here. I really want to thank my family and my electorate staff because they are the ones that staff the front line.
This year Lyn Chalmers, who has been my electorate officer for 10 years, has married and is leaving to live in Gympie in Queensland. I want to place on record my appreciation of the great job my staff does— especially Lyn during the past 10 years—in handling difficult situations in my electorate office. Those situations tend to arise when we are not there. Some people take advantage of the fact that we are here when they are 13898 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 9 December 2004 dealing with our staff. Problems arise, sometimes as a result of socioeconomic circumstances, which the electorate staff are required to handle. In my view my staff handle those situations with aplomb.
I would like to also place on record that Lyn has worked with me, employed by the State, for the full 10 years and that she has done a fantastic job. I wish her and Col, her new husband, all the very best for their new life in Queensland. I believe she has applied for a couple of jobs up there with members of Parliament. I would have thought she would be well and truly fed up with parliamentarians by now. Lyn received an award from the Presiding Officers in recognition of her 10 years service. Unfortunately, because of circumstances beyond my control, I was unable to be here on the day the award was presented to her, which I regret.
To my colleagues on both sides of the House, and even the Independents—considering they have been the flavour of the week all this week—I wish you well. Do have a great Christmas. I know some new members may tend to think that proceedings here are somewhat adversarial. It sometimes does get that way. Just remember when you walk outside the House that we are all the same here; we have all been elected to represent our constituents. When you walk outside, remember that our philosophies may be different but that we are all here to serve our constituents in the best way we can. Do not take things personally. In fact, wish one another good cheer, not only at Christmas but each day of the year. Merry Christmas to you all.
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [6.00 p.m.]: I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House for this indulgence. I obviously agree with everything said about families, staff, and those who work in this Parliament. However, I want to stress the importance of considering those who are less fortunate than us, that is, those suffering with a mental illness and the debilitation caused by ageing. As the co-convenor of Parliamentary Friends of People with a Mental Illness and Parliamentary Friends of Dementia, I remind honourable members that Christmas and other celebrations are often the most difficult times for these people. I ask honourable members to remember them and to send them good wishes. Merry Christmas to everyone.
Mr GREG APLIN (Albury) [6.01 p.m.]: I thank the House for the opportunity to extend the Christmas greetings of the electorate of Albury. I thank honourable members, the attendants, and other staff for their assistance during the year. I extend Christmas greetings rather than seasons greetings, because we do not get the opportunity to mention seasons at other times of the year. I see no reason why we should single out this season. Of course, it is the Christmas season and it is not open to any other interpretation. I sound a note of warning to those who feel it should be interpreted differently: They run the risk of making it generic, and once that happens we will have lost our heritage and traditions. At this time of year I want to concentrate on the tradition of peace and goodwill to all. I extend that Christmas greeting to everyone in the House.
Motion agreed to.
BILL RETURNED
The following bill was returned from the Legislative Council without amendment:
NSW Self Insurance Corporation Bill
PARLIAMENTARY JOINT SERVICES
Annual Reports
Mr Deputy-Speaker tabled the annual reports of the Parliamentary Joint Services for the years ended 30 June 2003 and 30 June 2004.
Ordered to be printed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Special Adjournment
Routine of Business: Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Motion by Mr Carl Scully agreed to:
That standing and sessional orders be suspended to provide that:
(3) the House at its rising this day do adjourn until 10.30 a.m. on Friday 10 December for the consideration of Government business only;
(4) divisions and quorums be allowed; and
(5) at the conclusion of Government business the House adjourn without question until Tuesday 22 February 2005 at 2.15 p.m.
The House adjourned at 6.03 p.m. until Friday 10 December 2004 at 10.30 a.m. ______