10574
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Friday 24 October 2008 ______
Mr Speaker (The Hon. George Richard Torbay) took the chair at 10.00 a.m.
Mr Speaker read the Prayer and acknowledgement of country.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Business Lapsed
General Business Notices of Motions (General Notices) Nos 1 to 6 lapsed pursuant to Standing Order 105 (3).
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT (LIABILITY OF VOLUNTEERS) BILL 2008
Bill received from the Legislative Council and introduced.
The SPEAKER: I advise the House that I have received a written authority from the Hon. Rick Colless, MLC, advising that the member for Barwon will have carriage of the bill in the Legislative Assembly.
Agreement in Principle
Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [10.02 a.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now agreed to in principle.
The Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Liability of Volunteers) Bill 2008, which has gone through the upper House, amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000. It is my pleasure to have carriage of the bill in this House on behalf of the Hon. Rick Colless in the other place. The bill specifically targets volunteers. The Government is interested in volunteers, given that currently the Department of Education and Training is trialling a project to look at ways to encourage young people into volunteer services. This bill specifically refers to section 26 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, which provides for offences by corporations and the liability of directors and managers. This bill seeks to insert new subsection (5) in section 26 of the Act. New subsection (5) states:
A director or person concerned in the management of a corporation who is a volunteer is not liable to be prosecuted under this section for anything done or omitted to be done by the person as a volunteer. In this subsection, volunteer has the same meaning as in section 60 of the Civil Liability Act 2002.
So it means volunteer in the true sense—those good people who give up their time to make our communities a better place. No doubt communities across New South Wales, and indeed across the country, rely on the goodwill and spirit of those who provide volunteer services. One way of encouraging volunteers in our community is to ensure that they are not liable in terms of insurance, accidents and so on, which I will refer to shortly. The Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 is important because it has a number of objectives that relate to safety in the workplace and in our community. The objects of the 2000 Act are:
(a) to secure and promote the health, safety and welfare of people at work,
(b) to protect people at a place of work against risks to health or safety arising out of the activities of persons at work,
(c) to promote a safe and healthy work environment for people at work that protects them from injury and illness and that is adapted to their physiological and psychological needs,
(d) to provide for consultation and co-operation between employers and employees …
(e) to ensure that risks to health and safety at a place of work are identified, assessed and eliminated or controlled,
(f) to develop and promote community awareness of occupational health and safety issues,
24 October 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 10575
(g) to provide a legislative framework that allows for progressively higher standards of occupational health and safety to take account of changes in technology and work practices,
(h) to deal with the impact of particular classes or types of dangerous goods and plant at, and beyond, places of work.
Section 26 of the Act, which deals with offences by corporations and the liability of directors and managers, states:
(1) If a corporation contravenes, whether by act or omission, any provision of this Act or the regulations, each director of the corporation, and each person concerned in the management of the corporation, is taken to have contravened the same provision unless the director or person satisfies the court that:
(a) he or she was not in a position to influence the conduct of the corporation in relation to its contravention of the provision, or
(b) he or she, being in such a position, used all due diligence to prevent the contravention by the corporation.
(2) A person may be proceeded against and convicted under a provision pursuant to subsection (1) whether or not the corporation has been proceeded against or been convicted under that provision.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) prejudices or affects any liability imposed by a provision of this Act or the regulations on any corporation by which an offence against the provision is actually committed.
(4) In the case of a corporation that is a local council, a member of the council (in his or her capacity as such a member) is not to be regarded as a director or person concerned in the management of the council for the purposes of this section.
The issue of volunteers' liability is contentious. While many members of the community are covered under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000—indeed, some are obviously accountable and made responsible—no provision in the Act relates specifically to volunteers. We have been approached by members of the community concerned about people who are acting in a volunteer capacity and who are helping to manage trusts and reserves throughout the State. We are seeking to include new subsection (5) in the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 to ensure that a person who acts in a volunteer capacity is not liable for prosecution under the Act.
There is a discrepancy in the system. Discrepancies have also been acknowledged by the member previously responsible for occupational health and safety. Indeed, three years ago a review of the 2000 Act was undertaken and there was community consultation. While a report of that review has been tabled, it has not been released. Support for this amendment has been acknowledged by the Government, and particularly by Labor members in the other place. The Hon. Helen Westwood, in her reply to the second reading debate in the upper House, said:
The Government is supportive of the principle behind the bill.
We need to debate this bill in this House because negotiations are currently underway about harmonising occupational health and safety issues around Australia. Those negotiations have been going on for three years, which the Coalition believes is too long, and demonstrates that the Government has been sitting on its hands in terms of releasing the review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Opposition wants to bring this one discrepancy forward and it seeks the support of the Government in light of the fact that the Government, through the Department of Education and Training, has developed a pilot program for years 9 and 10. That 2007 election commitment which will be rolled out 2009—and it is something that the Opposition looks forward to—was meant to encourage volunteering by high school students in years 9 and 10. The Department of Premier and Cabinet has a volunteering unit. If we are going to encourage volunteers in our communities we need to make sure they do so under the protection of the Government.
There are approximately 850 reserves throughout New South Wales that are administered under trust boards, and about 6,000 volunteers are affected by the Act. Those volunteers contribute their time to manage Crown land reserves. Trust board membership is an honorary position and the Minister who administers the Crown Lands Act appoints members. They are not entitled to any financial benefit from the position, but they are entitled to recoup out-of-pocket expenses. The trust boards are responsible for the management and maintenance of publicly owned facilities such as community halls, showgrounds, recreation areas and other community facilities. According to the Minister's second reading speech, public uses of these facilities include show ring events, rodeos, bullock and bull riding, water sports on trust lands surrounding major water storages and motor vehicle sports. In essence, they involve many of our recreation facilities, in particular, dams and waterways. At times participation in any one of those sports has the potential for injury. 10576 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24 October 2008
The Minister for Lands acknowledged that a review commenced two years ago recommended that legislative changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act to remove any doubt about liability with respect to trust volunteers. Mr Speaker, would be interested that the Opposition has been contacted by many members of trusts around the State, in particular Mr Phil Harris, who is a trustee of the State park at Copeton Dam near Inverell. He wrote to the Hon. Rick Colless and stated:
Thank you for your efforts in trying for a speedy resolution in the area concerning trust liability. I feel there are many people qualified that should be on trusts that won't be because of this possible liability. The ones that should be on trusts you would hope have had previous management experience and have been successful in what ever field they have been in. This I would think would place them at most risk because if they have been successful then they would most likely have the most to lose. Ask yourselves (all politicians) would you risk losing every thing that you own and have worked hard for to work in a voluntary position working to manage something for someone else. I suspect the answer to this is no so why expect everyone that is currently on a trust in NSW to do the same? Yours truly, Phil Harris.
The Opposition has had plenty of representations from around the State. In reply to Mr Richard Fraser, Secretary of the Bathurst Showground Trust, the Minister for Lands, Mr Kelly, stated:
I have been considering this issue for some time and have referred the matter to Cabinet and other agencies for comment.
The Government acknowledges the discrepancies and the Opposition wants to reassure the community that its volunteers will be protected. The trust's handbook contains a guideline for trust members but unfortunately not all activities are covered under the Occupational Health and Safety Act or under section 121 of the Crown Lands Act. Activities of volunteers that are not covered and that take place on trust and reserve land are: all professional sporting fixtures, all equestrian activities, including horse racing and training, trotting, rodeos, equestrian skill events, gymkhanas and cross-country rides, all greyhound racing and training, all motor racing and practising, all amusement rides other than playground equipment provided by the trust, water slides, abseiling, rock and mountain climbing, bungy jumping and similar activities, all aircraft activities, powered or unpowered, including gliding, parachuting and hang gliding, all organised bicycle racing including mountain bike races and trials, show days, boat and watercraft racing and training, restaurants, cemeteries, and any activities whose objective is to make personal or business profit, except fundraising activities to benefit the reserve trust.
At times accidents occur and nothing can stop insurance companies from claiming costs against those volunteers, and that is the important discrepancy the Opposition is aiming to discuss. I am sure the Government would also support our sending a very clear message to our young people and the 6,000 volunteers who provide a valuable service in our community acting in their capacity on trusts. I hope to debate the matter next week.
Debate adjourned on motion by Dr Andrew McDonald and set down as an order of the day for a future day.
The SPEAKER: Order! It being before 1.00 p.m., the House will proceed to Orders of the Day (Committee Reports).
COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
Report: Review of the 2006-2007 Annual Report of the Health Care Complaints Commission
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Report noted.
LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Report: Legislation Review Digest No. 10 of 2008
Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.
Mr PAUL PEARCE (Coogee) [10.18 a.m.]: I state as deputy chair that the Legislation Review Committee is a hardworking committee that has significant obligations under the legislation which establishes it. The committee carries out a very thorough analysis of the various government and non-government bills that come before this House. 24 October 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 10577
Mr ALLAN SHEARAN (Londonderry) [10.19 a.m.]: I thank my colleague the deputy chair of the Legislation Review Committee. Legislation Review Digest No. 10, dated September 2008, was received out of session. When presenting previous reports I have attempted to highlight some of the issues the committee faces when preparing to report to the Parliament in the form of the Legislation Review Digest. This is an onerous task, a heavy responsibility that requires commitment by each of the committee members. Thankfully, the committee generally reaches a consensus when preparing its reports and we attempt to do so without our obvious political affiliations interfering with our role. Being a member of the committee is a form of instruction that leads members to become very conscious of the need to protect the rights of our citizens when examining proposed bills and regulations within the terms of reference outlined in sections 8A and 9 of the Legislative Review Act 1987.
Other relevant sources are acknowledged and I have made reference to those sources in previous reports, and similarly we have tabled discussion papers on issues such as "The Right to Silence" and on "Strict and Absolute Liability". I feel that each of these initiatives fulfils a role in educating our members on the many issues that should be borne in mind when deliberating on bills and regulations. Today I highlight briefly Legislation Review Digest Report No. 10, which examined 14 bills and reported on 11 regulations. The Legislation Review Committee resolved also to write to four Ministers to seek further information about concerns identified with the Contaminated Land Management Amendment Bill 2008, and three regulations, the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008, the Liquor Regulation 2008, and the Tow Truck Industry Regulation 2008. I will summarise for members some of the key issues of concern identified by the committee in this digest, which were referred to Parliament for consideration.
Some of the issues of concern included: inappropriate delegation of legislative powers—for example, in the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Amendment Bill 2008; ill-defined and wide powers in the Dangerous Goods (Road and Rail Transport) Bill 2008; the rule of law and right to property in relation to the Contaminated Land Management Amendment Bill 2008; non-reviewable decisions in the Home Building Amendment Bill 2008; legal professional privilege, privilege against self-incrimination and access to Official Visitors arising from the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008; and insufficiently defined administrative powers, freedom of speech and inappropriate delegation of legislative powers arising from the World Youth Day Amendment Regulation 2008. I urge members to refer directly to the digest report if they are interested in the specific details of the bills and regulations that had been scrutinised. Again, I stress that the digest reports aim to assist members in their consideration of bills and regulations, and to raise the awareness and respect for personal rights and liberties.
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Report noted.
COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
Report: Review of the 2006-2007 Annual Report of the Health Care Complaints Commission
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [10.22 a.m.]: I seek leave to comment on the report of the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission entitled "Review of the 2006-07 Annual Report".
Leave not granted.
COMMITTEE ON THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION
Report: Report on the Fourteenth General Meeting with the NSW Ombudsman
Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.
Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock) [10.23 a.m.]: Mr Speaker, I do not care how many calls to order you put me on, I am going to speak to this report!
The SPEAKER: Do not tempt fate!
Mr KERRY HICKEY: The Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission, of which I am Chair, held its fourteenth general meeting with the New South Wales Ombudsman 10578 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24 October 2008
on 18 March 2008. The general meetings are a valuable tool for the committee to perform its work of monitoring and reviewing the functions of the Office of the New South Wales Ombudsman and this meeting constituted the first opportunity for the committee to exercise its oversight role since the commencement of the Fifty-fourth Parliament. I draw attention to two particular matters arising from the general meeting. During the meeting the Ombudsman requested that the committee consider legal professional privilege as this was a matter which, in his words, had "a considerable potential to frustrate thorough and proper investigation or inquiring into relevant matters by my office".
Neither the Police Integrity Commission nor the Independent Commission Against Corruption is prevented from accessing any class of document. However, under section 21 of the New South Wales Ombudsman Act, a claim of legal professional privilege by a public sector agency can prevent the Ombudsman from gaining access to documents. The committee was concerned to hear evidence from the Ombudsman that such a provision can be, and appears to be, used by agencies to frustrate the work of his office. It is the committee's view that the exemption provision provided for under section 21 of the New South Wales Ombudsman Act is unnecessary.
Not only does it give effect to the New South Wales Ombudsman being the only Ombudsman in Australia from whom documents can be withheld on the basis of legal professional privilege, it is also anomalous in terms of the Ombudsman Act, where legal professional privilege cannot be claimed in relation to freedom of information investigations. The committee intends to write to the Premier and the Attorney General seeking an amendment to the Ombudsman Act to remove the legal professional privilege exemption from the Ombudsman Act. The second matter of concern arising from the general meeting relates to the Ombudsman's responsibilities under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) (New South Wales) Act 1987, for ensuring that agencies carrying out telecommunications interception comply with all the necessary record-keeping requirements.
In reply to a question taken on notice about the inconsistencies evident between New South Wales and Commonwealth telecommunications interception legislation, the Ombudsman has provided the committee with a response that outlines several areas of concern, including that the New South Wales telecommunications interception regime appears to use an obsolete warrant in the form of the part VI warrants; the New South Wales Ombudsman is not provided with as much information regarding warrants for telecommunications interception as his Commonwealth and interstate counterparts—for example, the date and time of commencement and the duration of the interception; and the New South Wales legislation does not require the Ombudsman to examine those particular records.
The committee wrote to the Attorney General requesting his advice about these issues and was advised that the matter is under consideration with a view to amending the legislation in the spring session of Parliament. In concluding, I express my thanks to the Ombudsman and his staff for the detailed information they have provided to the committee. I also thank the members of the committee for their participation in the general meeting and their contribution to the reporting process. The committee's report is a consensus document representing the bipartisan and constructive approach taken by members of the committee to the exercise of its oversight role.
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Report noted.
COMMITTEE ON THE HEALTH CARE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
Report: Review of the 2006-2007 Annual Report of the Health Care Complaints Commission
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [10.28 a.m.]: I again seek leave to comment on the report of the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission entitled "Review of the 2006-07 Annual Report".
Leave granted.
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD It is with pleasure that I speak to the report of the Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission's 2006-2007 annual report. I express gratitude for the opportunity to do so and thank the Government for its consideration in allowing me to speak to the committee's second such report in the 24 October 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 10579
Fifty-Fourth Parliament. As members would be aware, 2008 has been a year in which the provision of health care in New South Wales has been under close scrutiny, and the review of the annual reports of the commission is an important way in which the Parliament plays a role in this vital scrutiny process.
Public misgivings have been expressed regarding the effectiveness of the commission's complaints-handling methods in fully exploring each and every complaint brought to its attention. When misfortune occurs with the delivery of health services, a natural response is to try to work out what went wrong, and the people of New South Wales need to know that at that juncture the commission is the appropriate body to find that out. As the committee Chair, the Hon. Helen Westwood, MLC, noted in her foreword to the committee's June 2008 report on the commission's investigations into Graeme Reeves:
Health care users have the right to expect that the Health Care Complaints Commission will promptly and properly investigate their complaints against health care providers, bearing in mind always the Commission's over-riding statutory responsibility to protect the public's health and safety.
Under section 3 of the Health Care Complaints Act, the commission's fundamental responsibilities are to receive and assess complaints relating to health service providers in New South Wales, resolve or assist in the resolution of complaints, investigate serious complaints that raise questions of public health and safety, and prosecute serious complaints. In oversighting these functions the committee is not to second-guess every decision of the commission; indeed it is expressly forbidden from doing so under the provisions of the Health Care Complaints Act. Rather, the committee's responsibility is to take a systems-wide view of the operations of the commission to ensure that it is protecting the health and safety of the public, and the leading way in which it does this is through the report review process. I now turn to some of the important components of the commission's 2006-07 report.
During the year in review the commission received 2,722 written complaints and 2,710 assessments were finalised. Importantly, I note that 83.7 per cent of complaints were assessed in the statutory time frame of 60 days and the average time for assessment fell from 61 days to 39 days. This is a significant and promising improvement on the past performance of the commission. In 2006-07 there was an average of 227 complaints per month about health service providers and 508 complaints about public hospitals. The commission is currently reviewing its complaints classification system to make it more specific, so that it can better communicate the information obtained from these complaints in dialogues with health practitioners about how complaints can be better managed. The new categories also will assist the commission to better identify complaints trends in relation to individual practitioners and health organisations.
Information-sharing relationships between key organisations in the health care system are, in the committee's view, crucial to ensuring an even greater measure of effectiveness in preventing failures in the delivery of health services in New South Wales. I am therefore pleased to note that the commission is exploring improved data analysis methodologies with the Director General of the Department of Health and the chief executive officers of area health services across the State, especially as gaps in information sharing appear to have played an important role in the tragic events surrounding the practice of obstetrics in the Bega region by Graeme Reeves.
In 2006-07, 307 complaints were referred for investigation and 381 investigations were completed. The average time for an investigation fell from 353 to 318 days, and nearly 70 per cent of investigations were completed within a 12-month period. The commission also has in place improved procedures for monitoring implementation of recommendations to other organisations, which is an important part of ensuring that once the committee has upheld a complaint against a health care provider the circumstances leading to the complaint will not recur. With respect to the 70 per cent "strike rate" of the commission's investigation process, I note that the commissioner admits that assessments cannot be done within the required 60 days for complex matters, for example hospital care complaints that may involve a number of medical practitioners and nursing staff over an extended period. Moreover, despite the commission's aim of persuading as many complainants as possible, there is not a significant take-up of the offer of conciliation. I can assure the House that the committee will continue to monitor these important areas of the commission's operations.
The commission's legal division has been restructured into two teams under team managers reporting to the commission's Director of Proceedings, Ms Karen Mobbs, with the division finalising 97 matters. During this time the commissioner referred 112 complaints about individual health practitioners to the Director of Proceedings. I am pleased to note that the record-keeping capabilities of the division were greatly enhanced by the adoption of the casemate system to support legal processes. On the legislative front, the Health Legislation Amendment (Unregistered Health Practitioners) Act 2006, which amended the Health Care Complaints Act and 10580 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24 October 2008
other Acts, came into operation on 4 December 2006. These important changes increased the commission's powers regarding unregistered health service providers and prevented practitioners deregistered in one area of practice from setting up elsewhere.
The ability of all potential complainants to access the commission's services, regardless of background, language skills, disability, et cetera, has been a recurrent matter of concern to the committee. Therefore, I am particularly pleased to advise the House that during 2006-07 the commission has been actively engaged in raising the awareness of its role in the community generally, and specifically in those groups who may have faced additional access difficulties. A visitor to the commission's website can now find out how to contact the commission in some 20 languages from Arabic to Vietnamese, and the commission plans to target its publications to culturally and linguistically diverse communities.
The commission planned to have a new process in place from 1 July 2008 to analyse the demographics of complaints received to determine what groups are under or over-represented in those attempting to access its health care complaints services. The committee looks forward to being advised by the commission of the outcomes of this demographic analysis. Importantly, the commission now has in place a customer survey process and sends out survey forms to all complainants and service providers. The commissioner has assured the committee that in respect of all complaints against a health practitioner that are investigated but not referred to prosecution, a complainant will receive a detailed final letter advising of the outcome, specifically the context of the complaint, the conduct of the investigation, the evidence gathered, any expert opinion on the practitioner's conduct, and the reasons for the commission's decision. The committee considers that these changes are positive steps towards more fully integrating complainants into the commission's assessment and investigation process and to making the process as a whole more user friendly.
In conclusion, I note that the committee considers that in 2006-07 the commission has undergone a process of considerable improvement in the manner in which it exercises its functions under the Act, and particularly how it engages with both health care complainants and others involved in the provision of health care in New South Wales. Given the widespread criticism of the commission, the committee considers that it is only fair that the efforts of the commission to address operational areas which the committee has previously noted as deficient ought to be placed on the public record. For the information of the House, I note that in its report on Graeme Reeves the committee also recommended that the Health Care Complaints Act be the subject of a thorough review with the aim of identifying and removing any unnecessary complexities in the health care complaints system in New South Wales. Subsequently, the committee has resolved to undertake such a review, pursuant to its responsibilities under section 65 of the Act, and will soon call for submissions.
In the foreword to the committee's review of the commission's 2005-06 annual report, the Chair noted that there were a number of areas in which the commission had "real need for performance improvement, both in terms of change and in the pace of that change". I inform members that the committee as a whole considers that in 2006-07 the commission has genuinely picked up that pace in the important areas of its internal operations and in its external outreach to raise public awareness of its services, and the committee looks forward to working with the commission to ensure that the pace and process of positive change are maintained.
COMMITTEE ON THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION
Report: Report on the Tenth General Meeting with the Police Integrity Commission
Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.
Mr PAUL PEARCE (Coogee) [10.37 a.m.]: The Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and Police Integrity Commission, of which I am Deputy Chair, held its tenth meeting with the Police Integrity Commission [PIC] on Tuesday 18 March 2008. The general meetings are a valuable tool for the committee to perform its work of monitoring and reviewing the functions of the PIC. This meeting constituted the first opportunity for the committee to exercise its oversight role since the commencement of the Fifty-fourth Parliament. At the general meeting the committee examined a number of issues with the PIC, but I would like to draw the attention of the House to two particular matters that were addressed.
The first of these concerns a jurisdictional issue raised by the Inspector of the PIC during his eighth general meeting with the committee on 8 November 2007. In his evidence the Inspector of the PIC informed the committee that the power of the PIC to oversight a relevant police investigation was, in his words, "unduly 24 October 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 10581
limited" by the terms of section 13 of the Police Integrity Commission Act 1996. Section 13 of the Act provides for the commission to have a watching brief in respect of investigations carried out by other agencies but does not provide the power to control or direct. This power could not, in the Inspector's view, be compared with the extent of the oversight powers that the Ombudsman has under part 8A of the Police Act. The committee takes very seriously any suggestion that the commission's powers are not adequate for its functions and accordingly raised the matter with the Commissioner of the PIC at the tenth general meeting.
The committee was pleased to learn that the commissioner considers the oversight powers currently available under the Act to be sufficient and the commission's self-referral powers would be an appropriate way to correct any potential deficiencies in the commission's oversight powers. Under these self-referral powers, should the commission be oversighting the investigation of a complaint matter by the police and become dissatisfied with that police investigation, it has the ultimate power to step in and take the matter over. The committee is grateful to the inspector and to the commission for putting their views on this matter at the respective general meetings. Whilst the committee is satisfied that the commission's powers are currently sufficient, should the commission raise any concerns with the committee regarding its ability to oversight the investigation of police complaints, the committee will act to ensure that the commission's powers are appropriate for its functions.
I now come to the second matter arising from the general meeting to which I would like to draw attention. In 2002 the then committee recommended as part of its "Trends in Police Corruption" report that the New South Wales Ombudsman, the Police Integrity Commission and the then NSW Police consider developing a system that would identify officers vulnerable to corruption. The report noted early intervention systems as a particular initiative being developed by a number of policing organisations around the world. The basic idea of an early intervention system is that law enforcement agencies use data on officers with problematic performance, mainly identified through their complaints histories, as a management tool to address bad performance before it worsens. Such systems have evolved from the theory that corruption is a slippery slope that begins as a series of small acts that then escalate.
During the general meeting, the commissioner discussed with the committee the role of the commission in assisting the New South Wales Police Force to develop an early intervention system. The commissioner particularly noted that the New South Wales Police Force must demonstrate its commitment to such a project by taking ownership of it. The committee endorses the position of the commission in relation to this matter. If the New South Wales Police Force is to develop, implement and maintain a meaningful early intervention system, it must embrace the initiative. A number of other Australian law enforcement agencies have implemented or are beginning to design early intervention systems, and early intervention systems are also a reasonably common feature of a number of American and Canadian police agencies.
The committee has resolved to establish an inquiry into early intervention systems to identify officers at risk of corruption, the use of early intervention systems in comparable jurisdictions and a suggested model of best practice. It is envisaged that this inquiry will make recommendations to the Police Integrity Commission and the Ombudsman about ways to assist the New South Wales Police Force in developing an early intervention system. In concluding, on behalf of the former chair of the committee I would like to express my thanks to the commissioner and his staff for the detailed information they have provided to the committee. I would also like to thank the members of the committee for their participation in the general meeting and their contribution to the reporting process. The committee's report is a consensus document representing the bipartisan and constructive approach taken by members of the committee to the exercise of its oversight role.
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Report noted.
COMMITTEE ON THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION
Report: Statutory Review of the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993
Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.
Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock) [10.42 a.m.]: I am pleased to report to the House on the inquiry of the Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman and the Police Integrity Commission into the statutory review 10582 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24 October 2008
of the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993. Some members will recall the introduction into this House of the Community Services Legislation Amendment Bill in June 2002. The legislative amendments contained within the bill provided for the amalgamation of the then Independent Community Services Commission with the Office of the Ombudsman. Given the opposition to this merger at the time, the Committee was especially pleased to learn that this opposition has largely dissipated. The bill also made substantial structural changes to the system of oversight of community service providers. This oversight system is especially important because the recipients of community services are amongst the most vulnerable members of our community: children and young people, older people and people with disabilities. Within this oversight system the Office of the Ombudsman plays a vital role. This role includes monitoring community services, conducting investigations and resolving complaints.
The committee took very seriously its role in conducting a thorough review of the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993. The Act stipulated that the statutory review had to determine the extent to which the policy objectives remain valid and whether the terms of the Act remain appropriate to securing the objectives of the Act. To canvass the views of relevant stakeholders the committee wrote directly to more than 2,000 organisations, advertised for submissions, held three days of public hearings and took a total of 42 submissions. A wide range of stakeholders representing people from indigenous and culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, people with disabilities, children and young people were among those who participated in the statutory review.
On the whole, the committee is satisfied that the policy objectives of the Act remain valid. Some legislative amendments could be made to enhance the achievement of the objectives of the Act. These include broadening the public reporting powers of the Ombudsman, and greater provisions for the use of advocates and enhancements to information sharing. It was evident to the committee that the Official Community Visitors program performs a vital role and enjoys widespread support from government departments, non-government organisations, peak bodies and others. The expansion of the Official Community Visitors program is strongly advocated for by the committee. The committee supports the position of the Office of the Ombudsman in relation to people with disabilities living in boarding houses, and has identified them as a group deserving of greater protections.
The committee commends the Office of the Ombudsman for its collaborative work with the New South Wales Department of Ageing, Disability and Homecare, the New South Wales Department of Community Services and other providers of community services. The committee will continue to take an interest in the issues raised during this statutory review and looks forward to identifying the positive contribution that the recommendations contained within this report make to the achievement of the objectives of the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993.
I would like to thank the Office of the Ombudsman and all of the organisations that gave evidence to the committee for their cooperation, insight and constructive comments. The committee appreciates the effort involved for agencies with scarce resources to participate in a statutory review and therefore thanks them accordingly. I would also like to thank my colleagues on the committee—the member for Coogee, the member for Tamworth, the member for Cronulla, the Hon. Lynda Voltz, the Hon. Charlie Lynn and Sylvia Hale—for their participation and their contribution to the reporting process. The committee's report is a consensus document that represents the bipartisan and constructive approach taken by members of the committee. I commend the committee's report on the statutory review of the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 to the House.
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Report noted.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (CLIMATE CHANGE)
Report: Conference Report, 13th Annual Conference of Public Works and Environment Committees of Australian Parliaments 2008
Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.
Pursuant to standing orders debate postponed. 24 October 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 10583
PUBLIC BODIES REVIEW COMMITTEE
Report: Report on an Inquiry into Web-Based Annual Reporting in the NSW Public Sector
Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.
Mr MATTHEW MORRIS (Charlestown) [10.48 a.m.]: It is with pleasure that I speak today on behalf of the Public Bodies Review Committee. I understand that a number of my colleagues will make a contribution to this take-note debate. The recent report of the committee on web-based reporting took some time to put together. However, this was an important opportunity for the committee to examine just how well our agencies are progressing in terms of making material available, particularly in a format that is suitable for distribution on an Internet-based medium. Annual reports are a key mechanism for public sector agencies to make themselves accountable to the public and the Parliament.
Australia has the tenth highest take-up rate of Internet in the home, with 70 per cent of households having access to the net. This level of access provides the Government with great opportunities to deliver information and services to the people of New South Wales, as evidenced by the Government's e-government service. The committee found in its inquiry that, to make the most of this medium, agencies have to stop "thinking print" from inception to delivery. Rather, the web must be recognised as an entirely new communications medium in order to fully exploit the great opportunities it has to offer.
The growth of e-government has implications for annual reporting. In 2006 the internal government red tape review recommended that government agencies be required to publish their annual reports on the Internet. Accordingly, the Annual Report (Departments) Regulation 2005 and the Annual Reports (Statutory Bodies) Regulation 2005 were amended to require public sector agencies to publish their annual reports on the Internet. In 2007 the Government's website style directive set out a common look and feel for government websites. The committee made a number of recommendations to take these developments further. Whilst current annual reporting legislation and the website style directive will do much to ensure web-based annual reports have a common look and feel, it is the committee's view that guidance should be provided to the New South Wales public sector to ensure that agencies maximise their technological advantages and minimise their costs. Accordingly, the committee recommends that the New South Wales Government Chief Information Officer provide a basic web-based annual reporting template for use by all New South Wales public sector agencies. Certainly, in my view, that is a positive step to ensure consistency across the board.
The inquiry revealed that there has been only limited progress in effectively monitoring the extent to which users were accessing annual reports online and in the identification of costs that may flow from the conversion of paper-based to web-based reporting. To this end, the committee considers that quantifying these will provide important indicators as to the public value of future web-based annual reporting. In relation to tabling annual reports as an accountability mechanism, the Parliament has always been the ultimate destination and repository of annual reports. The committee examined the accountability implications of web-based annual reporting and the suggestion that electronic copies of annual reports be tabled in Parliament. The committee concluded that while government agencies' websites that linked users to the annual reports of the agencies was a positive development, this did not, of itself, satisfy the desired criteria of independence, integrity and permanency of record that is so essential for accountability. Accordingly, the committee recommended that an electronic version of annual reports should be tabled in Parliament, in order to preserve the appropriate distinction between the Legislature and the Executive in the custodianship of that information.
One of the most encouraging findings of the inquiry was the potential for web-based annual reporting to make information accessible to those groups for whom the printed word has too frequently represented a barrier. These groups include people who have a visual impairment such as low vision or blindness. For example, during the inquiry the committee heard evidence from Vision Australia, which commented on accessibility issues relating to image files such as PDF and JPEG. Vision Australia emphasised the need for accessibility to be a key consideration in design from the inception stage—when the source documents were prepared—right through to the delivery point, when the final documents were offered as downloads from the website. As well as providing annual reports in PDF format, the committee is of the view that agencies should also provide that information in an alternative file type such as Word or HTML.
In addition, a contact name and number should be a priority for any government website that publishes an annual report in a format that cannot be accessed easily by persons using assistive technologies. The committee will monitor the extent to which new and developing technologies contribute to widening 10584 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24 October 2008
accessibility to these important accountability mechanisms. During the inquiry the committee heard from a number of witnesses, and I take this opportunity to thank them wholeheartedly for their contribution in helping the committee structure these recommendations. Nevertheless, as a package of recommendations to government, we will follow through and track their success in improving access to public sector annual reports via the Internet as the new medium form into the future. I should like to make a brief reference to the Australian Computer Society, which has an interest in all things technology and especially in what is happening with annual reporting and government agencies using technology to relay information to our New South Wales constituency.
Committee reports do not come about with great ease. I place on record my appreciation to my fellow committee members, who also took quite a bit of time out of their schedules to participate in the inquiry, to work through the issues and to help formulate recommendations. I pay tribute also to the committee secretariat, who put in a tremendous amount of work in formulating the report and coordinating hearings, and in their ongoing efforts to make sure that we as a government are accountable and that we use available technology to provide information to the people of New South Wales.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [10.55 a.m.]: After listening to the speech of the member for Charlestown, the chairman of the Public Bodies Review Committee, I must make a contribution as a former member of that committee. I appreciate the valuable work the chairman and his committee do, and congratulate them on that. The report has five recommendations, about which the chairman spoke. While quickly reading the report I noted that the issue of accessibility was raised and, in particular, measuring the effectiveness of web-based annual reporting. On page 10 of the report, paragraph 2.13 states:
The proposition that the web will increase accessibility to annual reports may be made with some confidence, given the revolutionary impact which the web has had on the delivery of information since its inception as a publicly available service in 1993.
We all agree with that. Internet technology certainly will advance at a great rate in the years to come. Paragraph 2.14 states:
However, whilst the Committee heard considerable evidence that web-based annual reporting can increase stakeholder accessibility and thus facilitate accountability, it did not receive sufficient information to form a view as to whether the NSW public sector could currently assess the extent to which that potential was being realised.
Therefore, I am surprised that the committee did not propose one further recommendation: to insist that the Parliament or government entities have a mechanism to quantify the use of the Internet for reporting. A sixth recommendation would have been appropriate because it would achieve a number of things. If an agency can report back that what it is doing is effective, more information can be added, which, in turn, will reduce the freedom of information [FOI] costs to government. The public will access that information more frequently and FOI costs will be reduced. I shall give an example. On 28 August I directed a question to the Minister for Health about renal care—No. 3793 in Questions and Answers. It contained a number of parts, including the following:
1. How many nephrologists are employed by Greater Southern Area Health Service and in which the town or city are they based?
2. How many endocrinologists are employed by GSAHS and in which towns are they based?
3. How many nephrologists are employed by NSW Health …?
4. How many endocrinologists are employed by NSW Health …?
The answer from Minister Della Bosca, the Minister for Health, to those four parts of my question is as follows:
The Department of Health routinely provides state-wide work force data in its Annual Report.
Similarly, all Area Health Services publish localised work force data in their Annual Reports. To answer these … question[s] in the level of detail requested would unjustifiably divert the resources of the Department and the Area Health Service away from the exercise of their core functions.
The point I make is that if there were reporting in greater detail in annual reports, or indeed on a web-based facility, the effort to which the Minister refers in answer to my question would be alleviated. In other words, the cost to government would be obviated. It would mean that people who should be accessing and gaining information they require would be able to use the Internet with confidence, but what we have is an archaic 24 October 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 10585
system whereby a member of Parliament has to place questions on notice to extract a reasonable response to a request from a Minister, such as: How many endocrinologists are employed by the Greater Southern Area Health Service? I can tell the House that there are none.
The purpose of my question was to highlight the fact that there is an enormous deficiency in the provision of those specialists. If the Minister cannot answer the question, despite the expectation that the public deserves an answer, it must be because there are none. That is the answer: There are none. I think it is reasonable to expect that the committee should have had recommendation No. 6, which would obviate a cost to government. It would infuse greater transparency and accountability if the people of the State who elect us could obtain information that is important to them. I congratulate the committee on its report, but urge the committee to go a step further and insist that more information is published in annual reports so that the public can be made aware that there is an inadequate number of endocrinologists and other important services; alternatively, if the Government is doing well with service provision and is achieving and doing well, it should tell people it is doing well and report it.
Mr ALAN ASHTON (East Hills) [11.01 a.m.]: As someone who is a well-known troglodyte, not in a political factional sense but as someone who thinks that a diary is a piece of paper in one's top pocket and that the web is something a spider crawls on, I found it interesting to be a member of the Public Bodies Review Committee under the chairmanship of the member for Charlestown. It is the only parliamentary committee I have been a member of. The committee examined web-based reporting and made essentially sound recommendations, even taking into account the point made by the member for Wagga Wagga.
In the past few years the committee set up the Premier's Annual Reports Award. When I was first appointed to the committee, we examined reports that were significantly glossy, but when read revealed not much information at all. Producing an annual report was just a function that bureaucrats had to undertake. Annual reports were tabled in Parliament and then were taken away to collect dust in a library. Under the initiative of the member for Charlestown, with the introduction of the Premier's Annual Reports Award, over the past couple of years excellence in reporting has been rewarded. Currently the award applies only to hard copy versions of annual reports. The report we are discussing suggests that there should be detailed criteria for online entries to the annual reports award, and that consideration should be given to extending the annual reports award to web-based reporting. Hopefully various government departments and ministries will take up that option and nominate their reports for an award. There certainly has been an increasing interest in preparing better reports.
By adopting awards for web-based annual reporting, the Premier's Annual Reports Award could highlight the importance of high-quality web-based annual reporting. I am impressed that the report argues it is time for government agencies to think about the web and that by "thinking web" agencies will be able to fully explore the potential of web-based technology, rather than using an electronic version of a document designed for hard copy presentation only. I thank people who provided evidence to the committee. I pointed out during evidence that if someone wishes to read a hard copy, such as the Legislation Review Committee's digests, and a hard copy is tabled in Parliament, it is essential to recognise that times have changed and take into account that many people have access to the Internet. Now that people can access the information in annual reports from their offices, homes, schools or classrooms, by fully utilising webs, public bodies can incorporate into their web-based annual reports greater functionality—something that I am very keen on.
Web-based annual reports would be able to provide readers with a navigation system, animation, audio and video, increased accessibility especially for users with disabilities, and portability of financial information by the use of XBRL. In practical terms, web-based annual reports will mean that instead of reading a series of words in a booklet, a report may become not only something that is published on a web and that people can read or print, but also something that enables people to investigate various aspects of web-produced material. For example, someone who wants to examine the annual report for Sydney Water could, by pushing a button, look at rivers and streams and compare catchments or take a virtual boat cruise across the river and look at what is happening in terms of riverbank erosion and degradation of rivers, such as the Murray River or other rivers in country areas. By accessing annual reports on the web, people would not have to visit an area personally to see what they are interested in.
Web-based reporting presents an opportunity to do a lot more than just produce a hard copy document on a web. The inquiry also found that the preference for web-based reporting is likely to increase when online technology is successfully incorporated into electronic annual reporting. I conclude my remarks by commenting on the points made by the member for Wagga Wagga. I appreciate that he was a member of the Public Bodies Review Committee for many years. The chairman of the committee has alluded to continuous monitoring of 10586 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24 October 2008
reports. Notwithstanding the points made by the member for Wagga Wagga and apart from the five recommendations that I want to see implemented, and that all of us want to see implemented, I want government to take up recommendations made by committees.
One of the beaut things about Friday sittings is having so many members discuss issues in Parliament. But there is not much point in setting up a committee and having members spend months considering issues, instead of the other things they could be doing, to produce a set of recommendations that are not acted upon. I seriously suggest that the Government should act on the five strong recommendations made by the committee and consider the proposed recommendation, quasi recommendation No. 6, suggested by the member for Wagga Wagga.
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Report noted.
COMMITTEE ON THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Report: Review of the 2006-2007 Annual Report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption
Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.
Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [11.06 a.m.]: It is with pleasure that I speak to the report, "Review of the 2006-2007 Annual Report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption". Evidence was taken online in July this year. One of the matters upon which the committee focused in relation to the report was the corruption prevention aspect of the commission's work. As many members know, the usual reports handed down by the commission to Parliament contain a series of recommendations that range from perhaps two recommendations to 20 recommendations or more. Recommendations are made to ensure that the agency or public authority that is the employer of a person affected by the investigation, or the authority itself, is able to implement recommendations so that further corrupt conduct is prevented and appropriate systems can be implemented. The committee decided to consider that aspect of the Independent Commission Against Corruption's work.
It is usually the case that after the report is handed down the commission forwards correspondence to an agency requesting a plan within three months of how the public authority will implement its recommendations. Thereafter there will be a progress report from that public authority after 12 months, and a final report after 24 months on how those recommendations have been implemented, or to confirm that the recommendations have been implemented. For some time the committee has noted that there have been delays in recommendations being implemented. In some instances the time limits of three months, 12 months and 24 months have not been adhered to strictly. One of the organisations that has come to attention is RailCorp.
RailCorp has been the subject of a series of reports from the early 1990s until now. The Independent Commission Against Corruption's commissioner recently handed down the final report in six reports dealing with RailCorp. The committee noted that some recommendations have not been implemented. Having said that, I hasten to add that the vast majority of agencies and public authorities in New South Wales either fully recommend all the recommendations or nearly do so. It is a system that is working reasonably well. However, in relation to RailCorp, there were instances of delays and time limits were exceeded. Subsequent to the committee's inquiry, some of those have been reported.
Under parts 5 and 8 of the Act, not only can the commission request a report or an investigation by the authority on corrupt conduct or alleged corrupt conduct within an organisation. The commissioner is able to enforce recommendations by requesting a report on how those recommendations have been implemented; and if not, why not? Part 5A provides for the commissioner to request that report from the agency. If the commissioner is not satisfied with the agency's response as to why recommendations cannot be implemented, he can refer that matter to the relevant Minister. If the commissioner is not satisfied thereafter, that can be reported to both Presiding Officers of the Parliament.
The commissioner, in his evidence, said that his power was used mainly to request a report after an investigation, and that he had not been focussing on the extended powers in parts 5 and 8 of the Act to request a report as to why recommendations are not being implemented. However, he said that he would make a point of 24 October 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 10587
focussing on those parts of the Act and use his power to ensure that an agency reported back to the commission as to why recommendations could not be enforced. It is important that all the commission's recommendations be implemented after a finding by the commission.
Nevertheless the committee considered it necessary to include a recommendation in its report, and that recommendation is that the Act be amended to make it a statutory requirement for relevant public authorities, agencies and government departments to provide implementation plans and progress reports in response to corruption prevention recommendations. If the provision is in the Act the agency or public body must submit a report by the time limit. That is important. It means that reports will be returned to the commissioner, who will be able to use his powers under parts 5 and 8 of the Act more readily and efficiently. That formed recommendation 1 of the committee.
Further to that, the committee recommended that the commission, in its annual report, list those agencies and government departments that have not been implementing recommendations. That will allow the committee to keep tabs on agencies that are not implementing recommendations. As I said, it is important that the public service operate in an efficient manner. If findings of corrupt conduct are made against individuals or groups of individuals in public service agencies, recommendations will ensure that that does not happen again; they will change the way things are done and provide structural reform within the government department.
The committee's recommendations are important. Firstly, there will be a statutory requirement that the public authority report back to the commission; and, secondly, if the agency or public authority is not implementing recommendations, they should be named in the annual report so that the commission and the committee can know which public bodies are not doing the right thing by the people of New South Wales. Those two matters form recommendations 1 and 2 in the report. That was the main focus of the report. The committee will be monitoring the commissioner's use of his powers under parts 5 and 8 of the Act to see whether he is using the extended statutory powers. I hope to be able to report on that in the next annual report.
Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [11.13 a.m.]: First, I join other committee members in thanking the committee staff, as I am sure the chair of the committee, the member for Maitland, intended to do. I also thank the member for performing well his role as chair. Further to the member's comments about the new statutory requirement for reporting by public authorities following recommendations, I want to highlight the clearly unsatisfactory responses from RailCorp. The member was perhaps a little kinder on RailCorp, but the committee, and indeed the commissioner, was not happy with the lack of response from that organisation. While the member correctly pointed out that most organisations are good in their response, frankly, RailCorp has been disgraceful in its failure to respond to recommendations from the ICAC. I am sure all members of Parliament expect to see a much higher level of response and better performance from RailCorp in many respects in the future.
Another issue, which was raised by the deputy chair of the committee, touched on the potential for the commissioner to brief politicians on the actual operations and scope of ICAC to ensure that all of us understand the role that ICAC plays. The commissioner responded by saying that he would be happy to address the Parliament or parliamentary representatives. In the spirit of bipartisanship I commented that I also thought it would be a good thing and that I expected that the suggestion by Mr Harris would be welcomed by all in the spirit in which it was offered. In that vein, I suggested one specific matter that I thought would be useful for the commissioner to address. Page 81 of the report states:
When a matter is sent to you for initial assessment or examination and does not proceed to a formal investigation, the tendency of parliamentarians and others is to then claim that the person concerned has been cleared or exonerated by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. I think that is distorting public perception as well as the integrity of proper process. Would you comment on that and whether it is an issue worthy to address?
The Commissioner responded:
I will address Parliament on that. You have to understand that sometimes there is a perception amongst members of the public that when a complaint comes to the ICAC it has nothing else to do except deal with that complaint. Of course, you have lots of complaints coming in, we have lots of inquiries going on, we have lots of work to do and we have to deal with each complaint in the context of the legislation, which itself recognises our discretion in this area.
Without labouring the point, I note that I asked the Premier a written question relating to that matter:
Is it strictly accurate to state that the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has "cleared" a person of corruption when that person's behaviour is merely considered, but not formally investigated, in the context of a matter referred to the ICAC?
10588 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24 October 2008
I do not believe the Premier's written answer published this week was satisfactory. It simply set out a definition of an "affected" person. Therefore I look forward to the ICAC commissioner's briefing to parliamentarians, which will hopefully properly address this issue.
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Report noted.
COMMITTEE ON THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
Report: Review of the 2006-2007 Annual Report and Audit Reports of the Inspector of the Independent Commission Against Corruption
Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.
Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [11.18 a.m.]: This report was the last report handed down by the Inspector, Mr Graham Kelly, who finished his tenure on 30 September this year. The inquiry was an opportunity to ask the inspector questions about a range of matters. Essentially, I can report to the House that the report contains three recommendations. Following on from the previous report, the inspector's accommodation at his current residence just outside the central business district is a matter of concern to the committee because his office in Redfern is a sublease without tenure.
Recommendation 1 is to the relevant Minister to reaccommodate the inspector at perhaps the McKell building at the southern end of the central business district or any other alternate accommodation where he can be closer to the central business district. This reportedly will make it easier to recruit and second staff and make it physically and pragmatically easier for him to operate his office. Recommendation 2 deals with statistics which, as has been reported in past reports, the committee found it quite difficult to interpret to gain any meaningful assessment of how the inspectorate or the commission operates.
In paragraph 1.11 on page 15 of the report the committee put forward a suggested model. The inspector has agreed that that model is appropriate and has undertaken to pass it onto the new inspector to use in his subsequent reports. Importantly, the inspector conducted two major audits: one dealt with section 12A of the Act, which is his assessment of serious and systemic corruption matters that should be taken up by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. The second dealt with the coercive powers of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, pursuant to sections 21, 22, 23, 35 and 54 of the Act. The committee rightly took the view that whilst the audit reports indicated an essential assessment that the commission is operating with propriety and above board, and is exercising its coercive powers very well, it found that the audit reports could be more wide-ranging and in depth.
The inspector gave evidence that the reports were made within the limited resources of his office. Recommendation 3 is that the relevant Minister should consider an expanded budget to the inspector so that he can undertake more wide-ranging and in-depth audits. Whilst this commission operates under very difficult and challenging circumstances it has very coercive powers to inspect, seize documents and conduct investigations. As has been noted and highlighted in the recent report by the commission in relation to a former member of the Legislative Council, Peter Breen, it is obvious the commission in using those coercive powers is in need of an inspectorate to make sure the powers are used properly. It is important for the inspector to produce wide-ranging and in-depth audits.
The inspector mentioned in his last examination that in his view the ICAC should be divested of its corruption prevention function, which I found quite interesting and which the committee considered. The report notes that it all points to one conclusion—that is, the commission in investigating and reporting on corruption, and receiving reports by all the relevant agencies to have the information at hand, the issue of corruption prevention is inextricably linked to that of exposing corruption. I believe, and I think it is the committee's view, that the practice of corruption prevention has to be linked with exposing corruption because the commission is privy to all the information needed to be able to form those recommendations. Having a corruption prevention component within the commission is very important.
It must not be forgotten that the commission travels around New South Wales conducting seminars and conferences to educate personnel in agencies and local councils about anti-corruption practices. It is important that those two matters come under the one umbrella. If the anti-corruption unit were moved to another 24 October 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 10589
government department it will remove that focus and it would not have the imprimatur and the stamp of authority of the commission in requesting or putting out that information. Everyone knows the commission has coercive powers, so that authority of the commission in making those recommendations is better placed within that department and not another government department. The committee, having considered that matter, is of the view that it should be contained in one department.
An issue that always arises is whether the commission should conduct prosecutions. The commissioner is of the view that the commission should have more of a say in prosecutions and perhaps should conduct prosecutions for offences under its own Act. The committee will look at that matter further down the track as it conducts further inquiries. Arguments have been put in favour of the commission conducting prosecutions under its own Act, perhaps in the Local Court. It would be a significant step for the commission to be able to do that. Arguments of conflict of interest have been put and other arguments that if it prosecutes matters under its own Act then there would not be difficulties and it could also have the benefit of reducing time delays that have been experienced by the Director of Public Prosecutions getting back to the commission with advice as to whether it can proceed on a matter.
Finally, as the member for Davidson pointed out, my great omission was not to thank the staff that helps the committee to compile these reports, which are not easy to put together. The committee's work is made very much easier by the help of the excellent staff of this committee. I thank the secretariat and all the staff for their tireless work involved in assisting the committee in putting together both the commissioner's report and the inspector's report. Committee members have thus far enjoyed an environment of goodwill, but the background and research work, and the preparing of briefings, and all the logistical work of organising hearings is carried out by committee staff who we do not thank enough. I put on record my appreciation, as the Chair, and no doubt the appreciation of all members of this committee for their tireless work in preparing days of hearings, briefings and the logistical challenges of coordinating all those matters and putting these reports together. I give them a big thank you. There is no way the committee would be able to do its work without their assistance and support.
Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [11.27 a.m.]: This report and the recommendations contained therein involve expenditure. First, I hope that an extra budgetary allocation will be in the mini-budget to facilitate the office move and the more in-depth and wide-ranging audits. Second, an area of possible audit that the inspector was happy to recommend was the practice of how the Independent Commission Against Corruption [ICAC] goes through the process of selecting people and how that is, or is not, consistent with its stated code of conduct. I am aware of two cases in the past year where there has been public controversy in that regard. I hope that area is audited in the future.
Third, I cannot stress enough the importance of recommendations being implemented. Just as it is important for public authorities to implement recommendations, and for that process to be tracked properly by the authorities and also by the ICAC, it is also important for recommendations of the inspector regarding the ICAC to be properly tracked—by the ICAC or otherwise. Likewise, the committee has highlighted the importance of its recommendations being tracked. In future there will be an increased alertness, awareness and importance attached to basic audit processes of tracking recommendations at all levels. That is an important aspect to highlight and an important initiative for us to keep an eye on.
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Report noted.
LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE
Report: Legislation Review Digest No. 11 of 2008
Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.
Mr ALLAN SHEARAN (Londonderry) [11.30 a.m.]: I briefly comment on the recent "Legislation Review Digest Report No. 11", dated 21 October 2008. This digest report examined 11 bills and reported on two regulations. As usual, a number of issues of concern were identified by the committee in the digest, and referred to Parliament for consideration. Accordingly, I take this opportunity to summarise for members some of those concerns, which included ill-defined and wide powers in the Adoption Amendment Bill 2008; retrospectivity in relation to the Adoption Amendment Bill 2008; right to property and retrospectivity in relation to the Mining Amendment (Improvements on Land) Bill 2008; reversal of onus of proof and deemed liability arising from the 10590 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24 October 2008
Public Health (Tobacco) Bill 2008 and the Water Management Amendment Bill 2008; arrest without a warrant, entry and search without a warrant, and privilege against self-incrimination in relation to the Water Management Amendment Bill 2008; and procedural fairness arising from the Criminal Procedure Amendment (Briefs of Evidence) Regulation 2008.
As has become the normal practice, the committee tables its digests at or before the commencement of the Tuesday sitting in order to allow its reports on bills to be available to members in time for the agreement in principle debate. I encourage members to utilise the digest reports, especially if they are interested in the specific details of the bills and regulations that had been scrutinised. In this regard, members will quickly become aware that the committee aims to be of continued assistance to members in their consideration of bills and regulations, it provides a brief summary of the bills and regulations and strives to alert members about the ongoing need to be aware of the possible impact of bills and regulations upon personal rights and liberties.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [11.32 a.m.]: I comment on the "Legislation Review Committee Digest No. 11". Firstly, I have been a regular contributor whenever the committee Chair, the member for Londonderry, delivers the reports because I value their content. I have made some hopefully constructive suggestions to the Chair from time to time. I am delighted that this week a copy of the report arrived on my computer via email, as has occurred for the past few months. I congratulate the Chair and the committee members on ensuring that that happens, as it is a very valuable document for members. I note also that 26 points have been raised in the summary of conclusions.
I have probably given the Chair a tickle-up regarding the report's content. I believe that for some time the reports were non-controversial. But, the 26 issues raised in the report are all relevant and useful in debate. I am interested to know whether, when the report is produced and received by members—I assume the Premier and Ministers would receive it via the same intranet email—the Chair receives responses on the concerns by Ministers in the time frame before the bill is debated in the House. Once the committee has deliberated and produced its report, does the Chair request or insist that the appropriate Minister provide a response to the concerns raised? For example, in the case of the Public Health (Tobacco) Bill 2008 there were some 26 issues of concern.
The committee had concerns with the commencement by proclamation. The report said that there may be good reasons why such discretion is required. The committee asked Parliament to consider whether a bill commencing by proclamation rather than on assent is an inappropriate delegation of legislative power. Members of Parliament are aware that there are concerns, but my concern always is that the Minister has taken the time to read the report and respond to the Chair, or whether the bill needs minor amendments before it gets to the House. I ask the Chair to take up that concern. In the interests of transparency and accountability, and good governance and good legislation in this place, it is only fair to request that Ministers respond to the Chair directly. The Chair can then telegraph that news to members, produce a further report or amend the original report.
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [11.35 a.m.]: I too compliment the Legislation Review Committee on faithfully producing a digest every sitting week. I too have a concern about the timeliness of this week's digest. On Tuesday I came into the Chamber for question time hoping to pick up a copy of "Legislation Review Digest No. 11", and I noticed that "Legislation Review Digest No. 10" was still on the table. The Adoption Amendment Bill 2008 was to be debated that day and I had to prepare my contribution as the shadow Minister for Community Services. I had hoped to obtain some information from the Legislation Review Committee report. I note that many concerns were raised about the Adoption Amendment Bill 2008, as set out on pages 8 to 17 of the report. Several issues were considered by the committee, because it is complex legislation. Obviously this legislation impacts on many lives in our community. Many people in this State seek to adopt, and every year several children are adopted within the State, so this legislation impacts on families and people's lives. I note that paragraph 31 on page 16 states:
The committee notes the broad discretion that the Director-General has in deciding whether to supply or authorise an information source to supply adoption information or other information under proposed section 140 (3) to be inserted by Schedule 1 [30]. The Committee further notes that there does not appear to be any guidance or factors on what will guide such a wide discretion when deciding whether to supply (or authorise an information to supply) adoption information or other information. This may result in such discretions making rights or liberties unduly dependent on insufficiently defined administrative powers. Accordingly, the committee refers this to Parliament.
Paragraph 32 states:
The Committee is also concerned with the retrospective effect of this amendment that may impact adversely on personal rights.
24 October 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 10591
These are significant issues in relation to the Adoption Amendment Bill 2008. The Minister for Community Services introduced the bill on 25 September 2008, during the previous sitting of Parliament. Therefore, a couple of weeks were available to provide a report on the bill. I support the comments of the member for Wagga Wagga that if a bill is considered early by the committee secretariat and if the committee's comments are written, perhaps members could receive those secretariat comments prior to the production of the report. I ask the committee to consider my suggestion. In the case of the Adoption Amendment Bill, by the time I got to see the report I already had my speech prepared for delivery as I am the shadow Minister. I did not get to put forward the views of the Legislation Review Committee in my contribution.
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Report noted.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
Report: Conference Report, 13th Annual Conference of Public Works and Environment Committees of Australian Parliaments 2008
Question—That the House take note of the report—proposed.
Mr NINOS KHOSHABA (Smithfield) [11.40 a.m.]: I speak on the Standing Committee on Public Works' report on the 13th Annual Conference of Public Works and Environment Committees of Australian Parliaments that was held from the 23 to 25 July 2008. The Public Works Committee had the pleasure of co-hosting this year's conference along with the Standing Committee on Natural Resource Management (Climate Change). The report covers the sessions of interest to public works committees. More than 60 delegates from Australian parliaments attended. This conference is the key opportunity for the New South Wales Standing Committee on Public Works to meet with similar committees from other Australian jurisdictions and to discuss issues and exchange ideas.
The theme of this year's conference was sustainable urbanisation, a topic that merged the interests and focus of both the public works and environment committees. As we look towards the provision of future infrastructure, sustainability will be a key requirement. Already we are seeing this reflected in public developments such as the new Justice Precinct in Parramatta. During the conference we had the privilege of hearing from some of the country's experts from academia, industry and government on infrastructure, planning, the environment and climate change.
In keeping with the conference theme the site inspections also focused on the issue of sustainability with a visit to the Parramatta Justice Precinct and a briefing on the proposed Civic Place redevelopment. Afterward, delegates travelled to Katoomba where they received a briefing by Blue Mountains City Council on their Blue Mountains Sustainability Activity Model, with examples of best practice catchment management and a discussion of other council-run sustainability programs. This was followed by a visit to Scenic World, which provides an excellent example of eco-tourism infrastructure.
The Hon. Tony Stewart, MP, then Deputy-Speaker of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly opened the conference. He discussed the importance of the conference's theme of sustainable urban development for the future wellbeing of the nation. He then introduced the then co-chairs of the conference, Mrs Karyn Paluzzano, MP, Chair of the then Standing Committee on Natural Resource Management (Climate Change), and Mr David Borger, MP, the then Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Works, who each welcomed the delegates to the conference.
The first speaker was Mr Martin Butterworth, Managing Director, Space Syntax. Mr Butterworth discussed the work of Space Syntax, which maps the way pedestrians actually use public spaces to travel to attractive destinations. He argued that such empirical evidence as the basis of infrastructure planning is far more effective than the notion of "build it and they will come", which can create underused public spaces. Mr Butterworth provided several examples from around the world where mapping of the routes people used improved potential designs.
Mr Butterworth was followed by Mr Mark Kirkland, Director, General Property Trust Group, Rouse Hill Town Centre Project. The Rouse Hill project is a joint venture between Lend Lease and the General Property Trust Group, in conjunction with the New South Wales Department of Planning and Landcom. 10592 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24 October 2008
Mr Kirkland described how the Rouse Hill Town Centre project attempted to create a sustainable urban design, efficient use of energy, resources and materials and a living town where people can work as well as live, incorporating leisure and entertainment. Attendees were particularly impressed with Rouse Hill's use of LCD lights to indicate vacant parking lots, which have cut exhaust emissions by 40 per cent.
The next speaker was Professor David Richmond, then New South Wales Coordinator General for Infrastructure, who spoke about how an infrastructure upsurge is occurring simultaneously with the greater focus on climate change. Professor Richmond highlighted that one of the biggest challenges in regard to infrastructure and metropolitan growth is how to achieve sustainability and strike a balance between economic, social and environmental considerations. Professor Richmond described how infrastructure planning required long-term thinking and pointed out that decisions made today might not lead to results for several decades and encouraged delegates to learn from positive examples of strategic infrastructure planning in other parts of Australia as well as from the private sector.
The second session consisted of a meeting of public works committees from the various jurisdictions around Australia. There were five committees represented: the Commonwealth Standing Committee on Public Works, the Queensland Public Works Committee, the South Australian Public Works Committee, the Tasmanian Joint Standing Committee on Public Works, and the New South Wales Standing Committee on Public Works. Delegates discussed their own inquiries and reports as well as exploring common themes and issues.
Session three covered the topic of financing public infrastructure. The first speaker for the session was Mr Mike Schur, Deputy Secretary, Office of Infrastructure Management, New South Wales Treasury. Mr Schur discussed the strategic context for infrastructure expenditure in New South Wales and the various methods for capital procurement, how unsolicited private proposals are dealt with, and some of the key principles regarding privately financed programs and projects and the results achieved.
Mr Schur was followed by Mr Greg Incoll, the chief executive officer of Incoll Management Pty Ltd. Mr Incoll considered that the private sector is now very focused on the environmental sustainability of infrastructure projects. The final speaker for the third session was Dr Patrice Derrington, the Director of the Queensland Urban Futures Board. Dr Derrington spoke on various funding options for public infrastructure including government-issued bonds and tax increment financing. She believes that there are some simple rules in selecting the best options.
Session four covered government urban planning strategies. The first speaker was Professor Chris Johnston, the Executive Director of New South Wales Planning. Professor Johnston discussed the history and future of city growth and planning in various places around the world, including the trend toward polycentric cities. Demographic and social changes emphasise the need to achieve balance and variety in the provision of housing in urban areas. Professor Johnson was followed by Mr Angus Dawson, the chief executive officer of the Growth Centres Commission.
Mr Dawson explained how the commission has a strong role in coordination. The commission gives resources to local councils and assists them in rezoning decisions. At the same time the commission works with State agencies to forward program the major infrastructure that will lead to release of the land. As the commission has the power under its legislation to take coordination away from key agencies if necessary, it has been able to achieve some very good outcomes in its first two years.
I take this opportunity to thank all the conference speakers for their excellent presentations. I also thank Parramatta City Council, in particular the Lord Mayor, David Barber, State Rail, the New South Wales Attorney General's Department and Blue Mountains City Council for making the site inspections so informative and enjoyable. I also thank the Hon. Rodney Cavalier, former New South Wales Minister for Education, Finance and Energy and the current chair of the Sydney Cricket Ground for his informative address on sportsground administration at the official conference dinner.
Last, but not least, as other chairpersons have done, I especially thank the staff at Parliament House for their hard work in putting the reports together and in assisting the committee to achieve it goals. I thank the attendants, catering staff and the secretariat staff, without whom this conference would not have happened. I commend the report to all members of the Legislative Assembly. This is an extremely important and pertinent topic, and the conference was an opportunity to learn from leaders in the field. 24 October 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 10593
Question—That the House take note of the report—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Report noted.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Debate on committee reports having concluded, the House will proceed to private members' statements.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
Question—That private members' statements be noted—proposed.
SYDNEY FERRIES: JETCATS AND RIVERCATS
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [11.50 a.m.]: I speak on behalf of the community, who are bewildered, shocked and in complete disbelief at the decision by the Premier and the Minister for Transport that was announced in Parliament yesterday and appears in the press today that the Government will solve the mini-budget crisis by attacking and reducing public transport. I speak very strongly on behalf of hundreds of thousands of commuters who use Sydney Ferries services every year. To blame them for the unreliability of services and for the financial mismanagement of the State is an incredible act that can only be regarded as one of complete desperation, lacking any strategic foresight and, as I will explain, highly politically motivated.
The Minister for Transport spoke yesterday about the cost of running the service. I point out to him that over the 5 years preceding the last 12 months Sydney Ferries' revenues went up 14 per cent but expenses went up 46 per cent. Members should ask themselves: Who is responsible for the mismanagement of Sydney Ferries and what is the cost base? I can tell them that Sydney Ferries costs are nowhere near efficient and do not marry with those of the private sector. If the private sector wants a deckhand it will pay $38,000 a year, yet it is quite okay for Sydney Ferries to pay a deckhand $68,000 a year.
If members want to understand the costs involved in Sydney Ferries they should realise the structure is completely bloated and inefficient and has no basis for comparison with the private sector. The Minister cannot say Sydney Ferries costs and JetCats costs are too high because the costs are driven by their complete mismanagement. It does not take Einstein to work out that if 27 per cent less was spent on maintenance over the past two years the reliability of JetCat ferries will decrease. That is exactly what has happened. It is a case study in mismanagement and they have no-one to blame but themselves.
It is ironic that the day before the Premier and the Minister for Transport spoke about the JetCats the Premier was depicted in the local Parramatta paper as the "ferry godfather" because he saved the Parramatta RiverCats despite what the Walker inquiry said. The Minister for Transport said he read the executive summary of the Walker report, not the whole report. It showed that JetCat ferries performed more reliably than the RiverCats, by 84.2 per cent to 83 per cent. The RiverCats cost more in maintenance—$529 an operating hour— than the JetCats, whose costs were $510 an operating hour. The RiverCats also had almost eight times the number of accidents that the JetCats had over three years from July 2004 to June 2007.
The JetCats are safer and more reliable and they cost less to maintain than the RiverCats, yet the Premier was very happy to save the RiverCats. What conclusion can be drawn from that? If the Government wanted a bipartisan approach to the mini-budget and a sensible approach to public transport it would not be investing funds to save its friends in marginal seats such as Parramatta and saving services there while happily taking away services from the people of Manly. The Premier and the Minister for Transport cannot blame a single community for their own mismanagement. They have to provide a service to Manly. We have had a high-speed service to Manly for 30 years.
The Government has not invested in The Spit solution or in providing more buses. In fact we continue to fight for the bus services we have. Express services are being reduced, as are services generally. That is incredible. I also note that we have a good opportunity in the mini-budget to fix the complete lack of financial discipline in this State. If the Government started to make really objective decisions it might be in a position to receive bipartisan support for the sorts of things that should be done to fix this State. However, if the Government turns the mini-budget into a complete political circus, which is what looks like happening, it will let down not only the people of Manly, as it has with the JetCat decision, but the entire State. 10594 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24 October 2008
PENRITH VALLEY SPORTS FOUNDATION
Mr ALLAN SHEARAN (Londonderry) [11.54 a.m.]: Last month I had the pleasure of attending the seventh annual Penrith Valley Sports Star of the Year Awards dinner. Each year the Penrith Valley Sports Foundation adopts a sporting theme as part of the evening's festivities and this year it recognised 100 years of Rugby League, 100 years of women's hockey competition in Australia and the feats of the Olympians from the Penrith Valley who recently participated in Beijing. A number of local Olympians, many of who are former winners of awards from the foundation, achieved stunning success at the Olympics. They were Jacqui Lawrence, who won a silver medal in kayak slalom; Robin Bell, who won a bronze medal in canoe slalom; and Kerry Wyborn, who won a bronze medal in softball after an epic final of 12 innings.
While these athletes stood on the podium, the personal bests and sheer commitment of Joel Milburn, 400-metre athletics, Torsten Lachman, K1 500 metres, Janelle Shepherd, judo, Lexie Feeney, archery, Luke Boyd, boxing, Mark Bridge, soccer, Luke Madill, BMX and former residents Matthew Nielson, basketball, Natalie Titcume, softball and Melissa Wu, now a resident in Queensland and the owner of a silver medal, were also acknowledged. A number of those Olympians were at the Sports Star annual dinner. In addition Paralympians John McLean, OAM, adaptive rowing, Kathryn Ross and Peter Leek, swimming, and Nicole Kullen, equestrian, were recognised. While John and Peter are also former award winners, Peter won eight medals, including three gold medals, and John won a silver medal.
The recognition of those associated with sport, particularly amateur sport, is an integral part of the foundation's philosophy. Each year, as well as announcing the winners of the Junior and Senior Sports Star of the Year, the foundation acknowledges those who have achieved in the areas of volunteering, coaching, refereeing/umpiring and administration. The Administration Award was won by Lin Falconer from St Marys Rugby League Club for her contribution over the past 30 years, 22 years of which have been as junior registrar for the junior league teams. Cheryl Dollin, who has volunteered in hockey for the past 35 years, was the recipient of the Volunteer of the Year Award. Cheryl has contributed at both club and Western District hockey level in a variety of positions. The winner of the Umpire/Referee Award was Helen Dolbel from the sport of netball. During the year Helen achieved her National A umpire's badge awarded under Netball Australia's national umpires scheme. The Coach of the Year was Dave Cartwright from St Marys Rugby League Club in recognition of his achievements in coaching the 14 Years Division 1 team during an undefeated season.
The Team of the Year was the Penrith Bears ice hockey team in recognition of winning for the first time the Goodall Cup, which is the championship trophy of the Australian Ice Hockey League. It has been contested in Australia since 1909, making it the fifth oldest known ice hockey trophy still being awarded. The 2008 Junior Sports Star was Natasha Jones, who was recently selected in the Australian canoe slalom squad. The Olympic 400-metre runner Joel Milburn was the Senior Sports Star of the Year. The Penrith Valley Sports Foundation also makes two prestigious awards—the Rising Star Scholarship and the Jim Anderson Memorial Award. The Rising Star Scholarship recognises the outstanding development and potential for achievement of a local athlete to perform at the highest level, either internationally or nationally. The athlete will already have been recognised for their achievements. Courtney Tairi, a young netballer from St Clair was the winner of this award. Courtney was recently selected in the Australian 21 and under team to tour Jamaica and New Zealand and is the first Penrith junior to receive such national honours.
Named to honour the memory of the late Jim Anderson, the Jim Anderson Memorial Award is awarded to a person in the Penrith District who has made a significant contribution either across a range of sports or at a level in a sport that is well respected by its peers in the State. It is fitting that Don Feltis, a long-time sports enthusiast and tireless worker in the administrative field of junior rugby league, was recognised. Don is not only well known in the Penrith District but also has been involved in preparing policies for the Australian Rugby League and restructuring the Darwin Rugby League, and is a former executive member of the Sports Foundation. Don has been involved with sport and rugby league in particular as a player, coach and administrator for over 50 years. Channel 9 sports presenter Stephanie Brantz, who has also enjoyed an outstanding sporting career, was the master of ceremonies. It is a reflection of the rich sporting history of the Penrith Valley that each year athletes, officials and administrators from so many different sports are acknowledged. Sport is one area that draws a community together and all volunteers associated with sport and the recipients of the awards are to be congratulated on their achievements.
EMERGENCY SERVICES VOLUNTEERS
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS (Lane Cove) [11.59 a.m.]: Recently I had the honour of visiting volunteer emergency service units across the State and meeting with their members. Over a two-week period I visited 24 October 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 10595
Lake Macquarie SES, RFS and the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol; the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol Pelican Flats; the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol Point Clare; Bundarra SES; Tingha SES; Armidale SES; Bellingen SES; Ashford SES and RFS, Inverell RFS and SES; Tuncurry SES; Tanilba and Lemon Tree Passage RFS; Port Stephens Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol; the Volunteer Marine Rescue, Coffs Harbour; Coffs Harbour SES; Tenterfield SES; Yetman SES; Lismore SES; Coraki SES; Woodburn SES; Richmond Valley SES; Gunnedah SES; Murrurundi SES; Muswellbrook SES and RFS; the Rural Fire Service headquarters in Manning; Great Lakes RFS; the Volunteer Rescue Association, Taree; Taree SES and RFS; Camden Haven SES; Tamworth SES and Uralla SES. Most recently I visited the State emergency service units of Lane Cove, Willoughby and Hunters Hill.
I thank those who made the trip possible, particularly David Lane, who is president of the SES Volunteers Association, Mike Stringer from the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol, Debby France from Coffs Harbour SES, Brett James from Lismore SES, Charlie Moir from Tenterfield SES and Daryl Marshall, the Hunter region SES controller, just to name a few. I also take the opportunity to promote the SES Volunteers Association website. I also thank the local MPs who welcomed me to their electorates and helped with arrangements for meeting local volunteers, particularly the members for Port Stephens, Myall Lakes, Coffs Harbour, the Speaker and member for Northern Tablelands, and the Hon. Michael Gallacher from the other place.
Our volunteer emergency service personnel across the State perform a magnificent job. Australia has a wonderful sense of volunteering, with around six million volunteers, about half a million of whom are in the emergency management sector. In New South Wales there are roughly 70,000 Rural Fire Service [RFS] volunteers, 10,000 State Emergency Service volunteers and 1,300 members of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol. While these figures are very encouraging, I will comment on a few observations I made while on this shadow ministerial tour. The lack of modern equipment is a major concern. The discrepancy between Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong and rural and regional areas is quite acute.
Dr Andrew McDonald: Point of order: Private member's statements are meant to apply to issues in a member's electorate. The member is discussing a shadow ministerial tour. You need to bring the member back to issues affecting his electorate.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member for Lane Cove referred to organisations within his electorate. I am sure he will speak more about the State Emergency Service units in his electorate.
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: While looking at Lane Cove and Willoughby SES units and SES units throughout metropolitan Sydney, 33 per cent of SES vehicles are more than 10 years old, with some even older. Even my local SES units have older vehicles. Wilcannia has a 25-year-old emergency response vehicle and White Cliffs has a 32-year-old primary accident vehicle. Often the premises are not much better. The SES headquarters at Canowindra is termite infested and its asbestos ceilings are propped up with wooden planks.
Dr Andrew McDonald: Point of order: The member is canvassing your ruling. Canowindra and White Cliffs are not in his electorate. This is a shadow ministerial statement, not a private member's statement. I ask you to bring the member back to the ethos of a private member's statement.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I have already asked the member for Lane Cove to refer to units within his electorate.
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: May I request an extension of time?
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Standing orders do not provide for an extension of time during private members' statements.
Mr ANTHONY ROBERTS: Our marine rescue personnel are forced to sell lamingtons to raise money to fund basic services. These organisations conduct up to 88 per cent of rescues in water police marine area commands and 100 per cent of rescues in other areas. I thank all our volunteer emergency service personnel, be they SES, RFS or members of our three marine organisations. Many of these men and women are struggling in tough times yet continue to give their time to serve the people of the State in their times of greatest need—an honourable task to which we should pay tribute. I thank all those responsible for making this State as safe as possible. [Time expired.] 10596 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24 October 2008
ELECTRIC BICYCLES
Mr KERRY HICKEY (Cessnock) [12.04 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House an issue that has been pestering people in the electorate of Cessnock for quite some time: assisted pedal cycles. Environmental issues, traffic movements and the way people move around within communities, especially in Sydney, should be on everyone's mind. This issue was brought to my attention in the electorate of Cessnock when Mr Trevor Patrick contacted my office in regard to the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] changing its website on 12 May 2008 as a result of a Supreme Court case. On 5 June 2008 the court ruled that E-bikes had to be registered and licensed for road use—in Cessnock and in other electorates. We need to follow the history of this case. On 29 December 2005 Mr Patrick emailed Mark McIntyre of the RTA, stating:
Good afternoon, my company; Easy Ride, imports a large range of electrically assisted bicycles. The bikes are fitted with a working set of pedals and chain and a hub motor fitted with an output of 200 W.
We have to date relied on your vehicle standards information of 27 April 1998 to define the bikes that we are selling. While fitted with a range of plastic fairings and lights, they are generally constructed on a lightweight metal frame similar in which the conventional step through frame. I have attached a copy of the manufacturer specification sheet that we used in applying to import the bikes through the Department of Transport and Regional Services.
I have been verbally advised today that the April 1998 version of the vehicle standards information has been updated to 2003, however, I am unable to locate the updated version on a Web site. I would appreciate your advice.
Regards, Trevor Patrick.
Then Mr Patrick received an email from Mark McIntyre with this advice from Mr Harry Vertsonis:
The position we are taking is provided the vehicle bicycle has two wheels in line, has a seat, operating pedals connected to a wheel which can be used to propel the rider and bicycle and steering for the front wheel, and importantly has a motor or motors that does/do not produce more than 200 W, then it will be considered motor assisted pedal cycle. I hope that helps.
Harry.
I do not confess to be a lawyer but I do know what is right and wrong. If someone starts a business on the advice of the RTA and that advice is changed, the company can be put out of business, and tens of thousands of people are left with products sitting in the shed, through no fault of their own. Should someone not at least look at the legislation and consider the environmental, social and health benefits of these products for the communities that we represent? Any person who purchased an E-bike and has been convicted of driving an unregistered vehicle has not received justice. It is important the House look at this issue with the view to fixing it. Bureaucrats within the RTA allowed the sale of these E-bikes, only to change their position because of an absurd court ruling.
On 28 September 2008 I read in that great journalistic paper the Sunday Telegraph that posties in South Australia are looking at using E-bikes to counter high petrol prices. Australia Post will use these bikes, which are more environmentally friendly than motor vehicles, to combat high fuel prices. They will be tested by Australia Post in Adelaide. A similar plan will be rolled out in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. The article went on to say that Australia Post was hopeful that it would boost recruitment by attracting people without motorcycle licences. The Minister responsible needs to look at the problem.
Many of my constituents bought these E-bikes from Easy Ride. My constituents do not have licences and the bikes are not registered. They are sitting in the shed gathering dust. I request the Minister responsible look at the issue and find a way forward, not just for the many purchasers of these E-bikes, but also for Easy Ride, the company that was importing and selling them on the advice of the RTA. The health and environmental benefits of using E-bikes will greatly benefit our State and ease transport around this great city.
PAMBULA AND BATEMANS BAY DISTRICT HOSPITALS
Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (Bega) [12.09 p.m.]: I bring to the attention of the House—and to the Parliamentary Secretary, the member for Macquarie Fields, who is a doctor by profession—concerns relating to the Pambula and Batemans Bay hospitals, in the electorate of Bega. Pambula Hospital has its difficulties, which vary between communities. Recently, the Government decided to close the maternity unit at Pambula Hospital. The decision came 18 months after the introduction in January 2007 of a system of alternate operation of the maternity units at the Bega and Pambula hospitals.
As a result, a stop-start situation had existed whereby in one week the Bega maternity unit would be open, but next week it would close and the Pambula maternity unit would be open, with consequent transfer of 24 October 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 10597
women between the two maternity units. Some weeks ago the Government finally made the decision to close the maternity unit at Pambula. The major issues stem from a lack of staffing, particularly on-call theatre staff and nurses. It is unacceptable that birthing mothers have been transferred between the two hospitals as a result of the roster system. The major downside of the closure is the loss of four rural general practitioner obstetricians at Pambula Hospital.
I propose a plan of action that is supported by the community, medical staff and health administrators. I am very keen both to have and for there to be further discussion between the Government and the medical staff and nurses at Pambula hospital to identify what is possible in the immediate term. Firstly, it is important that there be re-engagement of the doctors who resigned in protest. It is important that there be engagement with the nursing staff to listen to their concerns and work on strategies to address low morale at the hospital. It is important also that there be an immediate overhaul of governance at the hospital, with the appointment of an independent board of administrators that would include community representatives, nurses and doctors who are empowered to implement a new system of management and decision making. That should be in place only until the next State election, when hopefully the Coalition will implement its hospital board policy, which would see a board preside over both Bega and Pambula hospitals.
Secondly, it is important that the clinical services plan be revamped, in light of the decision to shut down the maternity unit, in order to enhance services and better utilise the operating theatre at Pambula. There are options. Some specialist may consider moving to Pambula hospital, thus providing greater community confidence in the facility's future. There is also a need to upgrade the facility and improve maintenance. Equally importantly, a mechanism needs to be found to ensure better coordination between the two hospitals, even though Bega and Pambula hospitals are dependent one upon the other. Finally, I would like clear performance benchmarks put in place at Pambula hospital. That ties in with the ongoing governance structure at the facility.
Closure of the Pambula hospital maternity unit has been very difficult. Such decisions need to be made, first and foremost, on the premise of public safety. The current system is not good enough. We hear stories of women being transferred between the two facilities. I understand there was one instance of five women being transferred, and I am further advised that two of those women had just had caesareans and another two were in labour. That is totally unacceptable. I acknowledge that the closure results from lack of staffing, particularly on-call theatre staff and nurses, and not as a result of doctor shortages. But in order to move forward, the Government must give a commitment to properly resource the single maternity unit at Bega hospital.
I now move to Batemans Bay hospital. As of Monday, the clinical specialist nurses roster for the emergency department will be cut back from two nurses to one, with an enrolled nurse being brought on. This raises public safety, workforce, and occupational health and safety issues for nurses at the facility. Today, doctors have been publicly expressing their concerns. Many of the principles I have outlined in relation to the future plan for Pambula hospital should be applied to the Batemans Bay hospital. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take up these issues with the Minister for Health to ensure that these issues are addressed, given their serious nature.
Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.14 p.m.]: I thank the member for his statement and I acknowledge his commitment to his electorate on this issue. As he is aware, there is a worldwide shortage of anaesthetists and obstetricians, so this is an issue for more than just his electorate. I expect the member will approach the Minister on this issue, and I urge him to do so.
COLEDALE AND THIRROUL FIRE BRIGADES
Mr PAUL McLEAY (Heathcote) [12.15 p.m.]: I draw the attention of the House to issues raised with me by Mr Darrin Sullivan of the Illawarra branch of the Fire Brigade Employees Union. I thank him and his fellow officers for their diligence and for their commitment to the protection of the safety and wellbeing of our fellow citizens. As part of the wages decision the Industrial Relations Commission considered and adopted reforms to current staffing arrangements at a number of strategically located fire stations that are staffed by retained firefighters. A retained firefighter is an "on-call firefighter" who generally has other full-time employment, but works and lives close to his or her assigned fire station. Retained firefighters are not based at the station; rather, they are paged and called in for duty when required for a response. It has been past practice that if the number of retained or on-call firefighters available for duty fell below the minimum crewing levels, off duty full-time firefighters were recalled on overtime to sit in the retained station for that shift.
As part of the independent umpire's decision, and in line with a proposal originally put forward by the Fire Brigades Employees Union in 2006, if crew availability falls below the minimum requirement in any of the 10598 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24 October 2008
identified stations, fire protection is provided from a neighbouring fire station. This removes the need to call in full-time firefighters on overtime. Those retained firefighters still available to be on-call for the affected station will continue to respond to emergency calls, in tandem with the firefighters from the neighbouring station providing coverage. Clearly, community safety comes first. That is why this arrangement will not occur during high-risk bushfire days and will only occur at on-call fire stations for which coverage can be adequately provided by neighbouring fire stations.
The fire stations that may be impacted if staffing drops below minimum numbers in my electorate are Coledale and Thirroul. In the case of Thirroul fire station, the response area for this station is also covered within Fire Brigades response time standards by full-time fire crews at the nearby Bulli and Coledale fire stations. Thirroul station has a captain and 17 staff as its usual component; it currently has 18 plus a captain due to a transfer. I have asked the Minister to consider lifting the established number of staff at these stations to ensure that they have no need to be temporarily unable to fill the roster. This was recommended by the Fire Brigades Employees Union, and I support this initiative.
It has been past practice that when the availability of retained firefighters drops below the minimum safe staffing level of four firefighters, off-duty, full-time firefighters or retained firefighters from other fire stations have been recalled on overtime to stand by at a fire station for the period of the availability shortage, even if there are no incidents to respond to. In 2006 a risk analysis identified that 33 of the 240 retained fire stations could be effectively covered by nearby fire stations if firefighter availability dropped for short periods when fire danger is low. This means full-time firefighters will not be required to cover those vacancies, which will reduce overtime costs by up to $1.5 million a year. These savings are to be converted to pay rises for all firefighters.
Available retained firefighters at affected stations will still attend any fire in their area, along with the crew from the neighbouring fire station. Community safety will not be compromised in any way. Necessary checks and balances have been put in place. These staff arrangements will only operate in uncommon circumstances, where full crews are available in neighbouring fire stations and there is a low fire risk. All fire stations will remain fully staffed during periods of total fire ban and very high to extreme bushfire danger. The Government will continue the recruitment of retained firefighters as an ongoing process due to regular staff turnover.
Currently New South Wales Fire Brigades is having a drive to recruit additional retained firefighters to maximise staff availability, and this recruitment drive will continue. As stated earlier, I have asked the Minister to consider lifting the established numbers at Coledale and Thirroul to ensure that levels do not fall below the minimum on-call arrangements and that retained firefighters are always available for duty. I thank New South Wales Fire Brigades officers, particularly those in my electorate, who are geographically challenged by the combination of urban and bushland areas. I thank them for their diligence, hard work and commitment to the community of New South Wales.
PRESCHOOL SPEED ZONES
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [12.20 p.m.]: I have lodged in Parliament petitions bearing the signatures of many thousands of people from across my electorate and the entire State calling for the introduction of 40-kilometre-per-hour zones in the vicinity of preschools. The call for 40-kilometre-per-hour zones near preschools originated in Cowra last year when I met with Jenny Kelly, Barbara Edwards and Rowena Casey from the Cowra Country Women's Association, a wonderful organisation. Their members asked me to highlight the need to increase safety at preschools and, in particular, the need to introduce a 40-kilometre-per-hour zone outside the Cowra Early Childhood Services Cooperative on Comerford Street, Cowra.
Last year in the House I spoke of this cooperative, which houses the Cowra Family Day Care, Cowra Early Intervention and the Carinya long day care and occasional care centre. Each week more than 200 children use these services. The petition for the introduction of a 40-kilometre-per-hour zone in Comerford Street alone drew 312 signatures. As a mother of two young children, I know how hazardous it can be removing small children from the car and then crossing a busy street to deposit them at a childcare centre. From its Comerford Street beginnings, the petition is now statewide and the response has been enormous. This issue is obviously of great concern to a large section of the community. Indeed, it was raised at the Country Women's Association national conference at Jindabyne in May last year. 24 October 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 10599
At the conference the Cowra evening branch put forward a motion requesting the New South Wales Government to direct the Roads and Traffic Authority to put up signs requiring motorists to slow down to 40 per kilometres per hour when driving in the vicinity of preschools. The motion was overwhelmingly supported by the conference. I will quote from a letter written to all members by the honorary secretary of the Country Women's Association of New South Wales, which stated:
Presently there are 40 kilometre zones around schools but not preschools. There are even 40 kilometre zones for leash free areas for dogs! We feel that 40 kilometre zones are most important at preschools, as the children are very young, and often unpredictable with no sense of road safety. Carers need to be constantly aware of passing motorists as they keep control of the children and at the same time juggle the associated belongings such as pillow, bag and lunchbox …
We write to ask for your support in signing the enclosed petition and returning it to Katrina Hodgkinson MP.
In response to that letter from the magnificent Country Women's Association, petitions have flooded in to my electorate office from all over the State, and I have duly lodged them in Parliament. Petitions have arrived to my office from Country Women's Association branches in Bingara, Illabo, Baradine, Dubbo, Kyogle, St Leonards, Dapto, Narooma, Evans Head, Gresford, Blaxland in the Blue Mountains electorate, Campbelltown, Blacktown, Beverley Hills and many more branches across State. There has even been a couple of petitions from interstate, so widespread is this concern for the safety of under five-year-olds—all stemming from the action of the Cowra branch of the Country Women's Association.
Parents and carers of children are concerned about the lack of warning signs informing drivers of the presence of small children. Potential danger in the vicinity of preschools and childcare centres is building with increasing congestion on our roads, in both metropolitan and regional areas. Across New South Wales all high schools and primary schools have 40-kilometre-per-hour zones yet the New South Wales Labor Government has failed to provide the same protection to families with children younger than five years of age. Older children are protected by the speed reduction from 50 kilometres per hour to 40 kilometres per hour at the start and end of the school day, so why is the same directive not extended for the safety of very young children? Some years ago a lower speed limit was enforced between the hours of 8.00 a.m. and 9.30 a.m., and 2.30 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. to make drivers use extra caution at those times. In fact, in the Australian Capital Territory school zones are enforced all day from 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.
It is imperative that the same restrictions are put in place around early childhood centres so children can be dropped off and collected safely. Drivers need to be constantly aware that they are driving in the vicinity of young children at preschools. I support wholeheartedly the push by the Country Women's Association for 40 kilometre speed limits to be introduced at preschools. As the secretary pointed out in her letter to members, it does seem an anomaly that 40-kilometre zones are in place at infants, primary and high schools yet not at schools where children are arguably the most vulnerable. I call on the House to urgently address this anomaly for the future safety of our little people. I am indebted to the Country Women's Association, which has branches across my electorate, the State and the nation. The association undertakes great work in our community and does not hesitate to let us know the views of its members, particularly on issues pertinent to children, safety and women—especially country women. I applaud that organisation, and urge the House to support this valuable initiative.
WOODBERRY FAMILY CENTRE
Mr FRANK TERENZINI (Maitland) [12.25 p.m.]: On 25 March 2008 I attended the opening of the Woodberry Family Centre at Lawson Avenue, Woodberry. The centre comprises a newly constructed building that represents the latest and most innovative model in the service delivery of early intervention and prevention for parents and young people, especially the disadvantaged. The Department of Community Services allocated $1.9 million from its unexpended Brighter Futures Program to build this new facility, which is run by the Benevolent Society and which also houses the Samaritans and Catholic Care. The aim of all three stakeholders and carers is to ensure best practice in providing early intervention and prevention.
The service, which is located in the main street, provides 30 long day care places for children, group room facilities to conduct parenting programs, and office space for visiting specialists to help families deal with personal issues. It is possible now for families, particularly those suffering disadvantage, to visit the centre and receive information from various agencies, including the Department of Community Services, about a range of family matters—be it parenting, economic, social and cultural issues or anything else. Accommodation is even available for young single parents who simply want some time out to shop or work. They can leave their children in that centre knowing they will be looked after properly. 10600 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24 October 2008
Construction of the building was a collaborative effort between Maitland City Council and the Department of Community Services. Maitland City Council owns the land but it agreed to donate it and to project manage construction of the building. The project is a great win for families and young people in Woodberry and the surrounding districts. The centre represents the latest in a range of services in the Maitland area, including the newly renovated Juvenile Justice Centre, the Family Relationships Centre, the newly renovated Police Community Youth Club and the Youth Crisis Centre to ensure that young people and families are looked after in times of need.
Maitland is a growing community. New families coming to the area must be supported and young parents must be given the skills they need to look after their families. That is a high priority for me, especially in these difficult economic times. I take this opportunity to thank the people and organisations that have brought this project to fruition. First, I thank Maitland City Council. I particularly commend Mr David Evans, General Manager, who was master of ceremonies at the official opening, for his fantastic work. I thank also the Department of Community Services and its tireless officers, who work under very difficult circumstances.
I commend also the Benevolent Society, the Samaritans and Catholic Care and, last but not least, the former Minister for Community Services, the Hon. Kevin Greene, who gave a wonderful speech on the day. During his tenure as Minister for Community Service he visited the area frequently and was always able to allocate funds to the area or to open facilities. I refer particularly to the newly refurbished Department of Community Services office at East Maitland, funding for Carrie's Place refuge, and the Woodberry Family Centre. I am grateful for that funding, for the Hon. Kevin Greene's time as Minister and for the way he supported growth in Maitland through his assistance to families.
GREATER WESTERN AREA HEALTH SERVICE
Mr KEVIN HUMPHRIES (Barwon) [12.30 p.m.]: The Greater Western Area Health Service serves 200,000 people in Western New South Wales in two-thirds of my electorate. Recently in the upper House Duncan Gay had to ask three questions before the Minister for Health admitted that the Greater Western Area Health Service owed more than $16 million in unpaid bills, based on the 45-day benchmark limit. It took a number of further questions for the Minister to reveal that the Greater Western Area Health Service owes Catholic Healthcare's Lourdes Hospital more than $2 million in unpaid invoices for services. Lourdes Hospital provides rehabilitation services to western New South Wales. The Government also will not give a commitment to the $18.5 million redevelopment of Lourdes. The only answer received to date is to "wait for the mini-budget". Recently the medical staff of the Greater Western Area Health Service passed a vote of no confidence in management.
I note that Minister Della Bosca is in Dubbo this weekend. I hope he takes the opportunity to address a number of serious issues. Over the past 12 months I have dealt constantly with health-related issues across my electorate. They included service decline in primary and allied health care; inconsistent management at all levels; poor staff morale and retention levels—last year 337 nurses left the Greater Western Area Health Service—unpaid bills; lack of clinical and community consultation in any management or planning levels; inability to outline and develop health service planning delivery; blatant discrimination against isolated communities, such as Goodooga; poor understanding of the needs of rural and isolated communities in health service delivery; and poor networking outcomes when dealing with general practitioners, other primary health care providers such as the Aboriginal Medical Service, and philanthropic groups such as Poach and various universities.
The Greater Western Area Health Service has demonstrated a general reluctance to engage with any of those groups, and the result has been a decline in health service delivery for residents in western New South Wales. Money is not the issue—I believe the Greater Western Area Health Service is a black hole that lurches from one disaster to another. The only growth has been in the recruitment agencies it engages and the number of fly-in, fly-out management people. To date I have been contacted by a number of whistleblowers. I acknowledge the involvement of the member for Dubbo in this area—copies of most correspondence have been forwarded to her. People now are speaking out about the neglect of the Greater Western Area Health Service and its failure to prioritise health services.
The Greater Western Area Health Service has 328 people employed in management, 383 employed as health professionals, and 745 employed in administrative staffing. Management and administration have expanded at the cost of health provision. The message is simple: people are continually being shuffled around. I have dealt with three cluster managers from Castlereagh in the past six months. No priority is given to nursing 24 October 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 10601
staff, speech therapists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, dieticians or social workers. There are vacant positions in all these specialties in Cobar, Coonabarabran, Bourke, Nyngan and Warren. They have deliberately not been advertised in order to save money.
The Nurses Association constantly receives complaints about the Greater Western Area Health Service's lack of commitment to filling front-line positions. The Minister must act now because the model is wrong. I appreciate that one cannot keep complaining without trying to provide solutions. I have offered my thoughts to the chief executive officer and the director of finance, and I have made representations to the previous Minister regarding health models in western New South Wales. I even offered to pay some of the bills. People now are coming forward to report intimidation and their inability to speak out because of fear of reprisal. It has now been revealed that special-purpose Commonwealth funding has not been used for its intended purpose—that is, professional development and resources.
As a result nurses are not receiving professional development. I believe this is why some maternity services are at risk, particularly in Coonabarabran. I thank Debbie Mukhar for her efforts on this aspect. Specific clinicians have been engaged to service the area, but motor vehicles have not been provided to enable them to travel around. The Greater Western Area Health Service is overrun with displaced executive staff and displaced non-political positions. I suspect also that it is being funded by State and Federal special-purpose funding, which I believe perhaps is illegal. This approach to health services places budgets over lives, reinforces incompetency and shows no respect for the good people working on the health front line. The Greater Western Area Health Service has 1,073 management and administrative staff compared with 383 health professionals. The Minister needs to act now.
MANILLA
Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [12.35 p.m.]: According to the book Names of Railway Stations in New South Wales, by C. A. Irish, Manilla originates from the Aboriginal word "muneela", meaning "round about" or "winding river". That is very appropriate as the Manilla and Namoi rivers almost encircle the town. Manilla is a community I have always enjoyed being round about as it is an important town within the electorate of Tamworth. With a district population of about 2,100, Manilla is located in very picturesque country on the junction of the Namoi and Manilla rivers. It is at the centre of a district engaged in wheat growing, mixed farming, wool and cattle.
The first European settlers arrived in the 1830s and the township was established in the 1850s when George Veness built a store, shop and residence. He became the first postmaster in 1856. While the Manilla and Namoi rivers are the lifeblood of the town, they have also caused great problems. In 1864 a flood swept away Veness' store and other buildings on the river, resulting in four deaths. I am sure surveyor Arthur Dewhurst took this event into account when he mapped and named streets for Manilla's first town plan later that year. Despite some hiccups in those days, Manilla has developed into a friendly and welcoming community.
I am proud to represent the people of Manilla in State Parliament as my connections with the town go back many years. My grandparents Mary and Bob Riley had a small farm outside the town where I lived. When Bob's health deteriorated I looked after the property for him. I also worked as a barman at the Manilla RSL Club where I met local girl Sharon Blanch, whom I married in 1984. I have a great fondness for the town and a strong respect for its residents. I was very pleased recently to present State grants to two local organisations that will assist them with their ongoing work. I presented $2,500 to the Manilla Historical Society to help it purchase a laptop, scanner and printer for use by its volunteers. The acquisition of this new technology will allow the organisation to secure copies of privately kept materials whilst respecting the desire of collectors to retain those items. This will eliminate any concerns that collectors have about lending photos or documents to the society.
Manilla Historical Society has been caring for local items of historical importance for the past 35 years. As a result, the combined Royce Cottage Collection and Manilla Community Archives have developed into a significant repository of Australian rural history. One of the most fascinating displays relates the story of Harry Burrell, who, in the early 1900s, carried out groundbreaking research on the local platypus population. Times have changed since he developed a mobile platypusary, which was constructed to prepare captive platypus for the long sea journey to America. Burrell published his book The Platypus in 1927, and was awarded an OBE in 1934. His research collection is held at the National Museum of Australia, while his correspondence is at the American Museum of Natural History and in the Manilla Archives. A replica of the Burrell platypusary can be viewed in the old bakery room at the rear of the Manilla Museum. It is one of many fascinating exhibits on 10602 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24 October 2008
display at the museum. I commend society president, Ian Bignall, and his hardworking team of volunteers for maintaining this valuable collection for future generations, and keeping the museum open seven days a week for visitors.
I was also pleased to present $2,000 to the Manilla Rugby League Football Club to help it purchase a portable public address [PA] system for home game announcements. Manilla re-entered the group 4 second division competition in 2007, and finished third this year. The committee has done a fantastic job rebuilding the team. Players, supporters and sponsors have combined to ensure that the Tigers have a strong and secure future. The community is very fortunate to have such high-calibre people on the committee, guiding the club into the future. I hope the new PA system will help them continue their wonderful work. An important reason for resurrecting rugby league football in Manilla was to give young people an opportunity to become involved in local activities.
The club has had a fantastic response from locals willing to play football for their community. Similarly, a lot of support has been forthcoming from local businesses and individuals. Authorities are forever telling us that we need to be more active, so government assistance for organisations like the Manilla Rugby League Football Club sends a strong message regarding their value to rural communities. The club is to be congratulated on the opportunities it provides for the young people of Manilla. I had a wonderful day when Manilla played my Dungowan Cowboys football side, and I look forward to another very close and exciting competition in the coming year. Community spirit is alive and well in Manilla.
Over the weekend of 4 and 5 October the Manilla Volunteer Rescue Association staged its inaugural Antique and Collectors Fair as part of its fundraising efforts to purchase a new rescue truck. The fair attracted visitors from Victoria and Queensland as well as from across New South Wales. Thirty-four individual collections were on display, and six antique dealers attended the fair. The Volunteer Rescue Association is well on the way to replacing its 1981 LandCruiser, and plans another fair for 2009. Volunteers are the heart and soul of Manilla, and they are a compelling reason for the Government to continue supporting organisations that make country communities like Manilla such a great place to live.
CUMNOCK AND DISTRICT PROGRESS ASSOCIATION HOUSING INITIATIVE
Mr RUSSELL TURNER (Orange) [12.40 p.m.]: I bring to the House's attention a wonderful initiative of the Cumnock and District Progress Association. The association has advertised throughout Australia, and indeed worldwide through the Internet, to try to get more families into the town of Cumnock. The association has found four farmhouses that have been empty for a number of years and it is advertising the rental of those farmhouses for $1 a week, on the condition that the successful applicants have to renovate the houses and send their children to the local school. I wish to quote from an article in the Central Western Daily of Friday 24 October 2008. It reads:
Overseas families, children's art work and even a 10 page letter are among the 148 applications lodged so far from would-be tenants vying to live in four rundown farmhouses in Cumnock, north of Orange.
Cumnock currently has a population of 298, which swells to a little over 500 when one includes the local district. The town has a one-man police station, a general store, which includes the post office, a rural supply store, which includes a real estate agency, and a school with two to three teachers. Cumnock has no doctor and no railway line. A little further west of Cumnock is Yeoval, and further west is Dubbo. The Central Western Daily article continues:
The applications have been sent to the Cumnock and District Progress Association which went online and on television recently in its quest to boost the town's population and save the school bus—
I suspect, also to save the third teacher at the school—
The village is offering $1 weekly rent for two years or longer to tenants who volunteered to renovate the farmhouses.
Association member Christine Weston said applicants range from retired couples to families with babies.
"I've had tears in my eyes reading three of the applications. One had written in capital letters 'please, please—this is the answer to my prayers'.
"There's even three families with seven children each who have applied. They are cooped up in little houses in Melbourne and Sydney," she said.
Among the applications are some from southern Queensland.
24 October 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 10603
Mrs Weston said: "People want to leave the rat race, but I'm wondering why people want to leave the beach."
The applicant who sent the 10 page letter, she said, "sadly forgot to send a photo of the family", which is part of the criteria, so they've already been culled.
After the November 3 deadline for applications, the association aims to best match them with the needs of the farmhouse owners.
One owner is keen for someone with a green thumb, another needs carpentry skills, while another doesn't care about the skills, but wants more children living in the district.
The association will interview by phone or in person the preferred tenants and invite them to check out the state of the farmhouse via a virtual online tour.
If they feel up to accepting the challenge, the first tenants could move in by January, she said.
Other owners of derelict farmhouses in the district and further afield in other struggling towns are watching the exercise with interest and some caution, she said.
"There are some people critical about the calibre of tenant and under the impression that it's about a dollar bargain.
"The tenants must provide free labour, but the town will get donations to do the renovations.
"We hope this will save our school and businesses. It's being the second year a lot of farmers have had total crop failure," she said.
It is certainly great to see the people of the town rallying in this way. I am sure that if the initiative is successful, other small towns throughout New South Wales might adopt a similar initiative to bring people into their areas. As we know, many of these small towns are struggling to get new families, as well as young people, into their villages because, as I said, there is no doctor and few facilities. We hope the initiative works, because the Cumnock community want to save their school and keep the three-teacher staffing level. I have visited Cumnock school on a number of occasions. It is a great school, it has a great parents and citizens association, and it has very good facilities. However, under the criteria, if the number of students drops below a certain level the school will lose a teacher, and that is when the rot starts to set in. I congratulate the Cumnock and District Progress Association, Christine Weston, and the other association members. I hope the initiative is highly successful.
GATHERING IN THE GARDEN: PARKES UNITING CHURCH
Mrs DAWN FARDELL (Dubbo) [12.45 p.m.]: Recently I received an invitation from David Cooke of Parkes Uniting Church, mid-Lachlan mission area, taking in Currajong and Cookamidgera congregations, to attend an annual service known as Gathering in the Garden. Parkes Uniting Church held the service again this year at the property of John and Ann Carr—"Four Winds", at Bogan Road, Goonumbla, which is 17 kilometres from Parkes. This year's annual gathering was held on 19 October, and the church welcomed the attendance of anyone who is feeling the need for community support through these difficult times. The church says that whilst it is not its aim to take people away from their own church service on that day, it is the church's desire to have a representative gathering together of people from all backgrounds and areas in a time of fellowship and care for one another.
The guest speaker for the day was Reverend Ian Diamond from Dubbo, a retired Uniting Church Minister who is now working in the very difficult area of probation and parole with the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services. I know Ian very well; he is a wonderful man. Reverend Diamond is still called upon from time to time for worship. At the gathering a retiring donation was accepted from those who attended, and all proceeds were to go to the Parkes District Hospital emergency nurse practitioner unit.
In attendance at the service was the Mayor of Parkes, Ken Keith, and his wife, Sue; Deputy Mayor John Magill and his wife, Kath; as well as people from all denominations. John and Ann Carr's garden was absolutely beautiful. It is simply amazing that they were able to achieve that given the current drought. Highlights of the gathering included a welcome by John Carr and a call to worship by Reverend Ian Diamond. The community had a wonderful experience; the various hymns were very well chosen for the times that the people in rural and regional New South Wales are currently experiencing.
Reverend Tom Stuart delivered prayers of adoration and confession, as well as the declaration of forgiveness. This was followed by the youth message by Tom Stuart and his wonderful young daughter. Praise in song was delivered by the wonderful Westcott family—Neil Westcott and his children Jessica and Hayden. 10604 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24 October 2008
Last week Neil also took part in Paint the Town Read, which was held in Martin Place, together with Mark Young. Neil is well known in the Parkes, Alectown and Peak Hill area. Many members of the Westcott and Young families were also present at the service last Sunday.
Graham Hitchick delivered to the gathering a reading from Romans 12:1-8 and Beryl Watts delivered a reading from Matthew 25:31-36. Reverend Ian Diamond delivered a community message. We also heard a community appreciation delivered by Graham Lancaster. Then we heard the magnificent voice of a young man I had not met before who originally came from the Philippines, a young chap called Nixson. Nixson sang a beautiful prayer as well as the Lord's Prayer, which was joined in by all those in attendance.
It was a wonderful day and a wonderful service. It takes me about one hour and 20 minutes to drive to that part of my electorate. But on a Sunday, after a busy week addressing health services and other issues in the electorate, it was a truly wonderful, moving experience to be able to come together with people from the Parkes-Cookamidgera area, and with people from Dubbo and Forbes who were in attendance, to take part in such a moving service. Following the service we experienced country hospitality at a morning tea that was provided for all those in attendance.
Despite the current drought, the lack of transport to essential services in my community, the cost of fuel, particularly diesel, the cost of fertilisers, and the threat of locust plagues—during my time representing this electorate I have never seen such a magnificent wheat crop, from Dubbo right down to Parkes, and in the Canowindra-Eugowra area—and even though after six years there may be a cheque in the mail down the track, the community spirit in my electorate is alive and well. It was a wonderful experience to be able to worship in the garden under the banner, which was carried on the day, "Community Support Through United Strength".
EPPING ELECTORATE COMMUTER CAR PARKING FACILITIES
Mr GREG SMITH (Epping) [12.50 p.m.]: Yesterday I presented a petition with more than 2,000 signatures calling on the Parliament to deal with a lack of commuter parking not only in the Epping electorate but also across New South Wales. That was largely a response to a petition I put in my newsletter, but many hundreds of signatures were collected by my volunteer, Joan Wilcox, around the Epping shopping area, and various shops facilitated the gathering of signatures. The problem is that Epping has become a major transport hub for the northern districts of Sydney, or at least for the lower north-west part of Sydney. At this stage it is estimated that 5,800 commuters use Epping railway station each day. That may increase by approximately 3,000 as a result of the Chatswood-Epping link, if it is ever opened. We heard some sad news about that recently.
My electorate is served by a number of railway stations from Thornleigh to Eastwood, although Eastwood is just outside my electorate. However, the only adequate parking is at Thornleigh. That is becoming inadequate as more people from Sydney's north-west, as well as people from some parts of my electorate, go to the Thornleigh centre. The Thornleigh parking facility was built under the administration of a former Minister for Transport, Mr Baird. The Government since has neglected to provide commuter parking facilities. It claims to want people to travel to work by train and bus instead of driving to work, which just fills up the roads. Unfortunately, unless parking is provided for people who utilise railway stations, commuters will be forced to continue to use their cars because there are not enough buses and bus services to transport them to the railway stations and because timetables are unsuitable.
Why are car parking facilities so badly needed? First, the residents of Epping in my electorate are suffering because cars are parked for a least a kilometre in circumference from the station, outside houses, blocking driveways, sometimes on the footpath, just so that people can use the railway station. There have been thefts and petty pilfering as a result of strangers being in the area. Residents do not know who is doing that, but there is an obvious inference that some of it is being done by people who park in the area to use the railway station. Second, it would benefit people who at this stage come to Epping by car to work. For example, those who work at the Epping railway station are not provided with parking, so they have to risk parking infringement notices, and sometimes they do receive parking infringement notices, whereas railway staff at Eastwood station receive free parking.
The Government should be consistent. If the Government builds a massive new transport hub with a beautiful railway station and facilities, and hopefully a reasonable link between Epping and Chatswood, it must provide parking facilities for people to be able to utilise the services. Third, and probably most important, such facilities indirectly would protect Epping citizens, provide parking for people who work either in the shops or at 24 October 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 10605
the railway station, and provide parking facilities for the large number of people who come to the Epping railway station to catch the train. There are thousands of the latter currently, and there will be thousands more in the future.
Local residents in places like north Epping, Epping west, Carlingford and other areas also want to park near Epping station. Recently when I was handing out how-to-vote cards at Eastwood station during the Ryde by-election campaign, I met many people who had come there from Epping, Baulkham Hills, North Rocks and other areas because there is no decent public transport in their own areas and they have to go to Eastwood. They have to park half a kilometre away from the railway stations, so the local residents suffer. However, I must admit that Eastwood is a little better provided for than are Epping, Beecroft and Pennant Hills and some of the other stations along the route.
I plead with the Government to provide car parking facilities at the Epping railway station. If the Government does not have enough money to pay for such facilities, despite the fact that it is opening commuter parking facilities in western Sydney electorates that are represented by Government members, it should be much more even-handed in its provision of car parking facilities. The Government would be more respected if it acted even-handedly and distributed funds equally across New South Wales according to need. Another example of inconsistency is that people who live in the Epping electorate have to pay the full cost of road tolls whereas people who live in areas served by the M4 or the M5 in many cases receive a rebate.
Epping needs better parking if the Government wants people to use the Epping railway station and other railway stations along the rail route. Indeed, the Government must provide more car parking space. I conclude by making the observation that what the Premier might describe as the Tunnel of Love, the Epping-Chatswood link, apparently would make noise equivalent to the decibel levels of a jumbo jet. Does that make the link a white elephant that turns into a jumbo jet? I am not sure what the appropriate metaphor is.
HIGHTRADE PTY LTD CHARLESTOWN DEVELOPMENT
Mr MATTHEW MORRIS (Charlestown) [12.55 p.m.]: It is with some disappointment that I draw to the attention of the House a matter concerning a development company, Hightrade Pty Ltd, which has a development project underway in central Charlestown. It is a major redevelopment comprising two individual properties across the road from each other. Both construction sites are designed to deliver commercial and residential space. That would certainly be a great outcome for the central Charlestown area, but Hightrade seems to have run into some pretty serious difficulties.
Over the past six years, Charlestown has been slowly but surely undergoing major redevelopment. A whole range of new facilities will commence operation within the next two years. There have been two significant redevelopments known as the Alto and Landmark developments that predominantly provide residential units, and they are two great developments that have contributed significantly to the redevelopment of the central Charlestown area. The project that is partly constructed by Hightrade, Sky Central, has stalled. This is not the first time that has happened. Currently the two construction sites are all but derelict.
Unfortunately, according to the advice I have received, Hightrade has not seen fit to reimburse or make payments to the contractors who have been feverishly working on the site. It was not many months ago when I had discussions with representatives from Hightrade in relation to an Energy Australia issue and the supply of electricity to both sites. There was a particular problem with the electricity supplier. We negotiated that and achieved a reasonable outcome that worked for both parties. However, shortly thereafter, all the contractors on both sites abandoned the project—and rightly so, given that they had not been paid moneys they were owed. As a result, the sites can only be described as derelict. It is as simple, and as unfortunate, as that.
Charlestown now has two buildings that are three-quarters built. The sites face directly onto the Pacific Highway and are fully exposed to view. The buildings are crying out to be completed. This is not the first issue that has arisen with Hightrade; this is the second time contractors have left the site because they have not been paid. I am not sure how the issue will be resolved. I can only plead with the directors of Hightrade to get their house in order, sort out their funding arrangements, and make payments to their contractors. Obviously, the contractors have multitudes of obligations of their own, let alone their own personal welfare and their obligations to provide for their families. I urge Hightrade to make payments to the contractors, get on with the job, and complete the project.
The completed project could be a major benefit to the Hunter region, not just for the immediate Charlestown area. The area needs Hightrade to resolve its issues. If Hightrade fails to do so, one can only guess 10606 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24 October 2008
how long the buildings will remain three-quarters constructed and all but derelict. The project is a great disappointment for the Charlestown community and a great disappointment for me, given the support and assistance that I gave Hightrade previously and the expectations they engendered in the region's communities in terms of what the development would deliver. The project has great potential to make an enormously positive contribution, but until Hightrade gets its house in order and makes payment to the contractors, the project will remain idle.
I can only plead with Hightrade, in the interests of all who live in the Charlestown area, to move along with the project, resolve the issues and complete the project. I know that the directors of the company are keen to move on and finalise the project. Without having the information that only directors are privy to, I can only earnestly plead with the company to settle the financial issues and resolve any other issues so that we can all move on.
ROYAL NORTH SHORE HOSPITAL HYDROTHERAPY POOL
Ms GLADYS BEREJIKLIAN (Willoughby) [1.00 p.m.]: I again raise the issue of community concerns regarding the closure of the hydrotherapy pool at Royal North Shore Hospital. This issue is of concern to many patients who utilise that pool, not only constituents of the electorate of Willoughby but also constituents from many parts of the broader community of Sydney who rely on that pool for their health. A gentleman from Dungog in New South Wales must have been aware of my concerns about the pool because he kindly sent me some historic information that demonstrates how much the community fought 30 years ago to have the pool built.
That gentleman has very kindly provided me with information from the archives of the Primary Club, of which he is still an active member. The Primary Club agreed to support the project of building the hydrotherapy pool 30 years or more ago on the understanding that the hospital board would, first, provide and maintain the site for its construction; second, maintain and service the facility on completion; third, provide the skilled staff at all times to operate the facility; and, fourth, make the facility available not only to patients within the hospital but also to other persons needing hydrotherapy treatment from outside the hospital.
The gentleman justifiably feels very upset that that facility, which was established with strong community support, will no longer be available at the current hospital site. We have heard lots of excuses from the State Government about the relocation of the hydrotherapy pool, but when people who are in pain are visiting the hospital for medical consultations and treatment it does not seem logical to not have included the hydrotherapy pool in the current plans of the hospital. The Government keeps talking about the development of the site and the millions of dollars it will cost. If so much money is to be spent, and if the hospital is to become a world-class facility, why has the Government not agreed to keep the hydrotherapy pool on the site?
In his correspondence to me the kind gentleman from Dungog said that the hospital board at the time agreed to the terms I outlined and it was on that basis that the Primary Club raised the necessary funds to enable the construction to proceed. He would also like it noted that all the professional consultants involved with the project donated their services to document and supervise the construction. There was so much community support, voluntary expertise and fund-raising to make the pool a reality. I have also been given a list of the names of the people who were around at that time, and who are still active in the community, to verify what this gentleman has told me.
I want to express my appreciation to this gentleman who has presented me with such wonderful archival material. He believes that the loss to the community is substantial. One of the newspaper articles I have been sent is dated 25 February 1978—30 years ago. At that time the then Governor of New South Wales was the highly esteemed Sir Roden Cutler. Sir Roden and Lady Cutler opened the hydrotherapy pool at Royal North Shore Hospital. I quote the words used by Sir Roden Cutler at that time:
There are many people who find themselves handicapped through accidents or disease, and not able to do the things they were once able to. When people decide they will live despite their handicaps, and try to recover as far as possible their physical functions, they add to the joy of living for us all.
What a fantastic statement made by such a wonderful human being. It is a shame that 30 years later such an important community facility is not regarded as important enough to be maintained on the site. Many constituents have written to me about their concerns. Many constituents have also written to me about the positive experiences they have had with the hydrotherapy pool as part of their recovery and how sad they are that the pool will no longer be there for the use of those who find themselves in need. 24 October 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 10607
There are numerous articles that document what a major community event the opening of the pool was. All the local dignitaries attended and all the local community organisations, including the Primary Club, who made that wonderful financial contribution to help keep the construction going. It is so sad that 30 years later this important community facility, which is a necessary part of so many people's recovery, is to be taken off the site. Frankly the excuses that have been given are far from satisfactory and will not negate the fact that people will have to travel off the hospital site for that treatment. On the one hand, the Government talks about centralised health care and, on the other hand, it talks about taking things off-site. This inconsistency is causing the community a lot of angst.
FIELDS NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE
Dr ANDREW McDONALD (Macquarie Fields—Parliamentary Secretary) [1.05 p.m.]: Today I would like to talk about the excellent work of Fields Neighbourhood Centre in Macquarie Fields. I have been seeing constituents at Fields Neighbourhood Centre at Glenquarie since I was elected. I bring to the attention of the House the fantastic work that this neighbourhood centre does for the people of my electorate. The Fields Neighbourhood Centre is managed by The Junction Works, which is based at Austral and has community members on the board. The Junction Works is a not-for-profit organisation that provides services for people in the Fairfield, Bankstown, Liverpool, Campbelltown, Camden and Wollondilly areas.
The Junction Works has 21 years experience in disability services, youth services, children services, carers connect programs, sibling support services and neighbourhood centres, and is a vigorous mentor for all in the community, especially those with disabilities. I also pay tribute to Tricia Fogarty, who has worked at the centre for five years. She is the only full-time worker at Fields Neighbourhood Centre to cover Ingleburn, Macquarie Fields and Glenfield. Tricia has been an enormous help to me since my election. She is a tireless and vigorous advocate for the community, and has a deep commitment to social justice. She improves the lives of the many people who she sees every day. I commend her to the House.
Every neighbourhood centre is different. They are identified by the community and by the workers, such as myself, as an approachable place. The Fields Neighbourhood Centre works as a soft entry point for the community, many of whom have poverty by exclusion. Since I have been visiting there, I have found that the centre is well trusted by all in the community, many of whom do not drive. The funding varies from centre to centre, however all neighbourhood centres are underfunded to meet the demands placed on them, and live off the smell of an oily rag. The Fields Neighbourhood Centre is no different. For example, the community funding of the Department of Community Services of $76,000 per year has not increased in 20 years, except for inflation. During that time costs have risen dramatically. For example, insurance has risen from $800 in 2001 to $7,000 last year. The Fields Neighbourhood Centre relies heavily on donations from, and partnerships with, various government and non-government organisations to continue its work.
The main role of a neighbourhood centre is to know about the community, to provide up-to-date information, to refer where appropriate, to respond to the needs of the local residents and to try to fill in the gaps. They also support organisations that provide outreach services to the area. Neighbourhood centres support residents and assist them with government services. This makes services such as those provided by the Fields Neighbourhood Centre different from other departments that are set up to provide just one service. Neighbourhood centres are often the first port of call for families in difficulty. For example, The Fields Neighbourhood Centre has been very supportive to the community in assisting Housing NSW with regard to the planned sales strategies in Macquarie Fields.
The centre was pivotal in obtaining ongoing funding for the Primary Connect Program at Guise public school last year. Its work is not just about one particular type of service or group, but about strengthening the community. My experience is that families do not trust pop-in/pop-out services. Band-aid solutions do not work. A comprehensive service system needs to be developed, similar to Miller 2168, and should include all stakeholders. I feel that a minimum of eight years funding is what is needed for any service to be accepted and viable. As well as providing a safe place for residents to drop in and meet other residents or service providers, the Fields Neighbourhood Centre makes partnerships with TAFE colleges and provides TAFE college accredited courses.
The centre also plans, develops and supports community events, such as the white ribbon barbecue and Carols in the Field. There is a nutritious community lunch each month, where more than 125 residents come and discuss local issues over a meal and are provided information on what is happening in their local area. There are 10608 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 24 October 2008
also holiday programs. For example, programs at Guise and Curran public schools, on-site activities at the centre and excursions to the city. The Junction Works is a wonderful mentor for our community, especially those with disability. I commend The Junction Works and the Fields Neighbourhood Centre to the House.
Question—That private members' statements be noted—put and resolved in the affirmative.
Private members' statements noted.
The House adjourned at 1.10 p.m. until Tuesday 28 October 2008 at 1.00 p.m.
______